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 Lo u i s e S h e r r i f f Alden A.B. cum laude, Smith C o l l e g e , 1954 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1989 ©. L o u i s e S h e r r i f f Alden, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Counselling Psychology The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada D a t e DrtnhPr 10, 1QRQ DE-6 (2/88) i i ABSTRACT Psychotherapy r e s e a r c h has i n the p a s t been p r i m a r i l y focused on outcome, t h a t i s whether a p a r t i c u l a r therapy has been s u c c e s s f u l i n promoting change i n the c l i e n t . More r e c e n t l y i t has sought t o e x p l i c a t e the p r o c e s s e s through which change happens. T h i s study examines the p r o c e s s of therapy f o r 16 couples who r e c e i v e d 8-10 s e s s i o n s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Couples Therapy (EFT) (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986). Two s e s s i o n s were chosen f o r each couple, a peak and poor s e s s i o n as assessed by the couple on 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 . The couples were r a t e d both on the depth of t h e i r i n - s e s s i o n experience ( E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e , K l e i n , Mathieu, G e n d l i n & K i e s l e r , 1969) and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s ( 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, Benjamin, 1974). Peak and poor s e s s i o n s were compared. R e s u l t s showed t h a t depth of experience was g r e a t e r and t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n was more a f f i l i a t i v e and autonomous i n peak s e s s i o n s than i n poor. C l i n i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s r e s e a r c h are d i s c u s s e d . i i i T a b le of Contents A b s t r a c t i i T a b l e o f Contents i i i Appendices v L i s t o f T a b l e s v i Acknowledgement v i i CHAPTER I : I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Background of the Problem 3 Purpose of the Study 6 The Problem 8 CHAPTER I I : L i t e r a t u r e Review 11 A f f e c t i n M a r i t a l Therapy 12 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 29 E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy 34 CHAPTER I I I : Methodology 43 D e s c r i p t i o n o f the P o p u l a t i o n 44 D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Sample 45 Process Measures 46 E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e 46 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 Behavior 47 Outcome Measures 49 Post S e s s i o n a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 49 S e l e c t i o n o f an Event Episode D e f i n i t i o n Coding Procedures T r a i n i n g o f Raters 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 E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e Hypothesis I Hypothesis l a Hypothesis l b Hypothesis I I CHAPTER IV: R e s u l t s Hypothesis I Hypothesis l a Hypothesis l b Hypothesis I I C o n c l u s i o n CHAPTER V: D i s c u s s i o n Hypothesis I, l a , and l b Hypothesis I I C o n c l u s i o n C l i n i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study Future Research References i v 50 51 54 54 Behavior 56 58 59 59 59 59 60 61 64 66 68 70 72 72 81 88 89 91 92 94 V Appendices Appendix A: 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: 101 Other Focus Appendix B: 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: 102 S e l f Focus Appendix C: E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e 103 Appendix D: Post S e s s i o n a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 104 v i L i s t o f T a b l e s T a b l e Page l a Numbers and P r o p o r t i o n s o f Statements 62 i n Quadrants I, I I , I I I , & IV i n Peak and Poor S e s s i o n s , S e l f - and Other-Focus l b Chi-square A n a l y s i s with M u l t i p l e Comparisons, 62 SASB Quadrants I, I I , I I I , IV, S e l f - and Other-Focus 2a Numbers and P r o p o r t i o n s o f Statements i n 64 Quadrants I, I I , I I I , & IV, Other-Focus 2b Chi-square a n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e Comparisons, 65 SASB Quadrants I, I I , I I I , & IV, Other-Focus 3a Numbers and P r o p o r t i o n s o f Statements i n 66 Quadrants I, I I , I I I , & IV, S e l f - F o c u s 3b Chi-square A n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e Comparisons, 67 SASB Quadrants I, I I , I I I , & IV, S e l f - F o c u s 4a 16 x 2 Contingency Table of E x p e r i e n c i n g 69 by Couples i n Peak and Poor S e s s i o n s 4b Chi-square A n a l y s i s o f the E x p e r i e n c i n g 69 S c a l e R atings v i i Acknowledgements I would l i k e t o thank 1) my chairman, Dr. R i c h a r d Young, who has supported me i n the f i n a l stages of t h i s t h e s i s , 2) Dr. Walter B o l d t , who has generously g i v e n h i s time and a s s i s t a n c e from the i n c e p t i o n of t h i s p r o j e c t , and 3) most e s p e c i a l l y , Dr. L e s l i e Greenberg, w i t h whom I worked c l o s e l y u n t i l h i s d e p a r t u r e t o York U n i v e r s i t y . He has c o n t i n u e d t o encourage me p a t i e n t l y from a f a r . I would a l s o l i k e t o g i v e s i n c e r e thanks t o my r a t e r s , Donna Ba r r e c a , Jane Conway, and Dr. G e o f f r e y C a r r , as w e l l as Suzanne Dadson and M i c h e l e P l y s u i k . O v e r a l l , I am g r e a t l y i n debt t o my e v e r - s u p p o r t i v e f a m i l y and f r i e n d s . S p e c i a l thanks t o my daughter, Laura Anderson, who has eased me i n t o the computer age. 1 CHAPTER I I n t r o d u c t i o n M a r r i a g e . . . w i l l never be g i v e n new l i f e except by t h a t out o f which t r u e marriage always a r i s e s , the r e v e a l i n g by two people of the Thou t o one another. M a r t i n Buber,p. 45, 1958 I and Thou To embark s e r i o u s l y on h e a l i n g through meeting i s t o l e a v e the s a f e shores of the i n t r a p s y c h i c as the touchstone of r e a l i t y and t o venture onto the h i g h seas i n which h e a l i n g i s no l o n g e r seen as something t a k i n g p l a c e i n the p a t i e n t . Although one hopes t h a t the c l i e n t becomes wholer i n the process, and although the t h e r a p i s t has 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 the d i a l o g i c a l demand of the world, the 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 the sphere which Buber c a l l s "the between. 1 1 Maurice Friedman,p. 221, 1958 S t u d i e s have shown t h a t e f f e c t i v e c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n i s d i r e c t l y connected wi t h m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n (Gottman, Markman & N o t a r i u s , 1977; Koren, C a r l t o n & Shaw, 1980). In one marriage " c o n f l i c t may touch o f f anger, l e a d i n g t o mutual a t t a c k , i n t u r n a g g r a v a t i n g the i n i t i a l d i f f i c u l t y " w h i l e i n another " i t may encourage open d i s c u s s i o n , attempts 2 a t mutual understanding and thus i n c r e a s e d i n t i m a c y " (Argyle & Furnham, 1983, p. 492). C l e a r l y , something i s d i f f e r e n t between these two k i n d s o f cou p l e s . Absence o f c o n f l i c t does not appear t o be the s o l u t i o n as happy r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t e n have a f a i r l y h i g h l e v e l o f c o n f l i c t ( A r g y l e & Furnham, 1983). C o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has been done t o observe the d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n behaviour between d i s t r e s s e d and n o n - d i s t r e s s e d couples (Gottman, Markman & N o t a r i u s , 1977; Gottman, 1979; Hahlweg, Revenstorf, S c h i n d l e r & Brengelmann, 1984; Sullaway & C h r i s t e n s e n , 1983). These r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s , done i n many d i f f e r e n t ways i n many l a b o r a t o r i e s , have o b t a i n e d c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s c o n c e r n i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s between s a t i s f i e d and d i s s a t i s f i e d c o u p l e s . 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 c ouples were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a h i g h l e v e l o f n e g a t i v e a f f e c t and e s c a l a t i n g n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n (Gottman & Levenson, 1986). S a t i s f i e d couples made fewer n e g a t i v e o r h o s t i l e statements and were l e s s l i k e l y t o engage i n a n e g a t i v e e s c a l a t o r y c y c l e . Whereas these s t u d i e s observed the d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n p a t t e r n s o f the two c l a s s e s o f couples, they made no attempt t o e x p l i c a t e the pr o c e s s , o r processes, which enabled a d i s t r e s s e d couple t o adopt the c o n f l i c t s t y l e s o f the n o n - d i s t r e s s e d couple. As Knudson, Sommers and G o l d i n g (1980) observed, c o n f l i c t o f f e r s couples the o p p o r t u n i t y , not o n l y t o reach agreement, but a l s o t o g a i n more understanding of the way each c o n s t r u e s r e a l i t y . I f t h i s i s the case, the p r o c e s s of s u c c e s s f u l m a r i t a l therapy may w e l l be i n d i c a t e d by an a l t e r a t i o n i n the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the i n - s e s s i o n behaviour of the spouses. Background o f the Problem I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s are the f o u n d a t i o n of the development of i d e n t i t y and a sense of the s e l f (Swensen, 1973) . L a i n g s t a t e s t h a t , "no more f i e n d i s h punishment c o u l d be d e v i s e d , even i f such a t h i n g were p h y s i c a l l y p o s s i b l e , than t h a t one should be t u r n e d l o o s e i n s o c i e t y and remain a b s o l u t e l y u n n o t i c e d by a l l members t h e r e o f " (Laing, 1961, p. 82). Thus, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t marriage, a r e l a t i o n s h i p second o n l y t o the p a r e n t - c h i l d c o n n e c t i o n i n i n t e n s i t y of emotion and l o n g e v i t y , has tremendous power t o a f f e c t the i n d i v i d u a l ' s sense of s e l f and c o n n e c t i o n . Johnson (1986) saw marriage as "more of an a f f e c t l a d e n attachment or bond between p a r t n e r s where the o t h e r i s u s u a l l y p e r c e i v e d as the primary source o f b a s i c s e c u r i t y , c o n t a c t and a f f e c t i o n and as a primary source f o r i n f o r m a t i o n as t o the v a l u e and nature of the s e l f " (p. 11). Whether marriage meets the p a r t n e r 1 s twin needs f o r s e c u r i t y and s a t i s f a c t i o n (Swensen, 1973) and thus promotes i n t i m a c y and c o n t a c t or o f f e r s a n x i e t y and d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n depends on the q u a l i t y of the p a r t n e r s 1 i n t e r a c t i o n and 4 communication. I t i s t o the d e t a i l s of these i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s need t o look i n order t o understand how p a r t n e r s are c u r r e n t l y 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 i n t e r a c t i o n s , t h a t change w i l l be most l i k e l y t o appear. Increases i n the degree of emotional e x p r e s s i v e -ness t h a t r e s u l t i n new l e v e l s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and more p o s i t i v e behaviour on the p a r t o f the p a r t n e r s c o u l d be s t r o n g i n d i c a t i o n s of an i n n e r p e r c e p t u a l s h i f t on the p a r t of each. Some evidence of the importance of t h i s s o r t of p o s i t i v e , v a l i d a t i n g behaviour has been found by Gottman (1982). One of the o u t s t a n d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s he found be-tween s a t i s f i e d and d i s s a t i s f i e d couples was t h a t s a t i s f i e d c o u p l es i n t e r s p e r s e d t h e i r i n t e r c h a n g e s w i t h b r i e f i n d i -c a t i o n s t h a t i t was understandable t h a t the o t h e r f e l t as she o r he d i d , even though she or he c o n t i n u e d t o d i s a g r e e w i t h the o t h e r ' s p o i n t of view. Gottman (1982) termed t h i s a " v a l i d a t i o n sequence" and saw i t as promoting the exchange of f e e l i n g s . 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 r e s o l u t i o n , P l y s i u k (1983) c o r r o b e r a t e d t h i s view. She found t h a t subsequent t o one p a r t n e r ' s e x p r e s s i o n of 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 , t h a t i t was necessary f o r the o t h e r t o respond p o s i t i v e l y i n o r d e r t h a t t h e r e be "a s h i f t from problem e s c a l a t i o n t o problem s o l v i n g " ( P l y s i u k , 1983, p. 50). Her 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 v a l i -5 d a t i o n sequence was c r u c i a l t o the couple's a b i l i t y t o move toward mutual openness. Mutual openness or s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e has been i d e n t i f i e d as a "fundamental aspect of i n t i m a c y i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a -t i o n s h i p s i n marriage" (Waring, 1984, p. 186). Although d e f i n i t i o n s of int i m a c y vary, (Frey, H o l l e y & L 1Abate, 1979; Perlman & Fehr, 1987; P e r l m u t t e r & H a t f i e l d , 1980; T o l s t e d t & Stokes, 1983), most r e s e a r c h e r s agree t h a t i n t i m a c y i s d e s i r a b l e 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 i t depends t o a g r e a t degree on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s important t o understand the c o n d i t i o n s under which s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e can occur between spouses. A p o s s i b l e approach t o the study of i n - s e s s i o n psychotherapy p r o c e s s has been suggested by R i c e and Greenberg (1974, 1984) and Greenberg (1986). They p r o -pose the c h o i c e of change events as important 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 ) i s g r a p p l i n g w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t t h e r a p e u t i c problems. These "events" are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f o u r components, "the p a t i e n t problem marker, the t h e r a p i s t o p e r a t i o n , the c l i e n t performance, and immediate i n s e s s i o n outcome" (Greenberg, 1986, p. 3). I t i s t h e presence o f the marker, i n t h i s case a n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n between the spouses, t h a t i n d i c a t e s t h a t the p a r t n e r s are a c t i v e l y engaged i n t h e i r problem and t h a t the o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t s f o r t h e r a p e u t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n . 6 S e l e c t e d events c o n s i s t i n g of a n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n between spouses f o l l o w e d by a t h e r a p e u t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n and the c o u p l e ' s subsequent i n t e r a c t i o n , i n t o t a l , a 15-20 minute segment, w i l l be examined. These s e l e c t e d events seem l i k e l y t o h i g h l i g h t changes i n the couple's manner of r e l a -t i n g t o one another both i n the degree o f a f f i l i a t i o n o r h o s t i l i t y and the l e v e l s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Purpose of the Study In s t u d y i n g couples therapy i t i s important t o engage i n outcome r e s e a r c h t o assess treatment e f f i c a c y and t o e s t a b l i s h whether couples have improved over t h e course of therapy. However, i t i s even more important t o understand the p r o c e s s by which t h i s change takes p l a c e . Without knowledge of how change occu r s , i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o e x p l a i n how psychotherapy works. The core of s c i e n c e i s t o be a b l e t o e x p l a i n how phenomena occur, not o n l y t o e v a l u a t e whether they o c c u r r e d . A l l approaches t o m a r i t a l therapy have the g o a l of changing m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n from an a d v e r s a r i a l , w i n - l o s e s i t u a t i o n t o one i n which the p a r t -ners can r e s o l v e t h e i r c o n f l i c t s and support each o t h e r even i f t hey do not agree. How t h a t s h i f t can happen and what the change pr o c e s s e s are t h a t produce i t or, c o n v e r s e l y , what pr e v e n t s t h i s s h i f t from happening, i s much l e s s w e l l understood. The t h r u s t of t h i s study i s t o i n c r e a s e understanding of the p r o c e s s e s of change i n m a r i t a l therapy 7 as w e l l as the f a c t o r s t h a t i n h i b i t change. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the p r o c e s s of change as i t occu r s i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986), the treatment used i n the t h e r a p i e s examined i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy i s an e x p e r i e n t i a l c o u p l es therapy which combines aspects of systemic therapy w i t h an emphasis on the importance of acknowledging and e x p r e s s i n g disowned f e e l i n g s and needs. Greenberg and Johnson (1986) suggest t h a t through the e x p r e s s i o n o f p r e -v i o u s l y disowned f e e l i n g s and t h e i r accompanying needs, t h e r e w i l l be a change i n both the i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e and each person's experience of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . They see E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy as producing change i n a t l e a s t f i v e dimensions. F i r s t , through the experience of a new aspe c t of the s e l f , an i n d i v i d u a l comes t o view him or h e r s e l f d i f f e r e n t l y . Second, when the p a r t n e r sees t h i s new aspect, she o r he i s enabled t o change h i s o r her percep-t i o n o f the spouse. T h i r d , the i n d i v i d u a l ' s new s e l f view opens up new p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n h i s or her behaviour i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Fourth, the spouse can respond i n new ways and, f i f t h , t he p a r t n e r s are a b l e t o see themselves i n new ways i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986, p. 261). In o t h e r words, the spouses' d e f i n i t i o n s o f them-s e l v e s and of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s open t o a new con-s t r u a l . The purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t o h i g h l i g h t 8 and a n a l y z e the change pr o c e s s e s t h a t a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d i n couples who underwent E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy. The Problem S e l f - r e p o r t measures such as the s e s s i o n a l outcome q u e s t i o n n a i r e used i n t h i s study are one way of measuring t h e r a p e u t i c change ( O r l i n s k y & Howard, 1967). O r l i n s k y and Howard (1967) i n d i c a t e t h a t these 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 are a good measure of " g l o b a l s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the experienced therapy encounter" (p. 621). Although such q u e s t i o n n a i r e s do not p r o v i d e a f u l l p i c t u r e of t h e r a p e u t i c change, they do p r o v i d e a "great d e a l of informed c r i t i c a l judgment" (p. 621). O r l i n s k y and Howard (1967) suggest t h a t the foundations f o r the judgments im-p l i c i t i n the 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 can be sought i n "those p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s , f e e l i n g and p e r c e p t i o n 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" (p.621). An a l t e r n a t i v e or a d d i t i o n a l method of measuring the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m a r i t a l therapy i s through d i r e c t observa-t i o n o f the couples i n therapy s e s s i o n s . T h i s r e q u i r e s the use o f a c o d i n g system which i s a d m i n i s t e r e d by indepen-dent, o u t s i d e r a t e r s t o assess i n - s e s s i o n p r o c e s s . A d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n a l system such as t h i s o f f e r s an o b j e c t i v e 9 p e r s p e c t i v e on the s e s s i o n and can compliment the e x p e r i e n t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e gained through p o s t - s e s s i o n a l s e l f -r e p o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The t h e o r e t i c a l t e n e t s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy i n d i c a t e the use of c e r t a i n i n t e r v e n t i o n s t h a t a r e designed t o deepen the i n d i v i d u a l s ' experience of t h e i r problems and l e a d t o p r o d u c t i v e t h e r a p e u t i c outcome. Although the e f f e c t i v e n s s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy has been shown (Johnson & Greenberg, 1985; Goldman, 1988; James, 1989), the p r o c e s s by which t h i s improvement happens has not y e t been i n v e s t i g a t e d . The problem addressed i n t h i s study i s the f o l l o w i n g ; are s u c c e s s f u l therapy s e s s i o n a l outcomes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e s s i o n s which c o n t a i n deep l e v e l s of e x p e r i e n c i n g and more a f f i l i a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s ? I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t s e s s i o n s viewed by the couples as pro-d u c t i v e of change and problem r e s o l u t i o n on the s e s s i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , h e r e a f t e r d e s i g n a t e d "peak" s e s s i o n s , w i l l be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from s e s s i o n s seen as u n p r o d u c t i v e and 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 termed "poor" s e s s i o n s , i n two ways. F i r s t , peak s e s s i o n s w i l l be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a h i g h e r l e v e l of e x p e r i e n c i n g by one or both p a r t n e r s than w i l l poor. Second, peak s e s s i o n s w i l l have a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of f r i e n d l y or a f f i l i a t i v e statements than w i l l poor. These r e s u l t s would support E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy's t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t e n t i o n t h a t an i n t r a p s y c h i c emotional focus i n m a r i t a l therapy i s one way 10 t o promote i n c r e a s e d p o s i t i v e exchanges 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p . The sequence of the e x p r e s s i o n o f deeply f e l t e x perience which i s responded t o p o s i t i v e l y by the p a r t n e r may w e l l be an important p r o c e s s i n a m e l i o r a t i n g the m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . 11 CHAPTER I I L i t e r a t u r e Review The l i t e r a t u r e i n s e v e r a l areas r e l e v a n t t o the under-s t a n d i n g of m a r i t a l therapy and i n t e r a c t i o n of couples w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy has two s i g n i -f i c a n t f o c i , the f i r s t i n t r a p s y c h i c and the second i n t e r -p e r s o n a l . I t d i f f e r s from most o t h e r m a r i t a l t h e r a p i e s i n i t s emphasis on the importance of the emotional experience of the i n d i v i d u a l s t o t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s c hapter w i l l b egin by d i s c u s s i n g the f i e l d ' s i n c r e a s i n g emphasis on the r o l e of emotion or a f f e c t i n the m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p and r e s e a r c h seeking t o i l l u m i n a t e t h i s . Next i t w i l l examine c o n f l i c t i n m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n as w e l l as r e s e a r c h on 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 . F i n a l l y , i t w i l l p r e s e n t s t u d i e s done on E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy t o a s s e s s i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s and the p rocesses a s s o c i a t e d w i t h change i n t h i s therapy. 12 A f f e c t i n M a r i t a l Therapy During the p a s t 50 years most marriages i n t h i s c u l t u r e have been based on s t r o n g f e e l i n g s between a man and a woman. Given t h i s f a c t i t seems remarkable t h a t u n t i l r e c e n t l y m a r i t a l therapy has e i t h e r i g n o r e d o r attempted t o suppress emotion i n t h e r a p e u t i c s i t u a t i o n s . D i v e r s e approaches t o m a r i t a l therapy are now r e c o g n i z i n g the importance of emotion. B e h a v i o u r i s t s Finchan and O'Leary (1982) see a f f e c t as the "remaining member o f psychology's t r i - p a r t i t e d i v i s i o n ( c o g n i t i o n -b e h a v i o u r - a f f e c t ) which has y e t t o be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the b e h a v i o u r a l m a r i t a l l i t e r a t u r e " (p. 1). Bradbury and Fincham (1986) see " a f f e c t as a c r i t i c a l component of marriage" (p. 1). In the same v e i n M a r g o l i n and W e i n s t e i n (1983) view a f f e c t i v e experience and e x p r e s s i o n as " e s s e n t i a l t o b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l therapy's u n d e r l y i n g aims of i n c r e a s i n g i n t i m a c y and d i s r u p t i n g r e p e t i t i v e , non-p r o d u c t i v e p a t t e r n s " (p. 334) . From t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n s of couples i n the process of r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t Gottman and Levenson (1986) have 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 i s s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h l e v e l s of n e g a t i v e a f f e c t as w e l l as n e g a t i v e a f f e c t r e c i p r o c i t y . F i n a l l y , Greenberg and Johnson (1986) s t a t e what perhaps should have l o n g been s e l f - e v i d e n t , t h a t i s , t h a t most o f t e n couples come f o r therapy f o r emotional problems not i n s t r u m e n t a l i s s u e s . 13 What, then, are c u r r e n t views on the nature o f emotion i n marriage and i t s importance i n therapy? C u r r e n t views on emotion i n m a r i t a l therapy p r e s e n t a somewhat c o n f u s i n g scene. Some r e s e a r c h e r s operate from an u n d e r l y i n g assumption t h a t emotion i s a word which i n c l u d e s a l l p h y s i o l o g i c a l 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 -a t i o n s . Instruments developed t o assess the presence of emotional m a t e r i a l 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 tap the i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimension of emotional 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 from emotions o r i g i n a t i n g i n one or the o t h e r spouses's i n t r a -p s y c h i c e x p e r i e n c e . For the most p a r t i n t r a p s y c h i c e x p e r i -ence i s not mentionned. S e v e r a l r a t i n g systems have been developed t o measure emotion i n m a r i t a l therapy. One such instrument i s Fincham and O'Leary's (1982) 20-item s e l f r e p o r t measure, " P o s i t i v e F e e l i n g s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . " Here p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s are seen as c r u c i a l , a l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n from the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e on m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . In f a c t the P o s i t i v e F e e l i n g s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o r r e l a t e s .78 w i t h the Locke Wallace M a r i t a l Adjustment T e s t (Locke & Wallace, 1959), a standard measure of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . Another such instrument i s an o u t s i d e r a t i n g system developed by Gottman and Levenson (1986). T h i s i s a s o p h i s t i c a t e d o b s e r v a t i o n a l s p e c i f i c a f f e c t c o d i n g system (SPAFF, Gottman & Levenson, 1985, p. 153 f o r d e t a i l s ) . Gottman and 14 Levenson (1986) b e l i e v e t h a t emotion i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n can be a c c u r a t e l y d e t e c t e d by people from the same c u l t u r e who have been s u f f i c i e n t l y t r a i n e d i n the use of SPAFF. T h i s c o d i n g system i s extremely time-consuming, r e q u i r i n g two coders, two years t o complete the cod i n g o f t h i r t y c o u p l es used i n the Gottman and Levenson (1986) study. These are but two examples of instruments aimed a t d e t e c t -i n g the presence o f emotion i n m a r i t a l therapy s e s s i o n s . T h e o r i e s o f m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n have, u n t i l r e c e n t l y , a f f o r d e d l i t t l e space t o the r o l e o f a f f e c t . Fincham and O'Leary (1982) began t o address the i s s u e o f a f f e c t as i t r e l a t e s t o c o g n i t i o n and behaviour i n m a r i t a l therapy. To do t h i s they i n v e s t i g a t e d the antecedents t o both p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e a c t s and found t h a t " c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s " ( c o g n i t i o n ) " d i d not d i r e c t l y a f f e c t b e h a v i o u r a l responses." Moreover, " to the ext e n t t h a t they d i d have an e f f e c t i t was mediated by the a f f e c t i v e f e e l i n g response" (Fincham & O'Leary, 1982, p. 4 ) . They concluded t h a t i t was necessary 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 these f e e l i n g responses. Gottman and Levenson (1986) a s s e r t t h a t s u f f i c i e n t evidence now e x i s t s t o a l l o w the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a the o r y of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n which g i v e s c e n t r a l importance t o the r o l e o f emotion. B r i e f l y , m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n has been c o n s i s t e n t l y shown t o be connected w i t h a couple's a b i l i t y t o r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s . Only when couples are a c t u a l l y i n 15 c o n f l i c t can t h e i r s t y l e s of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n be com-pared. To t h i s end these r e s e a r c h e r s ' s t u d i e s have focused on s i t u a t i o n s which generate c o n f l i c t i n both d i s t r e s s e d and n o n - d i s t r e s s e d couples and have allowed the o b s e r v a t i o n of the c o u p l e s ' p a t t e r n s o f c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . Some of these p a t t e r n s have been summarized i n Chapter 1. Gottman and Levenson (1986) were p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the f e e l i n g s generated i n each spouse by c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . They used an e a s i l y moved d i a l by which a spouse c o u l d r e c o r d h i s or her responses t o a p a r t i c u l a r statement. T h i s d i a l was used i n both the o r i g i n a l c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n and l a t e r when the spouses i n d i v i d u a l l y watched a v i d e o t a p e of the c o n f l i c t . 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 i n g e n i o u s form of s e l f - r e p o r t i n f i v e ways. F i r s t , i t should be a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between h i g h and low c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . Second, s a t i s f i e d and d i s s a t i s f i e d couples should be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . T h i r d , r a t i n g s of the o r i g i n a l c o n f l i c t and the v i d e o v i e w i n g should show s t a t i s t i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n . F o urth, these s e l f - r e p o r t s should agree w i t h e x t e r n a l o b s e r v a t i o n ( u s i n g SPAFF) and f i f t h , and most c o n t r o v e r s i a l , the r a t i n g s o f the o r i g i n a l c o n f l i c t and the v i d e o viewing s h o u l d 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 . "The s e l f r e p o r t of a f f e c t passed a l l f i v e of these t e s t s " (Gottman & Levenson, 1986, p. 41). What stands out i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t h a t emotions generated i n the v i d e o v i e w i n g c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n over 90% o f the 500 comparisons 16 made, and the time sequence of p a r t i c u l a r emotional responses a l s o c o i n c i d e d . A follow-up study showed t h a t h i g h l e v e l s o f n e g a t i v e a f f e c t r e c i p r o c i t y and p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l , as assessed i n the o r i g i n a l study, were p r e d i c t i v e of a d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . F u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n o f the growing a t t e n t i o n b e i n g p a i d t o the r o l e o f emotion i n m a r i t a l therapy i s an e x t e n s i v e c h a p t e r on the assessment of a f f e c t i n m a r i t a l d i s c o r d by Bradbury and Fincham (1987). Although a l a r g e amount of r e s e a r c h has been done on i n t r a p s y c h i c emotion i n i n d i v i d -u a l s , u n t i l r e c e n t l y , v e r y l i t t l e had been done on emotion i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Gottman and Levenson's (1986) t h e o r y begins t o i l l u m i n a t e a s p e c t s o f the importance of emotion between couples and i t s e f f e c t on m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, Bradbury and Fincham (1987) h i g h l i g h t some s e r i o u s problems i n t h i s s o r t of r e s e a r c h on emotion i n marriage. F i r s t , emotion i s a convenient term t o d e s c r i b e a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e which, as humans, we understand. U n l i k e behaviour, i t i s not e a s i l y observed nor i s t h e r e a way t o be sure t h a t two people i d e n t i f y f e e l i n g s i n the same way. For example, what one may i d e n t i f y as f e a r another may c a l l excitement. Both s t a t e s imply c e r t a i n k i n d s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l but are open t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of each i n d i v i d -u a l . As Bradbury and Fincham (1987) s t a t e , "emotion i s a h y p o t h e t i c a l e n t i t y , and does not e x i s t i n any t r u e sense... 17 (and) i s i n f e r r e d from v a r i o u s sources of i n f o r m a t i o n " (p. 5). Thus, i t i s important f o r r e s e a r c h e r s not t o confuse emotion 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 emotion. Secondly, a f f e c t i s woven i n t o many of the measures of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . S a t i s f a c t i o n , a f t e r a l l , i n d i c a t e s some degree o f p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g about the r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e r e f o r e , c o r r e l a t i n g m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and s e l f d i s c l o s u r e o r m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and a f f e c t , as e a r l i e r mentioned, i s "tantamount t o c o r r e l a t i n g two s e l f - r e p o r t measures of a f f e c t i n marriage" (Bradbury & Fincham, 1987, p. 22) . For the purposes of t h i s study, emotion must be understood t o operate i n a t l e a s t two ways i n marriage. F i r s t , the emotions t h a t e x i s t between i n d i v i d u a l s i n response t o t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s are of c e n t r a l importance. I t i s these emotional responses t h a t brought the two people t o g e t h e r , and i t i s c u r r e n t emotional responses t o one another t h a t are the u s u a l cause f o r s e e k i n g h e l p . The second way i n which emotion operates i s i n t r a p s y c h i c a l l y f o r each o f the spouses i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . M a r i t a l therapy i s aimed a t a l t e r i n g the i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimension of emotional c o n t a c t . However, one route t o t h i s change i s through the a c c e s s i n g of u n d e r l y i n g i n d i v i d u a l i n t r a p s y c h i c e xperience and emotion t h a t may be f u e l i n g the n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s between the p a r t n e r s . In the d i s c u s s i o n t h a t f o l l o w s these 18 two a s p e c t s o f emotion, 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 , need t o be kept s e p a r a t e . I f t h e r a p e u t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s are designed t o change i n t e r p e r s o n a l emotional responses i n marriage, i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e r e e x i s t some way t o measure f e e l i n g s and changes i n f e e l i n g s . The o b s e r v a t i o n a l system used i n t h i s study, the 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 Behavior (Benjamin, 1974, 1986, Appendices A & B), i s an instrument which permits r a t e r s t o r a t e i n t e r p e r s o n a l responses i n the therapy s e s s i o n . SASB does not s p e c i f i c a l l y r a t e emotion or f e e l i n g s . Rather, i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n a l l o w s the l e v e l o f h o s t i l i t y o r a f f i l i a t i o n e x h i b i t e d by the spouses t o be r a t e d . For example, i f one person i s " b e l i t t l i n g and blaming", one c l u s t e r o f behaviours on the SASB, i t i s proba b l e t h a t t h a t person i s e x p e r i e n c i n g h o s t i l i t y o f some s o r t , although the s p e c i f i c f e e l i n g s are u n c l e a r . S i m i l a r -l y , i f a person i s " a f f i r m i n g and understanding" i t i s pro b a b l e t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s are f r i e n d l y ones, although t h e i r exact nature i s not e a s i l y guessed. SASB i s used i n t h i s study t o assess the nature o f the i n t e r a c t i o n s between the spouses on the i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimension, not t o i d e n t i f y the p a r t i c u l a r emotions of the i n d i v i d u a l s . Thus, i t i s i n v o l v e d w i t h i n t e r p e r s o n a l 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 submissive, not w i t h the emotional e x p e r i e n c e s o f the i n d i v i d u a l s i n the s e s s i o n . 19 I t i s one t h i n g t o be a b l e t o observe and measure emotion, and i t i s another t o understand the nature of emotion w e l l enough t o be a b l e t o work w i t h emotion t h e r a p e u t i c a l l y . Bradbury and Fincham (1987) s p e c u l a t e t h a t the volume of r e s e a r c h on emotion i n i n d i v i d u a l s has f r i g h t e n e d o f f r e s e a r c h e r s of m a r i t a l therapy, but t h a t an understanding o f the l i t e r a t u r e o f emotion i s necessary f o r the s e r i o u s r e s e a r c h e r of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Greenberg and Johnson (1986), the o r i g i n a t o r s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy, have an e x t e n s i v e understanding o f the l i t e r a t u r e on emotion (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986; Greenberg & S a f r a n , 1987; Greenberg & S a f r a n , 1984a; Greenberg & S a f r a n , 1984b; S a f r a n & Greenberg, 1982). T h e i r view of emotion i s d e r i v e d from L e v e n t h a l ' s (1979) model of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . T h i s model p r e s e n t s emotion as i n v o l v i n g t h r e e automatic mechanisms. F i r s t , e x p r e s s i v e motor mechanisms c o n s i s t p r i m a r i l y of f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n s which are i n a t e t o the human organism. Second, the schema of the organism's s u b j e c t i v e response t o e a r l i e r s i t u a t i o n s comprises p a r t i c u l a r emotional memories. T h i s schema operates i n p r e s e n t i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g by d i r e c t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t e n t i o n t o c e r t a i n areas. T h i r d , the c o g n i t i v e or c o n c e p t u a l system, the most co n s c i o u s of the t h r e e p r o c e s s e s , s t o r e s r u l e s about and e v a l u a t i o n s of exper-i e n c e . "Experienced emotion r e s u l t s from a p r e a t t e n t i v e s y n t h e s i s of e x p r e s s i v e motor i n f o r m a t i o n , i m p l i c i t emotional schemas and conceptual c o g n i t i o n " (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986, p. 2). These concepts are important t o an understanding of the foundations of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy. When, i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy, these e x p r e s s i v e motor responses or emotional schema are evoked, the p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s f o r the p e r c e p t i o n s a r i s i n g from these responses and schema t o change. The focus i n t h i s therapy, i s t o evoke l i v e , u n d e r l y i n g emotion w i t h i n the s e s s i o n . T h i s then a l l o w s the 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 i n t o new a c t i o n t e n d e n c i e s and new responses toward the spouse" (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986, p. 3). The focus o f many EFT i n t e r v e n t i o n s i s the a c c e s s i n g o f primary, a d a p t i v e emotion o f each of the spouses. As such, i t i s concerned w i t h i n t r a p s y c h i c a l l y d r i v e n , not i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y evoked emotion. I t i s not t h a t the emotional i n t e r a c t i o n s o f the spouses are of no importance. Rather, EFT takes the p o s i t i o n t h a t much of the i n t e n s i t y o f the ne g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s between spouses d e r i v e s from e a r l i e r e x periences i n which the i n d i v i d u a l was not a b l e t o meet h i s o r her needs. When the 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 these experiences are evoked and expressed, t h e r e i s a p o s s i b l i t y f o r a change i n the i n t e r a c t i o n s o f the couple. What i s the nature o f t h i s u n d e r l y i n g emotion? Emotion i s conc e i v e d o f i n t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s , primary, secondary and i n s t r u m e n t a l (Greenberg & Sa f r a n , 1984b, 21 1987). Instrumental emotions are 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 . For example, I might c r y so t h a t you would f e e l s o r r y f o r me and h e l p me w i t h my problem. Secondary emotions are r e a c t i v e emotions, ones t h a t serve i n some way t o defend. I f you push me, I might respond w i t h anger and push you back. Emotional in t e r c h a n g e s of these s o r t s , o c c u r r i n g i n the therapy s e s s i o n , are not f r u i t f u l i n prod u c i n g t h e r a p e u t i c change. Rather i t i s the primary emotions, which are u s u a l l y o u t s i d e o f immediate awareness, t h a t "convey b i o l o g i c a l l y a d a p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n " (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986, p. 5). Greenberg and Johnson go t o some l e n g t h t o d e s c r i b e the q u a l i t y of primary f e e l i n g s , f i n a l l y s t a t i n g "one does not doubt t h e i r v e r a c i t y , but i s r a t h e r i n t e n s e l y i n v o l v e d and 'moved* by them" (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986, p. 5). I t i s as though the o r i g i n a l sensory-motor-schema experience i s reevoked i n a c o n t e x t i n which the i n d i v i d u a l i s now s a f e enough t o express r a t h e r than h i d e the r e s u l t i n g emotional experience. N a t u r a l l y , the t h e r a p i s t i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy must have the s k i l l t o evoke t h i s depth of e x p e r i e n c i n g and f a c i l i t a t e i t s e x p r e s s i o n . E v o c a t i v e and/or g e s t a l t t echniques are o f t e n employed ( P e r l s , H e f f e r l i n e & Goodman,1951). In d e s c r i b i n g E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy Greenberg and Johnson (1986) say t h a t "because of the h i g h demand f o r d i s c l o s u r e , t h i s whole process i s conducive t o the b u i l d i n g o f i n t i m a c y and emotional bonds" (p.261). Here, the i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimension of the r e l a t i o n s h i p reappears. As i n t i m a c y has been seen as an e s s e n t i a l component of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n (Berman & L i e f , 1975; Horowitz, 1979; L'Abate & L 1Abate, 1979; T o l s t e d t & Stokes, 1983; Waring, 1984) i t seems c r u c i a l t o understand the i n t e r p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s which encourage o r a l l o w i n t i m a c y t o develop i n m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n -s h i p s . In o t h e r words, a f t e r an i n d i v i d u a l has d i s c l o s e d a new aspect of h i s or h e r s e l f t o the other, what needs t o happen i n o r d e r f o r the couple t o become c l o s e r and more s e l f - r e v e a l i n g , more i n t i m a t e , r a t h e r than moving back i n t o n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n ? Answers t o t h i s q u e s t i o n a r i s e from the f i e l d of i n t e r p e r s o n a l psychology. The i s s u e s which appear i n the m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p are s i m i l a r t o ones which appear i n a l l s i g n i f i c a n t c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e g i n n i n g w i t h the p a r e n t -c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p . From the p e r s p e c t i v e o f p h i l o s o p h y , M. Buber (1957) s t a t e s , "In human s o c i e t y , a t a l l l e v e l s , persons c o n f i r m one another i n a p r a c t i c a l way, t o some ex t e n t o r o t h e r i n t h e i r p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i t e s and c a p a c i t i e s . " In d i s c u s s i n g the t h e r a p e u t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p , Truax and M i t c h e l l (1971) sum up q u a l i t i e s which promote s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e and, i f a p p l i e d t o marriage, i n t i m a c y . That an a c c u r a t e and s e n s i t i v e awareness o f another's f e e l i n g s , a s p i r a t i o n s , v a l u e s , b e l i e f s , 23 and p e r c e p t i o n s , t h a t a deep concern f o r the ot h e r person's w e l f a r e , without attempts t o dominate him, and t h a t an open, non d e f e n s i v e , non phony b e i n g (genuineness) proves b e n e f i -c i a l t o any human i n t e r a c t i o n has l o n g been 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 as w e l l as by t h e o r e t i c i a n s i n psychotherapy and c o u n s e l i n g , and indeed by o t h e r s who study the broad areas o f human r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (p.313). S t u d y i n g the broad areas o f human r e l a t i o n s h i p s has lo n g been the t a s k o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l psychology. The development o f the c h i l d and s p e c i f i c a l l y t he growth of s e l f - e s t e e m have been c a r e f u l l y examined. Cotton (1983) s t a t e s t h a t "almost a l l t h e o r i e s o f s e l f esteem d i s c u s s the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the o p i n i o n o f ot h e r s upon d e v e l o p i n g s e l f esteem" (p. 124) and then c i t e s 13 s t u d i e s b e g i n n i n g w i t h James (1890) and ending w i t h Kohut (1971) t o c o r r o b e r a t e her statement. E x p l i c i t l y , she says t h a t growth o f h i g h s e l f esteem i n c h i l d r e n happens when they are supported, v a l i -dated, confirmed and accepted by t h e i r p a r e n t s . Moreover, and t h i s seems s i g n i f i c a n t when we t h i n k o f the 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 sources f o r s e l f esteem r e g u l a t i o n i s never complete. One w i l l always depend t o v a r y i n g degrees on r e c o g n i t i o n , v a l i d a t i o n and p r a i s e from e x t e r n a l s ources. The 24 n o t i o n t h a t m a t u r i t y i n v o l v e s u t t e r independence from the o p i n i o n s and a t t i t u d e s of o t h e r s i s a p a t h o l o g i c a l form of s e l f esteem r e g u l a t i o n . As E r i k s o n e l o q u e n t l y d e s c r i b e s i n h i s w r i t i n g s , 'men are p s y c h o s o c i a l b e ings i n c o n t i n u a l need of r e c o g n i t i o n from t h e i r f e l l o w men f o r t h e i r sense of s e l f - w o r t h 1 " (Cotton, 1983, p. 143). I f we b r i n g t o g e t h e r these v a r i o u s s t r a n d s , a p i c t u r e of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n begins t o emerge. I t i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o view marriage as two i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h each o t h e r . As L a i n g (1961) s t a t e d , " i t i s a process going on between two people," and t h a t p r o c e s s has the power t o c o n f i r m or d i s c o n f i r m the i n d i v i d u a l s . I f the process i s one i n which the p a r t n e r s accept each o t h e r ' s d i s c l o s u r e s w i t h warmth and f r i e n d l i n e s s i n a p o s i t i v e emotional atmosphere, they are each enabled t o r e v e a l more of t h e i r i n n e r l i v e s t o one another and t o c r e a t e the b a s i s f o r an i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p . However, i f any k i n d of s e l f r e v e l a t i o n i s met w i t h r e j e c t i o n or s c o r n , t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o be q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t . Coopersmith (1967) summar-i z e s S u l l i v a n ' s views on t h i s occurrence. The i n d i v i d u a l i s c o n t i n u a l l y guarding h i m s e l f a g a i n s t a l o s s of s e l f esteem, f o r i t i s t h i s l o s s t h a t produces the f e e l i n g s of d i s t r e s s t h a t are elsewhere termed a n x i e t y . A n x i e t y i s an i n t e r -25 p e r s o n a l phenomenon t h a t occurs when an i n d i v i d u a l expects t o be or i s indeed r e j e c t e d or demeaned. (p. 32) Leary (1957) i s even more f o r c e f u l i n h i s statements about the power of t h i s a n x i e t y . "Primal a n x i e t y i s the f e a r of abandonment. As the c h i l d begins t o develop t h i s becomes a f e a r o f r e j e c t i o n and s o c i a l d i s a p p r o v a l . Mankind's s o c i a l interdependence means t h a t extreme d e r o g a t i o n on the p a r t of c r u c i a l o t h e r s can l e a d t o d e s t r u c t i o n " (Leary, 1957, p. 14-15). I s i t then s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n s o f c o u p les i n c o n f l i c t can be f i e r c e ? Each e x p e r i e n c e s the p o s s i b i l i t y of a profound l o s s of s e l f - e s t e e m and f i g h t s f u r i o u s l y t o a v o i d t h i s . What then has r e c e n t r e s e a r c h on p a t t e r n s 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 d i s c o v e r e d about the i n t e r p e r s o n a l responses t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n ? Although s t u d i e s do not, i n g e n e r a l , focus d i r e c t l y on t h i s i s s u e , many r e f e r t o the importance of acceptance o r p o s i t i v e responses as engendering s u c c e s s f u l c o n f l i c t n e g o t i a t i o n . In t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e s between d i s t r e s s e d and n o n - d i s t r e s s e d couples, Koren e t a l . (198 0) observed t h a t n o n d i s t r e s s e d couples were more v e r b a l l y r e s p o n s i v e t o each other, and t h a t these responses were a t l e a s t "minimal acknowledgments (e.g. 'uh-huh') as w e l l as o v e r t agreements and acceptances" (Koren e t a l . 1980, p. 463). In c o n t r a s t , the d i s t r e s s e d couples had more c r i t i c a l v e r b a l responses t o each other. S i m i l a r l y , Gottman's (1979) study noted t h a t one major d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of s a t i s f i e d v e r s u s u n s a t i s -f i e d c o u p les was the e x i s t e n c e of a " v a l i d a t i o n sequence" on the p a r t of the n o n - d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s . In the v a l i d a t i o n sequence the couple a f f i r m each o t h e r and t h e i r r e l a t i o n -s h i p i n some way. I t i s as though the meta-message i s " t h i s disagreement i s not dangerous. I t does not t h r e a t e n our marriage. I can accept t h a t we can have d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s . " T h i s k i n d of acceptance has the power t o promote t r u s t between two people, and thus p r o v i d e an atmosphere i n which i n c r e a s e d l e v e l s o f s e l f r e v e l a t i o n are p o s s i b l e . In the p r o c e s s o f examining the r o l e of a f f e c t i n b e h a v i o u r a l m a r i t a l therapy, M a r g o l i n and W e i n s t e i n (1983) r e f e r t o a "metaperspective" t h a t develops as a r e s u l t of s h a r i n g deep f e e l i n g s . "With the g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g of important f e e l i n g s comes the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t ' t h i s i s someone whom I can t r u s t w i t h my f e e l i n g s and who t r u s t s me w i t h h i s / h e r f e e l i n g s . ' That mutual and r e c i p r o c a l t r u s t tends t o be an important symbol of i n t i m a c y " (Margolin & W e i n s t e i n , 1983, p. 326). In comparing the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of Problem S o l v i n g Therapy and E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy, Johnson and Greenberg (1985) proposed t h a t one p o s s i b i l i t y f o r the 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 Therapy was 27 t h a t i t i n c r e a s e d t r u s t and r e s p o n s i v e n e s s . G u e r i n (1982) p o s t u l a t e s t h a t s a f e t y i s the emotional environment i n which s e l f d i s c l o s u r e can take p l a c e . He sees an u n d e r l y i n g q u e s t i o n f o r couples as " I s i t s a f e t o be v u l n e r a b l e i n t h i s marriage"(p.18)? Hahlweg, S c h i n d l e r , Revenstorf and Brengelmann (1984) a t t a c k the problem o f acceptance more d i r e c t l y by employing communication s k i l l t r a i n i n g . They s t a t e t h a t by employing the 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 , and s i d e t r a c k i n g ; i n c r e a s e t h e i r mutual understanding...The core s k i l l s are r e c i p r o c a l s e l f d i s c l o s u r e o f f e e l i n g s , a t t i t u d e s , and thoughts e i t h e r about a s p e c i f i c problem i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p o r about a g e n e r a l p o i n t o f d i s c u s s i o n , and a c c e p t i n g of not n e c e s s a r i l y a g r e e i n g  t o the speaker's u t t e r a n c e s (p. 8, i t a l i c s added). They c l e a r l y r e c o g n i z e the importance o f p o s i t i v e respon-s i v e n e s s even though they view i t more as a s k i l l t o be taught than as an e x i s t e n t i a l s t a t e . S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s see t h a t acceptance by one p a r t n e r f o r the o t h e r f a c i l i t a t e s a p e r c e p t u a l s h i f t . I t i s not t h a t the couple no l o n g e r has c o n f l i c t , but r a t h e r t h a t the p a r t n e r s can now see each o t h e r d i f f e r e n t l y . In p r o p o s i n g a c o g n i t i v e component t o b e h a v i o u r a l m a r i t a l therapy, Jacobson (1983) a s s e r t e d t h a t when a couple's u n d e r l y i n g b e l i e f s were ex p l o r e d , t h i s f o s t e r e d g r e a t e r empathy i n the p a r t n e r s . In 28 o t h e r words each p a r t n e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the o t h e r was ex-p l i c i t l y d i s c u s s e d , so t h a t n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s t h a t may have e x i s t e d c o u l d be c h a l l e n g e d . Although t h i s approach l a c k s the emotional depth of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy, i t does promote more acceptance and acknowledges t h a t i t i s not o n l y behaviour t h a t i s important, but a l s o the i n t e r n a l s t a t e of the couple. G l i c k and Gross (1975) p o i n t e d out t h a t whether o r not an i n d i v i d u a l was a c t u a l l y a c c e p t i n g or r e j e c t i n g was o f t e n a p e r c e p t u a l i s s u e r a t h e r than a r e f l e c -t i o n of what was a c t u a l l y o c c u r r i n g . A seemingly support-i v e statement c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as c r i t i c i s m by a p a r t n e r who f e l t incompetent or had a h i s t o r y o f c r i t i c i s m i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . In f a c t , L a i n g e t a l (1966) s t a t e d t h a t a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of d i s t r e s s e d marriages was the i n a b i l i t y t o d i s t i n g u i s h a c c e p t i n g or r e j e c t i n g behaviour i n the other. 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 c o u p les t o hear the p a r t n e r ' s a f f i r m a t i v e responses. The e x p r e s s i o n of emotion f o l l o w e d by acceptance "even though i t may r e q u i r e work" (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986, p. 7) i s c r u c i a l i n a l l o w i n g a new c o n s t r u a l of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . What t h i s view of emotional r e s p o n s i v e n e s s of one p a r t n e r t o the o t h e r emphasizes i s the f a c t t h a t m a r i t a l t herapy s t r o n g l y d i f f e r s from i n d i v i d u a l therapy. No l o n g e r i s i t s u f f i c i e n t f o r the t h e r a p i s t t o v a l i d a t e the i n d i v i d u a l s . Couples f r e q u e n t l y come f o r therapy because t h e i r own i n t e r a c t i o n a l process i s a problem and d i s c o n f i r m s 29 them as i n d i v i d u a l s . Often t h e i r s o l u t i o n t o the problem has been t o demand change from each o t h e r . T h i s l o c k s them i n t o blaming and c r i t i c i z i n g each ot h e r f o r t h e i r d i f f i -c u l t i e s , thus i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r sense of d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n . What goes on between them needs t o change. When one p a r t n e r i s a b l e t o express v u l n e r a b i l i t y and i t i s met w i t h a p o s i t i v e response by the other, t h i s opens whole new p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r t r u s t , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and i n t i m a c y between them. 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 Webster's N i n t h D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s c o n f l i c t as " s t r u g g l e r e s u l t i n g from inco m p a t i b l e or opposing needs, d r i v e s , wishes, or e x t e r n a l or i n t e r n a l demands." As such, c o n f l i c t i s an i n e v i t a b l e component of i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t , and the g r e a t e r the amount of c o n t a c t , the g r e a t e r the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r h i g h l e v e l s of c o n f l i c t . C o n f l i c t o f t e n i m p l i e s a right-wrong c o n t r o v e r s y , whereas the r e s o l u t i o n of c o n f l i c t may depend on a c c e p t i n g the o t h e r ' s r i g h t t o have a d i f f e r e n t view which has i t s own l e g i t i m a c y . As e a r l y as 1974, Raush, Barry, H e r t e l and Swain observed t h a t i t was not c o n f l i c t i t s e l f t h a t was a problem, but r a t h e r the way i n which c o n f l i c t developed. They saw " c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t " as c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the couple's a b i l i t y t o focus on the i s s u e , e x p l o r e each o t h e r ' s p o i n t s of view and n e g o t i a t e a s o l u t i o n . In c o n t r a s t " d e s t r u c t i v e 30 b r i n g i n g i n p a s t h u r t s and resentments and tended t o i n c l u d e power t a c t i c s such as t h r e a t or c o e r c i o n t o a c h i e v e some s o l u t i o n (Raush, e t a l 1974). In o t h e r words, p a r t i c u l a r ways of h a n d l i n g c o n f l i c t l e d towards a p o s i t i v e outcome w h i l e o t h e r ways tended t o r e i n f o r c e e s c a l a t i o n and l a c k of consensual r e s o l u t i o n . In a survey a r t i c l e Peterson (1983) concurred w i t h the views of Raush, e t a l (1974). He a l s o sees c o n f l i c t as i n h e r e n t l y n e i t h e r c o n s t r u c t i v e nor d e s t r u c t i v e . I t i s simply the r e s u l t of i n c o m p a t i b l e needs. The emotional i n t e n s i t y and interdependence of c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e s p e c i a l l y m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , means t h a t any c o n f l i c t and 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 . S e v e r a l common themes i n s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n emerged. F i r s t , r e l a t i o n s h i p - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t s were experi e n c e d by the couples as more t h r e a t e n i n g , evoked more i n t e n s e f e e l i n g , and l e d t o the use of more c o e r c i v e or t h r e a t e n i n g behaviours than d i d i s s u e - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t s (Peterson, 1979). Thus, the r e l a t i o n s h i p - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t s were more l i k e l y t o e s c a l a t e , and the i s s u e - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t s were more l i k e l y t o be n e g o t i a t e d s u c c e s s f u l l y . In a d d i t i o n , s a t i s f i e d couples were more l i k e l y t o focus t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n on one s p e c i f i c i s s u e , thereby i n c r e a s i n g the l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n , w h i l e d i s s a t i s f i e d c ouples tended t o become p e r s o n a l l y r e j e c t i n g and blaming toward one another. Next, engagement o f c o n f l i c t r a t h e r 31 than i t s avoidance was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more understanding by each spouse of the ot h e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n s (Knudson, Sommers, & Go l d i n g , 1980). F u r t h e r , Gottman (1979) notes t h a t a c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g through s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i s t h a t d i s s a t i s f i e d couples i n treatment tend t o move q u i c k l y i n t o a p a t t e r n o f c r o s s - c o m p l a i n i n g . Peterson (1983) concludes by s t a t i n g t h a t " a l l t h i s suggests t h a t the e s c a l a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t s 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 p o s s i b l y caused by, the a t t r i b u t i o n o f blame t o the oth e r r a t h e r than t o o n e s e l f . . . and p a r t i c u l a r l y by a s h i f t from b e h a v i o r a l d e s c r i p t i o n t o p e r s o n a l blaming" (p. 376). In a review o f 26 s t u d i e s comparing d i s t r e s s e d and non-d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s , Schapp (1984) found t h a t d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s were predominantly n e g a t i v e i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s , even i n low c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . A l s o , t h e i r problem s o l v i n g behaviour was c o n s i s t e n t l y more n e g a t i v e . Schapp concluded t h a t "negative a f f e c t , e s p e c i a l l y , d i s c r i m i n a t e s the d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s " (p. 148). Guer i n (1982) examined the development o f d y s f u n t i o n a l c o n f l i c t by examining the r e g u l a t i o n o f d i s t a n c e , t h a t i s the amount of c o n t a c t or s e p a r a t i o n demanded by p a r t n e r s , i n couples undergoing s t r e s s . He observed t h a t when the r e l a -t i o n s h i p was under s t r e s s , one p a r t n e r moved c l o s e r a s k i n g f o r more support (the pursuer) and the oth e r d i s t a n c e d him or h e r s e l f (the d i s t a n c e r ) and became i n v o l v e d i n another a c t i v i t y o r o b j e c t . At t h i s stage s t r e s s was seen as low and the d i s t a n c e between the i n d i v i d u a l s was comfortable f o r each. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s stage was a sense of 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 back away, whereupon a new e q u i l i b r i u m would be achieved. When marked s t r e s s o c curred, o f t e n the couple moved through f u r t h e r stages which were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the pursuer's ever i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r emotional c o n n e c t i o n and the d i s t a n c e r ' s ever i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r emotional autonomy. T h i s process was u s u a l l y accompanied by e s c a l a t i n g n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n . At a l a t e r stage the pursuer was v e r y h u r t and angry and began t o move away r e a c t i v e l y . At t h i s p o i n t t h e r e was the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the d i s t a n c e r c o u l d b e g i n t o move c l o s e r . However, o f t e n , the pursuer was m e t a p h o r i c a l l y s t a n d i n g behind a w a l l of h u r t , h u r l i n g c r i t i c i s m s a t the d i s t a n c e r . T h i s c r i t i c i s m p r e c i p i t a t e d the f i n a l stage, as above a l l the d i s t a n c e r r e q u i r e d acceptance. In the f i n a l stage, i n response t o t h i s c r i t i c i s m , the d i s t a n c e r c o n t i n u e d t o d i s t a n c e , and each p a r t n e r r e s i d e d behind a w a l l o f h u r t i n a f i x e d p o s i t i o n i n r e f e r e n c e t o the o t h e r . At t h i s stage the couple was p r o f o u n d l y a l i e n a t e d . Another aspect of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n i n v o l v e s the p e r c e p t i o n s of each spouse about the behaviour of the other. K e l l e y (1979) r e p o r t e d t h a t p a r t n e r s tended t o i n t e r p r e t each o t h e r ' s behaviour " i n terms of s t a b l e , g e n e r a l c a u s a l p r o p e r t i e s " ( p . 96). 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 own behaviours i n n e u t r a l or p o s i t i v e terms, such as f o r g e t f u l o r p r e o c c u p i e d , the p a r t n e r o f t e n saw the behaviour i n n e g a t i v e terms such as i r r e s p o n s i b l e or s e l f i s h . Knudson, Sommers and G o l d i n g (1980) asked whether e x t e r n a l l y o b s e r v a b l e behaviour was s u f f i c i e n t t o understand i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n or whether i t was a l s o necessary t o know how each spouse con s t r u e d the behaviour. They concluded t h a t the c o n s t r u a l of behaviour was as important as the behaviour i t s e l f . Deutsch (1969) suggested t h a t p e r c e p t u a l d i s t o r t i o n was one of s e v e r a l p r o c e s s e s t h a t l e d t o c o n f l i c t e s c a l a t i o n . Gottman (1979) found t h a t d i s -t r e s s e d p a r t n e r s themselves experienced each o t h e r ' s behaviour as more n e g a t i v e than d i d an o u t s i d e coder. T a k i n g a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e , Wile (1981) p o s t u l a t e d t h a t c o n f l i c t between spouses o c c u r r e d because of the p a r t n e r ' s r e a l experience of unmet needs. He d e s c r i b e d them as " s u f f e r i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l m a l n u t r i t i o n r e s u l t i n g from an inadequate emotional d i e t " (p. 10). He i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e i n t e r a c t i o n a l p a t t e r n s which developed i n couples w i t h unmet needs. When p a r t n e r s avoided f i g h t i n g a t a l l c o s t , the r e s u l t was mutual withdrawal. Where open d i s c o r d was p e r m i s s i b l e , the 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 . The t h i r d p a t t e r n was a combination of the f i r s t two, where one p a r t n e r blamed and the o t h e r withdrew, a demanding-withdrawing p a t t e r n . A l l o f these p a t t e r n s r e s u l t e d i n a l i e n a t i o n . Wile's primary t h e r a p e u t i c approach was t o h e l p i n d i v i d u a l s t o 34 i d e n t i f y u n d e r l y i n g unmet needs. He b e l i e v e d t h a t when each p a r t n e r was a b l e t o express important f e e l i n g s and had them acknowledged by the other, much o f the more s u p e r f i c i a l c o n f l i c t s would disappear. In summary, these d i v e r s e s t u d i e s h i g h l i g h t the f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s of d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s . 1) T h e i r c o n f l i c t s tend 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 than i s s u e -o r i e n t e d . 2) T h e i r c o n f l i c t s tend t o e s c a l a t e and i n c l u d e the use o f power t a c t i c s such as t h r e a t s , r e j e c t i o n , blame and c o e r c i o n . 3) In g e n e r a l , d i s t r e s s e d couples are f a r more n e g a t i v e i n t h e i r behaviour toward one another than are s a t i s f i e d c o u p l e s . 4) Not o n l y are they more n e g a t i v e as r a t e d by an o u t s i d e coder, but they themselves r a t e t h e i r p a r t n e r ' s behaviour as even more n e g a t i v e i n i t s impact on them than does the coder. 5) E s c a l a t i n g u n r e s o l v e d c o n f l i c t i s o f t e n engendered by d i f f e r i n g needs f o r c l o s e n e s s and d i s t a n c e and i s exacerbated by s t r e s s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p . 6) Continued c o n f l i c t i n m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s can be the r e s u l t of r e a l , a d u l t , unmet needs on the p a r t of each spouse. E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy The m a j o r i t y of r e s e a r c h i n m a r i t a l therapy has been done i n the area of b e h a v i o u r a l , r a t h e r than non-behavioural therapy. (Gurman, Kn i s k e r n & P i n s o f , 1986). These t h e r a -p e u t i c approaches, e x e m p l i f i e d by Jacobson's (1977) B e h a v i o r a l M a r i t a l Therapy, i n t e r v e n e by attempting t o change the a c t u a l i nterchanges or behaviours between spouses. Jacobson (1977) developed a s y s t e m a t i c t r a i n i n g f o r c o u p les i n problem s o l v i n g s k i l l s through which each spouse c o u l d d e r i v e equal b e n e f i t s . A simple example might be where a couple was having d i f f i c u l t y i n d e c i d i n g how t o a l l o c a t e household chores. In r e t u r n f o r one doing a l l the d i s h e s the o t h e r agrees t o shop f o r g r o c e r i e s and make t h r e e d i n n e r s . Such b e h a v i o u r a l approaches can and do improve communication s k i l l s as w e l l as d a i l y i n t e r a c t i o n but are not aimed a t a l t e r i n g the i n t e r n a l e x p e r i e n c e s of the spouses of themselves and/or t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . W i l e (1981) took the p o s i t i o n t h a t d i s c o r d o f t e n arose from the i n d i v i d u a l ' s experience of b e i n g " d e p r i v e d , trapped and i s o l a t e d " (Wile, 1981, p. x i ) . L e g i t i m a t e a d u l t needs were not met by the spouses. Often i n the i n t e r e s t of " s o l v i n g " problems t h e r a p i s t s would encourage compromise and the g i v i n g up of what they saw as unreasonable e x p e c t a t i o n s . The d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h i s , as Wile saw i t , was t h a t i t engendered even more d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of both p a r t n e r s ' f e e l i n g s and i n c r e a s e d s e l f - c r i t i c i s m . "The t h e r a p i s t ' s t a s k ( i s ) t o d i s c o v e r the hidden r a t i o n a l i t y " (Wile, 1981, p. 196) i n the couple's seemingly t r i v i a l 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 l e g i t i m i z e the problem and then "to enable p a r t n e r s t o 36 i n c o r p o r a t e t h e i r f a n t a s i e s , arguments, and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p " (p. 211). E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986) i n c o r p o r a t e s W i l e ' s b e l i e f t h a t m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t o f t e n a r i s e s as a r e s u l t of the i n a b i l i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p t o meet l e g i t i m a t e a d u l t needs. By a l t e r n a t e l y f o c u s i n g on a f f e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e and i n t e r a c t i o n a l p a t t e r n s , the E m o t i o n a l l y Focused t h e r a p i s t seeks t o b r i n g i n t o each spouse's awareness the u n d e r l y i n g needs t h a t f u e l t h e i r n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e s . These c y c l e s , once begun, appear almost s e l f p e r p e t u a t i n g . An example might be a husband who has an u n d e r l y i n g f e a r of b e i n g overwhelmed and a w i f e who f e a r s abandonment. When she seeks reassurance and c l o s e n e s s from him, he f e e l s h i s autonomy b e i n g t h r e a t -ened and backs away, which she i n t u r n e x p e r i e n c e s as r e j e c t i o n and pursues him more v i g o r o u s l y f o r reassurance. T h i s c y c l e becomes i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the system without e i t h e r p a r t n e r b e i n g aware of h i s or her u n d e r l y i n g needs and f e e l i n g s . U s i n g many of the techniques developed i n G e s t a l t Therapy ( P e r l s , H e f f e r l i n e , & Goodman, 1951) the E m o t i o n a l l y Focused t h e r a p i s t seeks t o evoke i n a v i v i d f a s h i o n , i n the s e s s i o n , these p r e v i o u s l y unacknowledged, u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s . As these f e e l i n g s are e x p e r i e n c e d and expressed by one spouse, the p o s s i b i l i t y emerges f o r the o t h e r t o change h i s or her p e r c e p t i o n of the meaning of the o t h e r p a r t n e r ' s behaviour. 37 S e v e r a l s t u d i e s have now demonstrated the e f f e c t i v e n s s o f E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy (Goldman, 1986; James, 1989; Johnson & Greenberg, 1985). Other s t u d i e s have i l l u m i n a t e d the p r o c e s s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy (Johnson & Greenberg, 1988; P l y s i u k , 1983; Vaughn, 1986). The l a t t e r s t u d i e s are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h . Using the t a s k a n a l y t i c technique (Greenberg, 1984), P l y s i u k observed what a c t u a l l y happened i n s i t u a t i o n s where f o u r couples s u c c e s s f u l l y r e s o l v e d c o n f l i c t and c o n t r a s t e d t h i s w i t h one couple who was u n s u c c e s s f u l . The two instruments used by P l y s u i k (1983) t o e x p l o r e the p r o c e s s e s of r e s o l v i n g and n o n - r e s o l v i n g couples were the 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 Behaviour (SASB) (Benjamin, 1974) and the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e (ES) ( K l e i n , Mathieu, G e n d l i n , & K i e s l e r , 1969, Appendix C), the two instruments used i n the p r e s e n t study. From these o b s e r v a t i o n s P l y s i u k developed a f o u r stage model of 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 . Stage I, " e s c a l a t i o n , " was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h o s t i l e behaviours such as blaming, s u l k i n g , a v o i d i n g o r s u b m i t t i n g . Stage I I , "de-e s c a l a t i o n , " was f a c i l i t a t e d by more a f f i l i a t i v e , a c c e p t i n g behaviours, such as d i s c l o s i n g , t r u s t i n g , a f f i r m i n g or h e l p i n g . T h i s was f o l l o w e d by a two-step " t e s t i n g " stage i n which the p a r t n e r who had d i s c l o s e d s e n s i t i v e f e e l i n g s seemed t o be t e s t i n g the ot h e r by responding n e g a t i v e l y t o the o t h e r . I f these n e g a t i v e statements were met by a f f i l i a t i v e responses, then the i n t e r a c t i o n moved on t o the 38 f i n a l stage of "mutual openness". I f they were met w i t h h o s t i l i t y , then t h e i n t e r a c t i o n r e t u r n e d t o " e s c a l a t i o n " . The n o n - r e s o l v i n g couple i n t h i s study never reached the de-e s c a l a t i o n stage. For t h i s couple t h e r e was a marked l a c k o f a f f i r m i n g and understanding statements. D i s c l o s u r e s were f o l l o w e d by blaming and defending r a t h e r than by understanding. The mutual openness stage was q u i t e s i m i l a r t o the d e - e s c a l a t i o n stage. However, i t c o u l d be d i f f e r -e n t i a t e d by the l e v e l 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 p a r t n e r s . 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 when each o f the spouses f e e l s s a f e enough t o e x p l o r e i s s u e s a t a deep l e v e l without r e a c t i v i t y . Vaughn (1986) undertook a p r o c e s s study i n which he i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f i c a c y of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy as evidenced by the p r o c e s s e s which o c c u r r e d i n the second and seventh s e s s i o n s of an e i g h t s e s s i o n therapy. Johnson and Greenberg (1985a) had demonstrated t h a t E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy was e f f e c t i v e i n h e l p i n g couples i n g o a l attainment and the r e d u c t i o n of t a r g e t complaints, but they had not demonstrated t h a t the couples had become more p o s i t i v e i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . Vaughn sought t o show t h a t i n the second s e s s i o n couples would behave s i m i l a r l y t o d i s t r e s s e d couples and by the seventh s e s s i o n would have a l t e r e d t h e i r behaviour t o t h a t of a n o n - d i s t r e s s e d couple. He a l s o used the 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 (Benjamin, 1974) t o observe the c o u p l e 1 s i n t e r a c t i o n . 39 Vaughn found t h a t seventh s e s s i o n s had lower l e v e l s o f ne g a t i v e d i s a f f i l i a t i v e behaviours and h i g h e r l e v e l s o f p o s i t i v e , autonomous behaviours than d i d second s e s s i o n s . He a l s o found 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 and empathic behaviours as w e l l as p o s i t i v e a s s e r t i o n s and d i s c l o s u r e s i n seventh s e s s i o n s than i n second s e s s i o n s . Vaughn a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d s e q u e n t i a l 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 i n seventh and s i g n i -f i c a n t l y more p o s i t i v e sequences i n seventh s e s s i o n s than i n second. In g e n e r a l , h i s h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n a l p r o c e s s o f couples i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy would change from t h a t o f a d i s t r e s s e d couple i n the 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 n o n - d i s t r e s s e d couples i n t h e seventh was upheld. Johnson and Greenberg (1988) sought t o l i n k i n - s e s s i o n p r o c e s s e s w i t h o v e r a l l therapy outcome i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy. Basing t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n on the t h e o r e t i c a l 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 both the i n t r a p s y c h i c p r o c e s s e s and the 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. S i x couples were chosen, t h r e e o f whom had had the most change between t h e i r p r e - and post-Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e (DAS) (Spanier, 1976) sco r e s and t h r e e o f whom had had the l e a s t change between these two s c o r e s . These were then termed " s u c c e s s f u l " and " u n s u c c e s s f u l " c o u p l e s . Next, one b e s t s e s s i o n f o r each of 40 the s i x couples was chosen by examining the s e l f - r e p o r t s e s s i o n a l measures answered by both spouses and t h e r a p i s t a f t e r each s e s s i o n . They found good agreement between the spouses and t h e r a p i s t s i n e v a l u a t i n g s p e c i f i c s e s s i o n s as p r o d u c t i v e o f change. In a d d i t i o n , the "blamer" i n each of the c o u p l e s was i d e n t i f i e d by r a t e r s who l i s t e n e d t o the f i r s t t e n minutes of the s e s s i o n . The spouse who e x h i b i t e d more h o s t i l e i n f l u e n c i n g behaviours was c o n s i d e r e d t o be the blamer. The l a s t h a l f o f each of these b e s t s e s s i o n s was then t r a n s c r i b e d and coded both on the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e ( K l e i n e t a l . 1969) and the 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 Behavior (Benjamin, 1974). R e s u l t s on these instruments showed a marked d i f f e r e n c e between the b e s t s e s s i o n s of s u c c e s s f u l couples and the b e s t s e s s i o n s of u n s u c c e s s f u l couples. On the i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimension, s u c c e s s f u l couples had a h i g h e r percentage of a f f i l i a t i v e and autonomous responses than d i d u n s u c c e s s f u l c o u p l e s . In a d d i t i o n , 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 and a c c e p t i n g behaviours than d i d the blamers i n the l e s s s u c c e s s f u l c o u p l e s . S u c c e s s f u l c o u p l e s a l s o a c hieved h i g h e r l e v e l s on the ES, thereby i n d i c a t i n g t h a t these couples were engaged i n deeper e x p e r i e n c i n g w i t h one another. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the blamers i n these c o u p l e s experienced more deeply than d i d the blamers i n the u n s u c c e s s f u l c o u p l e s . These pr o c e s s s t u d i e s begin t o c r e a t e a p i c t u r e o f the proc e s s o f m a r i t a l therapy i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy. F i r s t , c o n f l i c t 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 begins w i t h p a r t n e r s a t t a c k i n g each o t h e r o r a t t a c k i n g and defen d i n g . As one p a r t n e r begins t o expose some v u l n e r -a b i l i t y t o the other, h o s t i l e statements d i m i n i s h , and t h e r e i s t he o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the other, f i r s t , t o understand and accept the p a r t n e r ' s experience and, then, t o expose some v u l n e r a b i l i t y o f h i s or her own. When t h i s happens, the i n t e r a c t i o n i s a p o s i t i v e , d i s c l o s i n g one i n which each spouse i s i n v o l v e d i n deep experience o f emotional m a t e r i a l ( P l y s i u k , 1983). Next, Vaughn (1986) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n s o f couples who had f o r m e r l y ( S e s s i o n 2) appeared 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 behaviours more l i k e n o n - d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , h o s t i l e b e haviours had g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h e d , and p o s i t i v e , more understanding, a c c e p t i n g behaviours had i n c r e a s e d . F i n a l l y , when comparing b e s t s e s s i o n s o f couples who had s u c c e s s f u l t h e r a p e u t i c outcomes as measured on the DAS w i t h ones who were u n s u c c e s s f u l , Johnson and Greenberg (1988) found a c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e i r behaviours. The s e s s i o n s o f the s u c c e s s f u l c o u ples showed them engaged i n g r a p p l i n g w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t emotional experience and a b l e t o a f f i r m and acc e p t 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 f i l l i n more d e t a i l s o f t h i s emergent map of s u c c e s s f u l change p r o c e s s e s i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused m a r i t a l therapy. 43 CHAPTER I I I Methodology and Procedures T h i s study c o n t r a s t s process i n a s e s s i o n d e s i g n a t e d as peak w i t h p r o c e s s i n a s e s s i o n d e s i g n a t e d as poor by each of 16 c o u p l e s . Subsequent t o each t h e r a p e u t i c s e s s i o n , the couples f i l l e d 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 asked them each t o i n d i c a t e whether they had made pro g r e s s on t h e i r problem, how r e s o l v e d the problem was, whether any change had o c c u r r e d and, o v e r a l l , how they f e l t about the problem t h a t had brought them i n t o therapy (Appendix D). The c o u p l e s ' s c o r e s f o r these a s p e c t s of the therapy s e s s i o n d i c t a t e d the s e l e c t i o n of a s e s s i o n as peak or poor. I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a s e s s i o n r e p o r t e d by the couple t o be p r o d u c t i v e of change and p r o g r e s s and conducive t o g r e a t e r problem r e s o l u t i o n would be l i k e l y , f i r s t , t o e x h i b i t h i g h e r l e v e l s of emotional e x p e r i e n c i n g and, second, t o c o n t a i n fewer n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s than a s e s s i o n r e p o r t e d as poor i n t h e s e areas. I t w i l l be the t a s k of t h i s study t o i n v e s t i g a t e these hypotheses. 44 D e s c r i p t i o n o f the P o p u l a t i o n The a c c e s s i b l e p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h i s study c o n s i s t e d o f 29 couples who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n one of two u n i v e r s i t y m a r i t a l r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s i n which they r e c e i v e d 8-10 s e s s i o n s o f E m o t i o n a l l y Focused M a r i t a l Therapy. Fourteen o f the c o u p l e s 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 which the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g therapy (Jacobson and Ma r g o l i n , 1979) was compared wi t h the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986). The o t h e r 15 couples p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a s i m i l a r r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t a year l a t e r 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 Focused Therapy. They had the f o l l o w i n g demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The men had a mean age of 44.1, ran g i n g from 36 t o 61. Women had a mean age of 40.4, ran g i n g from 29 t o 57. For both men and women, mean e d u c a t i o n a l attainment was a community c o l l e g e degree and ranged from Grade 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 couples had been m a r r i e d an average of 15.1 yea r s , ranging from 1 year t o 32 y e a r s . Of the women 31% and of the men 43% had been p r e v i o u s l y m a r r i e d . T h i r t y - o n e p e r c e n t o f the couples had undergone some therapy b e f o r e , the minimum amount b e i n g one s e s s i o n and the maximum be i n g t h r e e months. A l l couples completed a Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e (Spanier, 1976). The male mean sco r e was 93.3, SD 8.8, and the female mean sc o r e was 86.1, SD 8.25. Below 100 i s c o n s i d e r e d i n d i c a t i v e o f m a r i t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s can be c o n s i d e r e d a f a i r l y d i s s a t i s f i e d group of c o u p l e s . These 29 couples were s e l f - r e f e r r e d i n response t o a newspaper a r t i c l e which o f f e r e d them h e l p 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 . A l l couples were f i r s t screened i n a telephone i n t e r v i e w and l a t e r i n person t o assess t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r the p r o j e c t . Couples had t o have been l i v i n g t o g e t h e r f o r a t l e a s t a year, have no known problems wi t h a l c o h o l or drugs, have no immediate p l a n s f o r d i v o r c e or s e p a r a t i o n , have no primary sexual d y s f u n c t i o n , and be w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s , i n c l u d i n g v i d e o t a p i n g of s e s s i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , none of the i n d i v i d u a l s were t o have had p s y c h i a t r i c treatment or h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n i n the p r e v i o u s two y e a r s , and they were not c u r r e n t l y t o be i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y o r i e n t e d treatment. D e s c r i p t i o n of the Sample The 16 couples i n the study were randomly s e l e c t e d from t h i s p o o l o f 29 couples. The importance of random s e l e c t i o n was 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 had an equal o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and t h a t t h e r e would be no s e l e c t i o n b i a s . 46 Process Measures E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e The E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e , (Appendix C) developed by K l e i n , Mathieu, G e n d l i n and K i e s l e r i n 1969, i s a 7 - l e v e l s c a l e which r a t e s the l e v e l a t which an i n d i v i d u a l i s i n c o n t a c t w i t h h i s o r her own experience and has been shown t o be a v e r y r e l i a b l e measure of c l i e n t ' s " e x p e r i e n c i n g ' i n therapy. At the lower end of the s c a l e , l e v e l s 1 and 2, the c o n t e n t i s impersonal and a b s t r a c t and language i s impersonal, the o v e r a l l sense b e i n g t h a t of outward focus and d i s t a n c e from immediate experience. L e v e l 4 i s the p i v o t a l l e v e l a t which the person i s b e g i n n i n g t o achieve an i n t e r n a l f o c u s . Events themselves become l e s s important than the i n d i v i d u a l ' s v i v i d experience of those events. Language becomes more a s s o c i a t i v e as i n , "When she l e f t me I f e l t r e a l l y l o s t , as though my l i f e j u s t d i d n ' t have a purpose anymore." L e v e l s 5 and 6 i n c l u d e f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n of experience combined w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a problem r e l a t e d t o those f e e l i n g s . "I'm aware of how l o s t I am f e e l i n g , and I'm going t o have t o f i n d a new focus i n my l i f e . " At l e v e l 7 words and a s s o c i a t i o n s flow e a s i l y from an i n n e r r e f e r e n t . 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 (SASB) The development of the SASB (Benjamin, 1974) has allowed r e s e a r c h e r s t o analyze p a t t e r n s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication. The SASB model c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e diamond shaped g r i d s , two of which focus on i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s and the o t h e r on i n t r a p s y c h i c phenomena. (See Appendices A & B) T h i s study uses o n l y the two i n t e r -p e r s o n a l g r i d s of the SASB. Each i s o r g a n i z e d around a h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l a x i s . The h o r i z o n t a l a x i s moves from a f f i l i a t i o n and f r i e n d l i n e s s on the r i g h t t o d i s a f f i l i a t i o n and h o s t i l i t y on the l e f t . The v e r t i c a l a x i s moves from "encouraging or t a k i n g autonomy" on the top t o "submission or c o n t r o l l i n g " on the bottom. The f i r s t g r i d , l a b e l l e d "other", focuses on the behaviour of one person toward the o t h e r and the second g r i d , l a b e l l e d " s e l f " , f o c u ses on the response t o t h a t behaviour. Behaviours l o c a t e d a t s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s on each g r i d have a complementary q u a l i t y , although t h i s does not imply t h a t one behaviour causes the o t h e r (Benjamin, e t a l . , 1986). For example, i f I "endorse your freedom" (top of " o t h e r " g r i d ) you are a b l e t o " f r e e l y come and go" (top of the " s e l f " g r i d ) . These axes d i v i d e each g r i d i n t o f o u r quadrants, numbered 1 t o 4. S t a r t i n g i n the upper r i g h t quadrant and moving c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e on the o t h e r g r i d , these quadrants are, 1) Encourage F r i e n d l y Autonomy, 2) Invoke H o s t i l e Autonomy, 3) H o s t i l e Power, and 4) F r i e n d l y I n f l u e n c e . 48 Moving i n the same f a s h i o n on the s e l f g r i d , the quadrants are 1) Enjoy F r i e n d l y Autonomy, 2) Take H o s t i l e Autonomy, 3) H o s t i l e Comply, and 4) F r i e n d l y Accept. Each of these e a s i l y form complimentary p a i r s , e.g. i f I e x e r t h o s t i l e power, then you may comply w i t h h o s t i l i t y . There are t h r e e l e v e l s o f complexity by which communication can be coded i n the SASB, r a n g i n g from the f u l l v e r s i o n which d i v i d e s each s u r f a c e i n t o 36 p a r t s t o the l e a s t complex which uses o n l y the f o u r quadrants o f each s u r f a c e . The 36 p o i n t coding i s p r i m a r i l y u s e f u l when the r e s e a r c h e r i s t r y i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t e statement by statement i n t e r a c t i o n (Benjamin, e t a l . , 1986). The second l e v e l o f complexity, the c l u s t e r v e r s i o n , d i v i d e s the quadrants i n t o e i g h t s e c t i o n s o f s i m i l a r s o r t s of behaviours, such as " a f f i r m i n g and understanding" i n the o t h e r - f o c u s diamond w i t h i t s complement, " d i s c l o s i n g and e x p r e s s i n g " i n the s e l f - f o c u s diamond. One disadvantage o f t h i s l e v e l o f coding i s t h a t the c l u s t e r s around the p o l e s of the axes a l l combine behaviours t h a t are t o some degree c o n t r a d i c t o r y . For example, the c l u s t e r e n t i t l e d , " f r e e i n g and f o r g e t t i n g " has c l e a r l y autonomous behaviour but i n c l u d e s both h o s t i l e and a f f i l i a t i v e statements of t h a t p o s i t i o n . The t h i r d l e v e l o f complexity i s a quadrant v e r s i o n i n which t h e r e are f o u r quadrants on each diamond. Here, behaviours are d e l i n e a t e d as h o s t i l e , autonomous, a f f i l i a t i v e , o r submissive. S i n c e the hypotheses of t h i s study are concerned w i t h t h e s e dimensions, r a t h e r than w i t h the s u b t l e t i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n , the quadrant v e r s i o n seems most s u i t a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s . F u r t h e r study c o u l d be done a t both the c l u s t e r l e v e l and f u l l v e r s i o n l e v e l t o examine couples i n t e r a c t i o n s more c l o s e l y . T h i s study, however, i n v e s t i g a t e d the o v e r a l l "map" o f e f f e c t i v e therapy s e s s i o n s and the a s s o c i a t e d l e v e l s o f h o s t i l i t y , a f f i l i a t i o n , autonomy and submission. Outcome Measures  Post S e s s i o n a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A f t e r each therapy s e s s i o n the husband and w i f e completed a p o s t - s e s s i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix D) developed by Johnson (1984), i n which they e v a l u a t e d c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f the s e s s i o n . T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n t a i n s t h r e e s c a l e s , two o f which were 5-point L i k e r t s c a l e s and one a 7-p o i n t s c a l e . The two 5-point s c a l e s e v a l u a t e d , f i r s t , how much p r o g r e s s the spouses f e l t had been made i n the s e s s i o n i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e i r i s s u e s and, second, whether they b e l i e v e d t h a t they were any c l o s e r t o a c h i e v i n g r e s o l u t i o n of these i s s u e s than they were when the s e s s i o n began. These two items were adapted from the O r l i n s k y and Howard (1975) Therapy S e s s i o n a l Report (TSR) q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The 7-l e v e l s c a l e asked how r e s o l v e d , o v e r a l l , they f e l t i n r e l a t i o n t o the i s s u e s t h a t had brought them i n t o coun-s e l l i n g . T h i s item was adapted from 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 used by Webster (1981). Both the O r l i n s k y and 50 Howard (1975) study and the Webster (1981) study were concerned w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s , not co u p l e s . T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e has f a c e v a l i d i t y but has not undergone v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y checks f o r use by cou p l e s . In a d d i t i o n , the 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 i n c l u d e d t h r e e d e s c r i p t i v e s e c t i o n s t h a t were used i n the Johnson (1985) study, but not i n t h i s study. S e l e c t i o n o f an Event In o r d e r 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 poor s e s s i o n s , i t was necessary t o s e l e c t a p p r o p r i a t e examples of such s e s s i o n s f o r examination. Because the f i r s t and l a s t s e s s i o n s o f t e n i n c l u d e i n t r o -d u c t o r y o r summarizing m a t e r i a l , they were d e l e t e d as p o s s i b l e c h o i c e s f o r the 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 the remaining s e s s i o n s by adding up the sco r e s g i v e n by the male and female on the "pro g r e s s " , " r e s o l u t i o n " , and "how r e s o l v e d " s c a l e s . As the male and female s c o r e d the s e s s i o n s q u i t e s i m i l a r l y , an average of o n l y 2 p o i n t s d i f f e r e n c e on the s c o r i n g o f both peak and poor s e s s i o n s , the couple was handled as a u n i t . The h i g h e s t number a couple c o u l d score, an extremely poor s e s s i o n was 34. The b e s t t h a t c o u l d be sc o r e d was 6. The mean of the b e s t s e s s i o n s was 16.3, w i t h a range o f 12 t o 23, and the mean of the po o r e s t s e s s i o n s was 25.1 w i t h a range of 17-34. The l e a s t d i f f e r e n c e between peak and poor 51 s e s s i o n s was 4 p o i n t s . T h i s couple s c o r e d the peak s e s s i o n a t 13 and the poor s e s s i o n a t 17. They c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d s e s s i o n s as q u i t e p r o d u c t i v e . The g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e between s c o r e s was 16, scored by a couple who r a t e d the poor s e s s i o n t h a t was chosen a t 34 and the peak s e s s i o n a t 18. The mean d i f f e r e n c e between peak and poor s e s s i o n s c o r i n g was 7.1, SD 3.2. T h i s study sought t o h i g h l i g h t p r o c e s s i n p r o d u c t i v e t herapy s e s s i o n s v e r s u s unproductive ones. T h e r e f o r e , i t was important t h a t peak and poor s e s s i o n s be not simply examples of e a r l y stages of therapy v e r s u s l a t e stages o f therapy. Thus, i f p o s s i b l e , some peak s e s s i o n s should occur e a r l y i n the therapy and some poor s e s s i o n s l a t e . In some cases t h i s d i d occur. In oth e r cases t h e r e were two c h o i c e s f o r e i t h e r the peak or poor s e s s i o n s , t h a t i s two s e s s i o n s t h a t were s c o r e d as e q u a l l y p r o d u c t i v e o r unp r o d u c t i v e . When t h i s happened, the e a r l i e r s e s s i o n was chosen as peak and the l a t e r as poor. T h i s r e s u l t e d i n s i x couples f o r whom an e a r l i e r s e s s i o n was peak and a l a t e r s e s s i o n was poor. Episode D e f i n i t i o n T h i s study i s concerned w i t h the pr o c e s s e s o f change. An u n d e r l y i n g assumption i s t h a t t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s w i t h i n s e s s i o n s i s not uniform (Rice & Greenberg, 1984; Greenberg, 1986). Thus, the segment of the s e s s i o n t o be s t u d i e d needs t o be s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a , r a t h e r than 52 randomly. A p a r t i c u l a r sequence of events was chosen as a p p r o p r i a t e t o study. T h i s sequence o f events w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as "the episode" (Rice & Greenberg, 1984; Greenberg, 1986). The episode t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d begins when the f o l l o w i n g "marker" o c c u r s . R i c e and S a p e r i a (1984) d e s c r i b e a "marker" as " c e r t a i n k i n d s of c l i e n t statements... 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 t a s k t h a t needs t o be worked on and t h a t the c l i e n t i s ready t o work on i t " (p. 29). The marker used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s a n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l event c l o s e l y f o l l o w e d by a t h e r a p i s t a f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n designed t o e l i c i t u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s . Both n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l event and t h e r a p i s t 1 s  a f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n r e q u i r e d e f i n i t i o n . The n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l event i s a d e s t r u c t i v e form o f c o n f l i c t , (Deutsch, 1969) i n which the argument tends t o e s c a l a t e , w i t h the p a r t n e r t r y i n g t o win by blaming, a c c u s i n g and c r i t i c i z i n g the o t h e r who then responds s i m i l a r l y , o r crumples i n t o p l e a d i n g , defending or a v o i d i n g (an a t t a c k -a t t a c k o r attack-withdraw exchange). L i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r r e s o l u t i o n e x i s t s i n such an i n t e r a c t i o n . The EFT t h e r a p i s t attempts t o break i n t o t h i s c y c l e by h e l p i n g the spouses t o focus inward on t h e i r immediate experience and f e e l i n g s . I t i s important t h a t the f e e l i n g s expressed are n e i t h e r r e a c t i v e f e e l i n g s t o what i s happening nor i n s t r u m e n t a l f e e l i n g s which serve t o coerce the o t h e r i n t o compliance. 53 Rather the f e e l i n g s sought by the EFT t h e r a p i s t are those primary, deeply f e l t and o f t e n unacknowledged f e e l i n g s which a r i s e 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 as t h r e a t e n i n g t o the s u r v i v a l o f the i n d i v i d u a l . Even though the a c t u a l events are c l e a r l y not t h r e a t e n i n g , the person's sense o f i d e n t i t y o r autonomy i s experienced as c h a l l e n g e d . The n a t u r a l response t o t h r e a t of t h i s k i n d i s t o f i g h t back or g i v e up. The a f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n seeks t o e l i c i t the f e e l i n g s of t h r e a t which l i e beneath the n e g a t i v e  i n t e r a c t i o n a l event. The marker was s e l e c t e d by previewing a f i v e - m i n u t e segment o f the v i d e o - t a p e d s e s s i o n twenty minutes from the end of the tape t o l o c a t e the p o s s i b l e appearance of a marker of the above sequence, t h a t i s , a n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l event f o l l o w e d by a t h e r a p i s t i n t e r v e n t i o n e l i c i t i n g u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s . The t h e r a p i s t i n t e r v e n t i o n d i d not need t o occur immediately f o l l o w i n g the n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n f o r the segment t o q u a l i f y as the marker of the episode. There c o u l d be a few comments by c l i e n t s o r t h e r a p i s t between the e s c a l a t i o n sequence and the t h e r a p i s t i n t e r v e n t i o n . I f the marker d i d not happen i n the f i r s t f i v e - m i n u t e segment viewed, then the p r e c e d i n g f i v e minutes was viewed u n t i l the f i r s t sequence of r e q u i r e d i n t e r a c t i o n s was found. Thus, the procedure was one o f s e a r c h i n g f o r the marker i n a s e q u e n t i a l s e t of f i v e minute segments s t a r t i n g twenty minutes from t e r m i n a t i o n and moving e a r l i e r and 54 e a r l i e r i n t o the s e s s i o n u n t i l a marker of the r e q u i r e d type was i d e n t i f i e d . T h i s then c o n s t i t u t e d the b e g i n n i n g of the episode. S t a r t i n g a t the t h e r a p i s t i n t e r v e n t i o n , the f o l l o w i n g 15-20 minutes of the tape formed the episode used i n the study. In a l l s e s s i o n s t h i s sequence of events was found. T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g as one of the primary i n t e r v e n t i o n s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy i s one i n which the t h e r a p i s t seeks 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 about the problems t h a t are o c c u r r i n g i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Such problems are o f t e n expressed i n the s e s s i o n i n the form of n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s . In summary, the episode i s a 15-20-minute segment s e l e c t e d by l o c a t i n g a t h r e e - t a l k - t u r n n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n between the spouses, c l o s e l y f o l l o w e d by a t h e r a p i s t i n t e r v e n t i o n designed t o e l i c i t u n d e r l y i n g primary emotion. The 20 minutes f o l l o w i n g t h i s sequence forms the episode. Coding Procedures T r a i n i n g o f R a t e r s A l l the r a t e r s f o r both the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e and The 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 met the c r i t e r a suggested by Benjamin e t a l . (1986). These c r i t e r i a were s i m i l a r t o those suggested by K l e i n , Mathieu-Couglan and K i e s l e r (1986). They were 1) Masters l e v e l o r above i n e i t h e r psychology o r s o c i a l work, 2) exp e r i e n c e d i n 55 r e s e a r c h , 3) t r a i n e d i n c l i n i c a l i n t e r v i e w i n g and 4) 11 i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y 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). E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e r a t e r s were t r a i n e d by the author a c c o r d i n g t o the procedures i n the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e Manual ( K l e i n , Mathieu, G e n d l i n , & K i e s l e r , 1969). The t h r e e E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e r a t e r s r e c e i v e d a t l e a s t 20 hours o f t r a i n i n g as w e l l as two i n t e r i m s e s s i o n s w h i l e they were i n the p r o c e s s o f r a t i n g the m a t e r i a l . I n i t i a l l y , they were i n t r o d u c e d t o the ES concepts. T h i s was f o l l o w e d by a group r a t i n g s e s s i o n i n which the f i r s t o f the e i g h t t r a n s c r i p t segments s u p p l i e d by the manual was r a t e d c o o p e r a t i v e l y . A f t e r t h i s s e s s i o n the r a t e r s took home segments, r a t e d them i n d i v i d u a l l y and then met w i t h the author t o compare r a t i n g s . The e i g h t h t r a n s c r i p t was used as a r e l i a b i l i t y check. A l l t h r e e r a t e r s r a t e d t h i s t r a n s c r i p t independently, a t home. When the r a t i n g s were compared, they achieved a r e l a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f r=.89 on t h i s t r a n s c r i p t . T h i s compares f a v o u r a b l y w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r e l i a b i l i t y r a t i n g s p r e s e n t e d i n the Manual. In 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 u s i n g t r a n s c r i p t s from couples therapy s e s s i o n s . The ES was developed f o r use w i t h i n d i v i d u a l psychotherapy s e s s i o n s , so i t seemed important t o h e l p r a t e r s t o become f a m i l i a r w i t h u s i n g the s c a l e w i t h c o u p l e s . P a r t i c u l a r c a r e was needed t o a v o i d c o n f u s i n g an emotional statement such as "You don't have a c l u e about what I'm s a y i n g . I don't ask f o r the moon" w i t h a L e v e l 4 statement which accesses i n t e r n a l e x p e r i e n c e . The q u a l i t y o f blaming i n the above statement would make i t a L e v e l 3. Two d i f f e r e n t r a t e r s were used i n cod i n g the m a t e r i a l on the 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 Behavior. Both r a t e r s had a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g and were experienced i n r a t i n g m a t e r i a l . One had r a t e d t r a n s c r i p t s i n two e a r l i e r s t u d i e s , and the oth e r had r a t e d m a t e r i a l i n one o t h e r study. Four s e s s i o n s were h e l d i n which these r a t e r s worked w i t h p r a c t i c e t r a n s c r i p t m a t e r i a l i n order t o r e f r e s h t h e i r s k i l l s and t o b r i n g them t o an a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l o f i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . 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 Behavior (SASB) The middle 10 minutes of each 20 minute segment was coded on the SASB. These t e n minute segments were broken down i n t o u n i t s o f speech by the author, u s u a l l y b e g i n n i n g each time a new person began t o speak. However, when more than one thought was expressed i n these " t a l k t u r n s " , the l o n g e r u n i t s were f u r t h e r broken down i n t o elements. T h i s u n i t i z i n g was done so t h a t r a t e r s were a b l e t o r a t e the same u n i t s o f speech. 57 Benjamin e t a l . (1986) recommend the use of audio (or video) tapes i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h typed t r a n s c r i p t s f o r a n a l y s i s . In t h i s study the r a t e r s f i r s t l i s t e n e d t o the tape and then r a t e d the u n i t s of the episode. They then l i s t e n e d t o the tapes a second time t o check t h e i r r a t i n g s . Each r a t e r a nalysed the u n i t s of i n t e r a c t i o n independ-e n t l y f o l l o w i n g p r e s c r i b e d procedures. The f i r s t t a s k was t o i d e n t i f y the focus of the i n t e r a c t i o n , whether i t was d i r e c t e d a t the p a r t n e r , an " o t h e r " focus, o r a t the s e l f , a " s e l f " f o c u s . Next was determined the l e v e l of h o s t i l i t y or f r i e n d l i n e s s , from -9 f o r v e r y h o s t i l e t o +9 f o r v e r y f r i e n d l y . Then the l e v e l o f autonomy was assessed from " g i v e autonomy" t o " c o n t r o l " on the o t h e r focus s c a l e and from "be s e p a r a t e " t o "submit" on the s e l f focus s c a l e , a g a i n a s s i g n i n g numbers ra n g i n g from +9 t o -9. The l a s t s t e p was t o take these numbers t o the diamond g r i d i t s e l f and t o determine where they i n t e r s e c t e d . T h i s gave a number r a t i n g t o each statement. I n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i n the r a t i n g of the t r a n s c r i p t m a t e r i a l i n t h i s study was r = .73. The use of p r o d u c t -moment c o r r e l a t i o n s was seen by Benjamin, F o s t e r , Roberto, and E s t r o f f (1986) as a p p r o p r i a t e when a study i s a t t e n d i n g t o the a n a l y s i s of " p r o f i l e s or a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l summary of 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 " (p. 413) r a t h e r than t o a s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s which r e q u i r e s the use of Cohen's Kappa. 58 E x p e r i e n c i n g 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 typed t r a n s c r i p t and audio tape o f the 20-minute segment. Raters f i r s t r ead through the t r a n s c r i p t . They then r a t e d i t by l i s t e n i n g t o the audio tape o f the segment and r e a d i n g the t r a n s c r i p t . R a t i n g s were a s s i g n e d by r a t i n g the statements made each time a spouse spoke, or when, w i t h i n a speech, the l e v e l changed, a running r a t i n g . These running r a t i n g s c o r e s were used i n the c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter IV. One t h i r d o f the peak and poor s e s s i o n a l t r a n s c r i p t m a t e r i a l was r a t e d by a l l t h r e e r a t e r s . I n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was r =.69. Although t h i s f i g u r e i s lower than t h a t o b t a i n e d on the t r a i n i n g manual m a t e r i a l , i t i s w i t h i n the range achieved by oth e r s t u d i e s o f therapy which had r e l i a b i l i t i e s from .65 -.91 ( K l e i n , Mathier-Coughlan, & K i e s l e r , 1986). When t h e r e was a d i s c r e p a n c y among r a t e r s , the s c o r e l e v e l agreed on by two of the r a t e r s was used. The remaining 2/3 of the 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 r a t e r s . Hypotheses The f o l l o w i n g hypotheses were t e s t e d i n t h i s study. 59 Hypothesis I: There w i l l be a g r e a t e r 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 Quadrants I & IV, s e l f - and ot h e r - f o c u s ) than h o s t i l e statements (SASB Quadrants I I & I I I , s e l f - and othe r - f o c u s ) i n peak s e s s i o n s than i n poor. 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 of o t h e r - f o c u s e d p o s i t i v e / a f f i l i a t i v e statements (SASB Quadrants I & IV, ot h e r - f o c u s ) than o t h e r - f o c u s e d h o s t i l e statements (SASB Quadrants I I & I I I , other-focus) i n peak s e s s i o n s than 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 of s e l f - f o c u s e d p o s i t i v e / a f f i l i a t i v e statements (SASB Quadrants I & IV, s e l f - f o c u s ) than s e l f - f o c u s e d h o s t i l e statements (SASB 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 than i n poor. Hypothesis I I There w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of L e v e l 4 and above e x p e r i e n c i n g i n peak s e s s i o n s than i n poor. 60 CHAPTER IV R e s u l t s T h i s chapter p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s i s of data o b t a i n e d from r a t i n g s of the s e l e c t e d t r a n s c r i p t m a t e r i a l by u s i n g Benjamin's 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 (1974) and K l e i n , G e n d l i n , Mathieu and K i e s l e r ' s (1969) E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e . T h i s e x a m i n i a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of s u b j e c t i n g the data t o a c h i - s q u a r e t e s t of a s s o c i a t i o n , an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s t i c t o use when d e a l i n g w i t h p r o p o r t i o n a l m a t e r i a l i n which the expected p r o p o r t i o n s are unknown (Glass & Hopkins, 1984, p.287). In a d d i t i o n , where t h e r e was more than a 2 x 2 contingency t a b l e , f o r example when each of the f o u r SASB quadrants formed the data, c r e a t i n g f o u r c e l l s , a p o s t hoc m u l t i p l e comparison a n a l y s i s (Glass & Hopkins, 1984, p. 391) was done t o determine which c e l l o r c e l l s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any s i g n i f i c a n t c h i - s q u a r e r e s u l t s . T h i s p o s t hoc m u l t i p l e comparison t e s t was developed by M a r a s c u i l o and McSweeney (1978) and i s s u i t a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s of the k i n d of data p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s study. 61 To understand these r e s u l t s i t may be h e l p f u l t o keep i n mind the behaviours a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each of the e i g h t SASB quadrants: S e l f f o c u s : Quadrant 1 = Enjoy f r i e n d l y autonomy Quadrant 2 = Take 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 accept Other f o c u s : Quadrant 1 = Encourage f r i e n d l y autonomy Quadrant 2 = Invoke h o s t i l e autonomy Quadrant 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 Appendices A and B f o r the complete SASB model. The two hypotheses and the two sub-hypotheses of t h i s study were t e s t e d i n the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned manner and w i l l be p r e s e n t e d s e p a r a t e l y . Hypothesis I Hypothesis I 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 w i l l be a g r e a t e r 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 Quadrants I & IV, s e l f and o t h e r focus) than h o s t i l e statements (SASB Quadrants I I & I I I , s e l f and o t h e r f o c u s ) . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was t e s t e d . The raw data and r e s u l t s of the s e t e s t s are presented i n Tables l a and l b . 62 Tabl e l a I I I . & IV i n Peak and Poor S e s s i o n s . S e l f - and Other-Focus Quadrants I I I I I I IV T o t a l Peak S e s s i o n s n=324 p=(.70) n=15 p=(.03) n=61 p=(.13) n=63 p=(.14) 463 Poor S e s s i o n s n=266 p=(.57) n=40 p=(.09) n=124 p=(.26) n=39 p=(.08) 469 Ta b l e l b Chi-square A n a l y s i s w i t h M u l t i p l e Comparisons. SASB  Quadrants I. I I . I I I . IV. S e l f - and Other-Focus SASB Quadrants Quadrants I, I I , I I I & IV, s e l f and o t h e r focus Quadrants I w i t h I I Quadrant I w i t h I I I Quadrant I w i t h IV Quadrant I I w i t h I I I Quadrant IV w i t h I I Chi-square 44.13* 19.58* 29.98* 1.80 0.75 20.79* D.F. Quadrant IV w i t h I I I 23.99* 1 1 1 1 1 1 C r i t i c a l V alue 9.49 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 *p<.05 Ta b l e l a d e s i g n a t e s the number of statements o c c u r r i n g i n each quadrant i n the peak and poor s e s s i o n s . There i s a marked d i f f e r e n c e i n the p r o p o r t i o n s o f statements i n the a f f i l i a t i v e and h o s t i l e quadrants. In peak s e s s i o n s 84% of the statements were a f f i l i a t i v e and 16% were h o s t i l e . In poor s e s s i o n s o n l y 65% of the statements were a f f i l i a t i v e w h i l e 35% were h o s t i l e . Table l b shows the r e s u l t s o f the c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s used on these data as w e l l as the r e -s u l t s o f the p o s t hoc m u l t i p l e comparison. The c h i - s q u a r e of 44.13, df=3, supports Hypothesis I, p<.05. In the m u l t i p l e comparison a n a l y s i s every p a i r e d comparison of the a f f i l i a t i v e quadrants w i t h the h o s t i l e quadrants achieved s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , p<.05, d f = l . S i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s o c c u r r e d i n comparing the p o s i t i v e autonomous quadrants w i t h the h o s t i l e power or compliant quadrants, c h i - s q u a r e = 29.98, d f = l . Quadrant IV compared w i t h Quadrant I I I a l s o achieved s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , c h i - s q u a r e = 23.99, d f = l . Thus, we see t h a t f r i e n d l y autonomous and f r i e n d l y compliant statements were f a r more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f peak s e s s i o n s than poor when compared wi t h e i t h e r h o s t i l e autonomous or h o s t i l e compliant statements. The converse was a l s o t r u e . That i s , an important c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c o f poor s e s s i o n s seemed t o be the occurrence of a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of n e g a t i v e or h o s t i l e statements, e s p e c i -a l l y i n Quadrant I I I , the quadrant of h o s t i l e power t a k i n g and h o s t i l e compliance. 64 Hypothesis l a Hypothesis 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 w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f ot h e r - f o c u s e d , p o s i t i v e / a f f i l i a t i v e statements than o t h e r - f o c u s e d h o s t i l e s t a t e -ments. The raw data used i n the c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s appears i n T a b l e 2a. The r e s u l t s o f the c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n as w e l l as the r e s u l t s from the m u l t i p l e comparison a n a l y s i s are l i s t e d i n Tab l e 2b. Ta b l e 2a Numbers and P r o p o r t i o n s o f Statements i n Quadrants I, I I ,  I I I . & IV. Other-Focus Quadrant I I I I I I IV T o t a l Peak S e s s i o n s n=40 0 n=29 n=34 103 p=(.39) 0 p=(.28) p=(.33) Poor S e s s i o n s n=30 n=3 n=94 n=29 156 p=(.19) p=(.02) p=(.60) p=(.19) 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. SASB  Quadrants I. I I . I I I . & IV. Other-Focus SASB Quadrants Chi-square D.F. C r i t i c a l V alue Quad I, I I I & IV 8 29.57* 3 9.49 Quadrant I w i t h I I I 21.85* 1 5.99 Quadrant I w i t h IV 0.12 1 5.99 Quadrant IV w i t h I I I 16.59* 1 5.99 *p<.05 l e v e l a Quadrant I I had no statements i n any of the 16 peak s e s s i o n s and o n l y 3 statements i n the 16 poor s e s s i o n s , so d i d not e n t e r i n t o the a n a l y s i s . T a b l e 2a shows an even l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e i n the p r o p o r t i o n s o f statements o c c u r r i n g i n the a f f i l i a t i v e and h o s t i l e quadrants i n peak and poor s e s s i o n s than d i d Table l a . In peak s e s s i o n s 72% of the statements were i n Quadrants I and IV w h i l e o n l y 28% were i n Quadrants I I and I I I . However, i n poor s e s s i o n s 38% of the statements were i n Quadrants I and IV w i t h the remaining 62% o c c u r r i n g i n Quadrants I I and I I I . Here, too, the c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c was s i g n i f i c a n t , 29.57, df=3. Thus, Hypothesis l a i s a l s o supported. In a d d i t i o n , the p a i r e d comparisons showed both p o s i t i v e autonomous and p o s i t i v e compliant behaviours t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when compared w i t h h o s t i l e power behaviours, c h i - s q u a r e =21.84, d f = l and c h i - s q u a r e =16.59, d f = l , p<.05 r e s p e c t i v e l y . C l e a r l y , encouraging f r i e n d l y autonomy (Quadrant I, other) and f r i e n d l y i n f l u e n c i n g statements (Quadrant IV, other) are more p r e v a l e n t i n peak s e s s i o n s than a re h o s t i l e power o r i e n t e d statements. Hypothesis l b Hypothesis 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 w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f s e l f - f o c u s e d , p o s i t i v e / a f f i l i a t i v e statements than s e l f - f o c u s e d h o s t i l e s t a t e -ments. T a b l e 3a p r e s e n t s the raw data on which the c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s was based. Ta b l e 3b p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s o f the c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s as w e l l as the post hoc m u l t i p l e comparison data. T a b l e 3a Numbers and P r o p o r t i o n s of Statements i n Quadrants I. I I .  I I I . & IV. S e l f - F o c u s Quadrants I I I I I I IV T o t a l Peak S e s s i o n s n=284 n=15 n=32 n=29 360 P=(.79) p=(.04) p=(.09) p=(.08) Poor S e s s i o n s n=236 n=37 n=30 n=10 313 p=(.75) p=(.12) p=(.10) p=(.03) 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. SASB  Quadrants I. I I . I I I . & IV. S e l f - F o c u s SASB Quadrant Chi-square D.F. C r i t i c a l V alue Quadrants I, I I , I I I , & IV 19.87* 3 9.49 Quadrants I w i t h I I 14.09* 1 5.99 Quadrant I w i t h I I I 0.09 1 5.99 Quadrant IV w i t h I 7.39 1 5.99 Quadrant I I w i t h I I I 6.62 1 5.99 Quadrant IV w i t h I I 22.77* 1 5.99 Quadrant IV w i t h I I I 5.40 1 5.99 *p<.05 l e v e l T a b l e 3a shows a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e than e i t h e r T a b l e s l a or 2a. The p r o p o r t i o n of statements i n peak s e s s i o n s i n Quadrants I and IV i s 87% w i t h 13% o c c u r r i n g i n Quadrants I I and I I I . In poor s e s s i o n s 79% occur i n Quadrants I and IV w i t h 21% i n Quadrants I I and I I I . Hypothesis l b i s supported w i t h c h i - s q u a r e = 19.87, df = 3, p<.05. P o s i t i v e statements, both autonomous and i n f l u e n c i n g , c ontinued t o comprise a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of peak s e s s i o n s than d i d h o s t i l e autonomous or 6 8 h o s t i l e power o r i e n t e d statements. The p o s t hoc m u l t i p l e comparison showed t h a t , as expected, Quadrants I and IV were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when compared w i t h Quadrant I I ( c h i square = 14.09, d f = 1 and c h i - s q u a r e = 22.77, df = l r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . However, n e i t h e r was s i g n i f i c a n t compared t o Quadrant I I I . P o s i t i v e a c c e p t i n g behaviour was s i g n i -f i c a n t l y more a s s o c i a t e d w i t h peak s e s s i o n s t h a t was p o s i t i v e autonomous behaviour. The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f these r e s u l t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n Chapter V. Hypothesis I I Hypothesis I I i s concerned w i t h the l e v e l o f experience t h a t o c c u r s i n peak and poor s e s s i o n s f o r each o f the p a r t n e r s . 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 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 and above e x p e r i e n c i n g on the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e than L e v e l 3 and below e x p e r i e n c i n g . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was a l s o s u b j e c t e d t o a c h i - s q u a r e t e s t of 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 i s a p l a u s i b l e a s s e r t i o n . T a b l e s 4a and b show the r e s u l t s of t h i s t e s t . 69 Ta b l e 4a 16 x 2 Contingency Table o f E x p e r i e n c i n g by Couples i n Peak  and Poor S e s s i o n s Couples Peak S e s s i o n Poor S e s s i o n L e v e l 4+ L e v e l 4+ 1 27 12 2 10 0 3 5 0 4 1 0 5 11 2 6 10 0 7 1 0 8 17 19 9 10 0 10 13 0 11 8 4 12 15 17 13 7 2 14 12 0 15 6 2 16 4 0 T o t a l 157 59 Ta b l e 4b Chi-square A n a l y s i s o f the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e R a t i n g s L e v e l s Chi-square D.F. C r i t i c a l Value L e v e l 4+ w i t h 47.28* 15 25 L e v e l 3-*p<.05 l e v e l Hypothesis I I was supported. As shown i n T a b l e 4a peak s e s s i o n s c o n t a i n e d approximately t h r e e times as many L e v e l 4 and above e x p e r i e n c i n g as d i d poor s e s s i o n s . Peak 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 deeper l e v e l s o f e x p e r i -e n c i n g on the p a r t o f each p a r t n e r . The s i z e o f the 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 appears 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 deeper l e v e l s o f exp e r i e n c e . However, the f a c t t h a t s e v e r a l couples had no responses a t L e v e l 4 and above i n the poor s e s s i o n s means t h a t s e v e r a l o f the c e l l s are empty, somewhat compromising these r e s u l t s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f these f i n d i n g s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n Chapter V. C o n c l u s i o n 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 a f f i l i a t i v e statements and peak s e s s i o n s was found. Although both s e l f - f o c u s e d and o t h e r - f o c u s e d a f f i l i a t i v e statements reached s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , peak s e s s i o n s c o n t a i n e d a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of o t h e r - f o c u s e d p o s i t i v e statements (encourage f r i e n d l y autonomy and f r i e n d l y i n f l u e n c e ) than s e l f - f o c u s e d p o s i t i v e statements (enjoy f r i e n d l y autonomy and f r i e n d l y a c c e p t ) . When the f o u r quadrants were c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y t h e r e was again a c o n s i s t e n t a s s o c i a t i o n between p o s i t i v e statements and b e s t s e s s i o n s . A p o s t hoc m u l t i p l e comparison a n a l y s i s showed t h a t p o s i t i v e autonomous as w e l l as p o s i t i v e compliant statements accounted f o r the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e when s e l f - and o t h e r - f o c u s e d statements were combined and when o t h e r - f o c u s e d statements were c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y . However, when s e l f - f o c u s e d statements were a n a l y s e d s e p a r a t e l y , a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n emerged. These r e s u l t s w i l l be examined i n more d e t a i l i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r . F i n a l l y , 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 the l e v e l o f e x p e r i e n c i n g i n peak and poor s e s s i o n s , w i t h 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 more L e v e l 4 and above e x p e r i e n c i n g . 72 CHAPTER 5 D i s c u s s i o n T h i s study has i n v e s t i g a t e d the i n - s e s s i o n p r o c e s s e s 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 outcomes as assessed by the couples i n 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 . The t h e o r e t i c a l t e n e t s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986) s t a t e t h a t subsequent t o the e x p e r i e n c e o f a new aspect of the s e l f , spouses w i l l be a b l e t o respond t o each o t h e r i n new ways. In o r d e r t o i n v e s t i -gate the v a l i d i t y of t h i s theory, i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t good s e s s i o n s would be c h a r a c t e r i z e d , f i r s t , by deeper l e v e l s of experience on the p a r t of each of the p a r t n e r s , as a s s e s s e d by the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e ( K l e i n , e t a l , 1969) and, secondly, by predominately a f f i l i a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s between the spouses. The r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n have supported both of these hypotheses. Hypothesis I, l a , and l b 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 of p o s i t i v e / a f f i l i a t i v e statements (SASB Quadrants I & IV, s e l f - and o t h e r - f o c u s ) than h o s t i l e 73 statements (SASB Quadrants I I & I I I , s e l f - and o t h e r - f o c u s ) . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e were two sub-hypotheses. F i r s t , i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , when s e l f - and o t h e r - f o c u s e d statements were c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y , 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 s e l f - f o c u s e d , a f f i l i a t i v e statements (e.g. d i s c l o s i n g , e x p r e s s i n g , t r u s t i n g and r e l y i n g ) than s e l f - f o c u s e d , h o s t i l e statements (e.g. w a l l i n g o f f , d i s t a n c -i n g , s u l k i n g and appeasing). They would a l s o have a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of o t h e r - f o c u s e d , a f f i l i a t i v e statements (e.g. a f f i r m i n g , understanding, n u r t u r i n g and p r o t e c t i n g ) than o t h e r - f o c u s e d , h o s t i l e statements ( e . g . i g n o r i n g , n e g l e c t i n g , b e l i t t l i n g and blaming). The main h y p o t h e s i s and both sub-hypotheses were supported. An o u t s t a n d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f couples i n d i s t r e s s e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s has been found t o be the predominance of n e g a t i v i t y i n t h e i r behaviours and a t t i t u d e s , even i n low c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s (Gottman, 1979; Peterson, 1983; Schapp, 1984) . In c o n t r a s t , couples 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 i n t e r a c t i o n s . I f nega-t i v i t y 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 and d i s s a t i s f i e d c ouples, which i t does, then i t makes i n t u i t i v e sense t h a t t h e r a p e u t i c s e s s i o n s seen as "good" by the couple would appear more l i k e the i n t e r a c t i o n of s a t i s f i e d couples than would ones r a t e d as "poor". The r e s u l t s o f t h i s study c o r r o b e r a t e t h i s view. Although peak s e s s i o n s were found t o c o n t a i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f both s e l f - and o t h e r -focused p o s i t i v e statements, i t i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o c o n s i d e r s e l f - and o t h e r - f o c u s e d statements s e p a r a t e l y . There were two s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between peak and poor s e s s i o n s . F i r s t , peak s e s s i o n s had a much g r e a t e r number of s e l f - f o c u s e d , Quadrant I statements. In poor s e s s i o n s the o v e r a l l number o f statements by a l l 16 o f the couples was 313, w h i l e i n peak s e s s i o n s t h e r e were 360, a d i f f e r e n c e of 47. There were 48 more s e l f - f o c u s e d Quad I statements i n good s e s s i o n s than i n poor. One way o f l o o k i n g a t the d i f f e r i n g number of statements i n the good and poor s e s s i o n s i s t h a t t h e r e was a g r e a t e r number of s e l f - f o c u s e d s t a t e -ments i n the peak s e s s i o n s , and a l l o f them were p o s i t i v e , autonomous statements. Second, t h e r e were almost t h r e e times as many Quadrant IV ( F r i e n d l y Accept) behaviours i n peak s e s s i o n s as i n poor. Many of these were r a t e d as " s e l f w i l l i n g l y a c c e p t s , goes along w i t h o t h e r ' s reasonable s u g g e s t i o n s , ideas"(Quadrant I V ) , which i m p l i e s c o n s i d e r a b l e t r u s t i n g and r e l y i n g on the p a r t of one spouse f o r the o t h e r . These r e s u l t s a c c o r d w e l l w i t h the work o f o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s . Guerin(1982) suggests t h a t a c r i t i c a l component i n s u c c e s s f u l therapy i s the t h e r a p i s t ' s a b i l i t y t o enable the spouses t o take a s e l f f o c u s . He s t a t e s , 75 In r e a c t i o n t o emotional p a i n o r upset, t h e r e i s an automatic r e f l e x i n a l l o f us t h a t p l a c e s the cause of t h a t p a i n o r upset o u t s i d e o f s e l f . The more i n t e n s e t h i s p r o j e c t i o n becomes the more i t produces an experien c e o f v i c t i m i z a t i o n and a h o l d i n g o f o t h e r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the way we f e e l and a c t . (p. 22) Gue r i n (1982) f u r t h e r contends t h a t " i n the treatment o f m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t , a s s i s t i n g the r e s p e c t i v e spouses t o a t t a i n s e l f - f o c u s i s o f the utmost importance t o a s u c c e s s f u l outcome" (p. 22). In a s i m i l a r v e i n , Peterson (1983) i d e n t i f i e s t he spouses' a b i l i t y t o take a s e l f - f o c u s as c r u c i a l t o the r e d u c t i o n o f c o n f l i c t . "The person making the f i r s t 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 the c o n f l i c t t o h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f r a t h e r than blaming the oth e r f o r the d i f f i c u l t i e s they were e x p e r i e n c i n g (p. 377). When s e l f - f o c u s e d , Quadrant I I I ( H o s t i l e Comply) statements a re compared i n the peak and poor s e s s i o n s t h e r e i s a somewhat s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t . In t h i s quadrant, t h e r e i s v e r y l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the good and poor s e s s i o n s . When the 36 p o i n t v e r s i o n of SASB i s examined, t h i s quadrant i n c l u d e s statements such as " s e l f whines, u n h a p p i l y p r o t e s t s , t r i e s t o defend him or h e r s e l f from o t h e r ( p o i n t , 233 i n Quadrant 3)", " s e l f caves i n t o ot h e r and does t h i n g s o t h e r ' s way, but s e l f s u l k s and fumes about i t ( p o i n t , 236 i n Quadrant 3 ) " and " s e l f m i n d l e s s l y obeys o t h e r ' s r u l e s , standards, i d e a s about how t h i n g s should be done ( p o i n t , 238 76 i n Quadrant 3 ) " . I f the raw data a re examined more c l o s e l y , i t becomes apparent t h a t two of the s i x t e e n couples, couples who may be termed " c o n t e n t i o u s couples", were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 81% o f the Quad I I I behaviour i n peak s e s s i o n s and 37% i n poor s e s s i o n s . I f these two couples are removed, t h e r e are o n l y 6, s e l f - f o c u s e d Quadrant I I I statements i n peak s e s s i o n s and 19, s e l f - f o c u s e d Quadrant I I I statements i n poor s e s s i o n s . These r e s u l t s would have been more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r f i n d i n g s i n t h i s 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 poor s e s s i o n s than i n good. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o loo k a t one of these " c o n t e n t i o u s c o u p l e s " i n more d e t a i l . For one o f these couples i n the peak s e s s i o n , the w i f e ' s o t h e r - f o c u s e d Quadrant I I I statements were q u i t e c o n t r o l l i n g but o n l y moderately h o s t i l e . Her husband's responses were n e a r l y a l l d e f e n s i v e ones ( h o s t i l e comply), as were many of her s e l f - f o c u s e d statements. For each of them, however, t h e r e were many statements i n the "enjoy f r i e n d l y autonomy" (Quadrant I ) . They were each e x p r e s s i n g themselves i n a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a f f i l i a t i v e f a s h i o n . C o n t r a s t t h i s w i t h t h e i r poor s e s s i o n where both husband and w i f e were blaming each o t h e r ( o t h e r - f o c u s e d , Quadrant I I I ) , and t h e r e were v e r y few a f f i l i a t i v e , autonomous e x p r e s s i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e were 7 statements by the w i f e which were r a t e d " s e l f b i t t e r l y , a n g r i l y , detaches 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 alone about o t h e r " ( p o i n t , 223 i n Quadrant I I ) . T h i s k i n d of p a t t e r n i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an attack-withdraw i n t e r a c t i o n which can i n d i c a t e t h a t one p a r t n e r i s q u i t e a l i e n a t e d and disengaged from the o t h e r . T h i s behaviour 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 Guerin (1982) as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of couples who are s e r i o u s l y a l i e n a t e d from one another. Thus, the peak s e s s i o n saw the couple a c t i v e l y engaged i n s o r t i n g through an i s s u e , and was much l e s s h o s t i l e than was the poor s e s s i o n . One t h i n g t o note here i s t h a t t h i s study has examined the couple's i n t e r a c t i o n s a t the Quadrant l e v e l o f the SASB, so i n f o r m a t i o n about the degree o f h o s t i l i t y c ouples are e x p r e s s i n g toward one another can become l o s t . For example Quadrant I I I , s e l f - f o c u s , can range from " s e l f m i n d l e s s l y obeys o t h e r ' s r u l e s , standards, i d e a s about how t h i n g s 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 "In g r e a t p a i n and rage s e l f screams and shouts t h a t o t h e r i s de-s t r o y i n g him o r her", an extremely h o s t i l e p o s i t i o n . The couple j u s t d i s c u s s e d had made a s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t i n the i n t e n s i t y o f t h e i r h o s t i l e statements and had g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d the number o f Quadrant I statements. I f the peak and poor s e s s i o n s of the o t h e r " c o n t e n t i o u s c o u p l e " were examined s i m i l a r k i n d s of d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d be found. The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of o t h e r - f o c u s e d SASB r a t i n g s of the peak and poor s e s s i o n s are q u i t e i l l u m i n -a t i n g . Here t h e r e was a g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e between the 78 p r o p o r t i o n s o f statements i n the a f f i l i a t i v e and h o s t i l e quadrants when peak and poor s e s s i o n s were compared. F i r s t , peak s e s s i o n s c o n t a i n e d 72% Quadrants I and IV statements w i t h o n l y 28% Quadrant I I I . (There were no Quadrant I I statements i n any of the 16 c o u p l e s ' peak s e s s i o n s . ) In poor s e s s i o n s the p i c t u r e was v e r y d i f f e r e n t . There, o n l y 38% of the statements were i n Quadrants I and IV w i t h the remaining 62% i n Quadrants I I and I I I , w i t h the g r e a t m a j o r i t y i n Quadrant I I I . What t h i s means i s t h a t an o u t s t a n d i n g f e a t u r e of poor s e s s i o n s was the occurrence of put-downs, a c c u s a t i o n s o r blaming statements. The u n d e r l y i n g message i n poor s e s s i o n s seemed t o be, "You are not OK, the problems we are having are your f a u l t . " These r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the l i t e r a t u r e d e s c r i b i n g the 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 c o u p l e s . Peterson (1983) d e s c r i b e s c o n f l i c t as b e i n g p e r c i p i -t a t e d by " c r i t i c i s m , i l l e g i t i m a t e demand, r e b u f f , and cumulative annoyance" (p. 371), a l l of which are e i t h e r Quadrants I I o r I I I , o t h e r - f o c u s e d behaviours. Gottman (1979) even named t h i s sequence of events as " c r o s s -complaining". T h i s term d e s c r i b e s w e l l the tone of unhappy r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The focus of each of the spouses i s on c r i t i c i s m of the o t h e r f o r the d i f f i c u l t i e s they are having. Koren, C a r l t o n and Shaw (1980) found t h a t d i s t r e s s e d and n o n - d i s t r e s s e d couples c o u l d be r e l i a b l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d by 79 "two b e h a v i o r s , responsiveness and c r i t i c i s m , i n t h a t o r der" (p. 463). The f l a v o u r of these d i f f e r e n c e s can, perhaps, b e s t be c a p t u r e d by l o o k i n g a t a b r i e f p o r t i o n from a good and poor s e s s i o n of one couple. (The numbers f o l l o w i n g each statement are the Quadrant numbers and the a c t u a l p o i n t r a t i n g g i v e n t o the statement. See Appendices A & B.) Poor S e s s i o n Wife: L i k e the changes I am going t o t r y t o do are what I want t o do, the changes I want i n myself not what he wants n e c e s s a r i l y . (Quad 1,217) Husband: But, the changes you want me t o do, I t r y t o do them f o r you (Quad 111,137) Wife: Yes, and you've done r e a l l y w e l l . (Quad I, 115) Husband: But then you're s a y i n g now t h a t you w i l l not do the 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, because,well, what are the t h i n g s you want me t o change? You don't want me t o have my l i t t l e f i t s anymore. OK (Quad I I I , 236) Therapist:What's happening t o you r i g h t now? There's something i n your v o i c e . Husband: See, t h a t ' s her sarcasm coming out. (Quad I I I , 137) T h e r a p i s t : I s i t ? Wife: What d i d I j u s t say? I don't know what I j u s t s a i d . (Quad I I , 226) Peak S e s s i o n Wife: Yeh, I'm not p r e t t y enough. I'm not s l i m enough, I'm not young enough. I'm not fun enough. (Quad I, 215) T h e r a p i s t : C a n you hear how she i s f e e l i n g ? Husband: OK, I don't care anymore i f you're not s l i m enough. I don't c a r e . I l o v e you the way you are. I don't care i f you get 300 pounds, I c o u l d c a r e l e s s . (she laughs) I'm s e r i o u s , honey, (she s t a r t s t o sob) I t h i n k you're 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 touched you d i d n ' t he? (there ensue s e v e r a l i nterchanges i n which the w i f e v o i c e s her d i s c o m f o r t over c r y i n g i n the s e s s i o n . The husband 80 t r i e s t o make her laugh, h i s way of s o o t h i n g her. Then, spontaneously the w i f e r e t u r n s t o the t h e r a p i s t ' s question.) Wife: I wish I d i d f e e l b e t t e r about myself, then I c o u l d accept what he'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 you f e e l as though y o u ' l l have t o change y o u r s e l f b e f o r e you can Wife: I r e a l l y work hard a t t r y i n g t o improve myself and i t ' s not an easy t h i n g t o do. Maybe I'm not doing i t the r i g h t way, I j u s t t r y t o t e l l myself, "You're a l l r i g h t . " (Quad I, 216) Husband: Yeh, you're a l l r i g h t . I ' l l l e t you take me out f o r a beer on the way home. (Quad I, 114) (here the husband i s s t i l l j o k i n g , p r o b a b l y t o d i f f u s e the i n t e n s i t y o f the sessi o n ) There were a number of c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s between peak and poor s e s s i o n s . Peak s e s s i o n s had more s e l f - f o c u s e d statements than d i d poor s e s s i o n s , and more o f those s t a t e -ments were p o s i t i v e , autonomous (Quadrant I) statements. In c o n t r a s t , poor s e s s i o n s had more o t h e r - f o c u s e d statements than d i d peak s e s s i o n s , and more of those statements were h o s t i l e power, e s p e c i a l l y c r i t i c a l , (Quadrant I I I ) statements. In g e n e r a l , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p r o d u c t i v e therapy s e s s i o n s were s i m i l a r t o those e x h i b i t e d by couples who were not d i s t r e s s e d . Hahlweg, S c h i n d l e r , Revenstorf and Brengelmann (1984) had c o n s i d e r a b l e success i n t h e i r m a r i t a l t herapy i n which they taught couples how t o behave i n a more a f f i l i a t i v e manner toward one another. They r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e s e couples improved i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o s o l v e problems and i n t h e i r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . "However, i t appears l e s s 81 w e l l s u i t e d t o d e a l w i t h i n t e r n a l events a f f e c t i n g the emotional q u a l i t i e s o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p " (p. 21). They suggest t h a t f u t u r e r e s e a r c h should "supplement a b e h a v i o r a l treatment w i t h emotion-enhancing procedures" (p. 21). E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy adds t h i s dimension t o couples therapy and addresses the emotional f o u n d a t i o n o f the p a r t n e r s i n the m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Hypothesis I I I t was hyp 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 and above e x p e r i e n c i n g on the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e than would poor s e s s i o n s . Peak s e s s i o n s c o n t a i n e d n e a r l y t h r e e times as many L e v e l 4 and above e x p e r i e n c i n g as d i d poor s e s s i o n s . The c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s supported t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . Some of the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f these r e s u l t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Couples Therapy i s designed t o change p a r t n e r ' s experience o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . In f o c u s i n g on the ne g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e o f the couple, i t seeks t o r e d e f i n e the c o n f l i c t i n terms of p r e v i o u s l y unacknowledged u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s . The t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n o f EFT views these u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s as the i n d i v i d u a l ' s primary s i g n a l l i n g system which, when accessed, can l e a d t o the e x p r e s s i o n o f needs. These " u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s " a re c o n s i d e r e d by Greenberg and S a f r a n (1984) t o be primary, b i o l o g i c a l l y a d a p t i v e emotions. They 82 d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h i s type o f emotion from both secondary and i n s t r u m e n t a l emotions. Couples coming f o r therapy o f t e n e x h i b i t the l a s t two types of emotions. That i s , they are f r e q u e n t l y i n v o l v e d i n a c t i v e l y a t t a c k i n g or defending themselves from each o t h e r (secondary or r e a c t i v e emotion) or d i s p l a y i n g emotion designed t o manipulate the o t h e r i n t o c e r t a i n responses ( i n s t r u m e n t a l emotion). N e i t h e r of these emotional responses i s f a c i l i t a t i v e i n i n t e r r u p t i n g the couple's n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e . In f a c t , these types o f emotions are e x a c t l y the ones t h a t f u e l c o n t i n u i n g d i s s e n s i o n . What, then, i s meant by the term "primary a d a p t i v e emotion"? An example may be h e l p f u l . I f I am f a c e d w i t h the death of someone I l o v e o r a profound l o s s , I w i l l have many emotions. F i r s t , I may f e e l angry, blaming, "why d i d t h i s have t o happen t o me?" T h i s would be a r e a c t i v e emotion t o the e x p e r i e n c e o f l o s s . Next, I might b a r g a i n , p l e a d , " I f t h i n g s can o n l y be as they were, I ' l l do..." These are i n s t r u m e n t a l emotions, ones i n which I am t r y i n g , through my emotional e x p r e s s i o n , t o i n f l u e n c e the outcome of the s i t u -a t i o n . F i n a l l y , I may g i v e up my e x t e r n a l focus, t u r n inward, and b e g i n t o experience my sadness, my l o s s , the 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 . In t h i s i n t e r n a l l y focused p r o c e s s , I b e g i n t o "work through", " l e t go" o r "adapt" t o the r e a l i t y o f my l o s s . G e n d l i n (1981) s t a t e s , "The experience of something emerging from t h e r e 83 f e e l s l i k e a r e l i e f and a coming a l i v e " (p. 8 ) . The E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e ( K l e i n , e t . a l . , 1969), the r a t i n g instrument used i n t h i s study, was developed t o assess the degree t o which an i n d i v i d u a l i s i n t e r n a l l y focused, t h a t i s , engaged i n the process o f a c c e s s i n g these u n d e r l y i n g emotions and needs. Only these b i o l o g i c a l l y a d a p t i v e primary emotions are meant i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy when i t d e s c r i b e s a c c e s s i n g u n d e r l y i n g emotion. These emotions are thought t o s i g n a l needs which are important i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . In t h i s study, i f the the o r y were c o r r e c t , the e x p e c t a t i o n was t h a t good s e s s i o n s would be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from poor s e s s i o n s by the l e v e l s of e x p e r i e n c i n g , achieved by the p a r t n e r s . Deeper l e v e l s o f e x p e r i e n c i n g make i t p o s s i b l e f o r an i n d i v i d u a l t o access u n d e r l y i n g emotion. T h i s was found t o be t r u e . The d i f f e r e n c e between a L e v e l 4 or 5 response and a L e v e l 2 or 3 i s marked (See Appendix C). In t h i s therapy the t h e r a p i s t attempts t o "reach" under what i s g o ing on between the couple w i t h i n t e r v e n t i o n s such as, "what are you aware of r i g h t now? I t look s l i k e something i n what she j u s t s a i d touched you." In a peak s e s s i o n , the man responded t o the above i n t e r v e n t i o n with, "For me, i t ' s f e a r f u l . I get concerned about g i v i n g up t h i n g s , t h a t ' 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 happiness, g i v i n g up. So i t takes on many (pause) I'm q u i t e capable o f l o o k i n g a f t e r myself, t a k i n g care o f myself, but i t ' s not my 84 c h o i c e . So when I get f r u s t r a t e d , when we get t h a t way, I'm aware t h a t i t c o u l d - I get scared, I get concerned." T h i s L e v e l 5 response shows the husband l o o k i n g inward, s t r u g g l -i n g t o understand h i s f e e l i n g s about what i s happening w i t h h i s w i f e . He moves c l o s e r and c l o s e r t o h i s f e a r of l o s i n g her, h i s f e a r of b e i n g alone. C o n t r a s t t h i s response w i t h a s e r i e s of i n t e r a c t i o n s 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 your anger you are f e e l i n g v e r y 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 i n t e r c h a n g e s between husband and wife.) T h e r a p i s t : S o you f e e l u n a p p r e c i a t e d f o r the way you're k i n d of i n the background. Wife: T h i s doesn't stand i n my way. That's a good way t o have him o f f h i s back. (Again t h e r e i s a n e g a t i v e 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 of you are h e a r i n g t h a t underneath you both f e e l n e g l e c t e d and unloved and u n a p p r e c i a t e d . When another n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n begins, the t h e r a p i s t s t o p s t r y i n g t o focus the spouses inward and begins t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e i r n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a l s t y l e . C l e a r l y , a t t h i s time t h i s couple i s not f e e l i n g s a f e enough t o l e t go o f t h e i r r e a c t i v i t y t o one another. In s p i t e of the t h e r a p i s t ' s attempts t o e l i c i t more o f each spouse's i n n e r world, the couple c o n t i n u e s t o express d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and blame toward each other, w i t h the m a j o r i t y of the s e s s i o n a t L e v e l s 2 or 3 on the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e , l e v e l s 85 c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a focus on e x t e r n a l events w i t h any f e e l i n g e x p r e s s i o n as r e a c t i v e emotion. Another example from a good s e s s i o n shows the way i n which the experience and e x p r e s s i o n of u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g can change the p e r c e p t i o n of the p a r t n e r about what i s going 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've got t o b e l i e v e t h e r e ' s hope. My f a t h e r doesn't d r i n k anymore. He d i d change h i s l i f e . He made a g r e a t t r a n s i t i o n . Something c l i c k e d and I'm not r e a l l y sure 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 going t o , maybe i t ' s me, maybe i t ' s something t h a t ' s going 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 gave you a magic wand r i g h t now, and you c o u l d change one t h i n g about y o u r s e l f , what would you change? Wife: I t h i n k I would probably be a l o t more open and r e c e p t i v e t o people, be a l o t more comfortable w i t h people, 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 of t h i n g s t h a t P.'s a s k i n g f o r , you r e a l l y want. Wife: Yeh, the t h i n g s t h a t I have always found v e r y d i f f i c u l t . I don't f e e l c omfortable i n crowds. (5) T h e r a p i s t : S o when he asks f o r t h a t , does i t k i n d of tap i n t o an area where, i t must, where you f e e l not v e r y good? Wife: Oh yeh. I t ' s something t h a t I don't f e e l c o m fortable with, I don't suppose I've ever r e a l l y done w i t h anyone.(5) T h e r a p i s t : Y o u seem sad about t h a t . Wife: W e l l , yeh because i t ' s probably i t ' s one of the t h i n g s about myself t h a t I would l i k e t o change. I t would 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) Did you know t h a t what you're a s k i n g f o r i s something t h a t she wants v e r y much t o be h e r s e l f and has d i f f i c u l t y ? Husband: I d i d n ' t put the c o n n e c t i o n t o g e t h e r , but I know, I am aware t h a t she's not immediately open t o people and i s not r e a l good i n crowds and i s not 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 not 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 another person and b e i n g a b l e t o get over the s c a r y p a r t s o f new c o n t a c t w i t h anything. 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 o f c o n t a c t w i t h me, I thought maybe I'm d i f f e r e n t than those o t h e r t h i n g s out t h e r e . I'm on the i n s i d e , I've been t h e r e f o r 15 years o r 10 y e a r s . You shouldn't be a f r a i d of 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 not a f r a i d t h a t I'm going t o do a n y t h i n g bad. For the husband, here, i t i s new t o r e a l i z e t h a t h i s w i f e has the same k i n d of d i f f i c u l t y b e i n g open w i t h him as she does i n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s . He seems a b l e t o accept t h i s , and, a t the same time, encourages her by r e a s s u r i n g her t h a t he won't do a n y t h i n g "bad" i f she i s more open w i t h him. No l o n g e r i s he blaming her f o r not b e i n g the way he wishes. T h i s k i n d of response f i t s w i t h the f i n d i n g s of K e l l e y (1979). He found t h a t the areas couples chose as problems i n c l u d e d , " f a i l u r e t o g i v e a p p r e c i a t i o n , understanding and a f f e c t i o n " (p. 98). He went as f a r as contending t h a t a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward one's p a r t n e r was of more import-ance than s p e c i f i c b ehaviours. I t was not t r u e , i n b e s t s e s s i o n s , t h a t the e n t i r e s e s s i o n was u n i f o r m l y a t a h i g h l e v e l of e x p e r i e n c i n g . Rather, what seemed t o happen was t h a t one of the spouses moved t o a deep l e v e l of experience and then moved out of i t . The p a r t n e r then responded t o what had j u s t happened. These responses v a r i e d from acceptance t o humour (the o t h e r p a r t n e r was o f t e n uncomfortable w i t h the i n t e n s i t y of what had j u s t happened) t o non-acceptance, which needed t o be q u i c k l y handled by the t h e r a p i s t . An example of a t h e r a p i s t i n t e r v e n t i o n when the p a r t n e r was unable t o accept the 87 o t h e r ' s newly d i s c l o s e d experience might have been," T h i s i s r e a l l y hard f o r you t o hear r i g h t now, a l i t t l e o ver-whelming." T h i s would both acknowledge the d i f f i c u l t y the spouse was having w i t h t h i s new i n f o r m a t i o n and v a l i d a t e the spouse who had j u s t r e v e a l e d a new l e v e l o f v u l n e r a b i l i t y . What appeared t o happen was t h a t e x p e r i e n c i n g i t s e l f had a powerful impact on a couple's view of the s e s s i o n as a p r o d u c t i v e one. In one couple's 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 , the w i f e s a i d t h a t the i s s u e she had worked on was "my i n s e c u r i t y and f e a r , " and what was important t o her was "my p a r t n e r h e a r i n g t h i s f o r the f i r s t time." The husband s t a t e d , "I have an understanding of why my p a r t n e r makes demands on me." These responses o c c u r r e d on a s e c t i o n of the 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 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. These responses were not c o n s i d e r e d i n s e l e c t i n g peak and poor s e s s i o n s . E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986) emphasizes the importance of the experience and e x p r e s s i o n of primary a d a p t i v e emotion i n o r d e r t o reframe and change the meaning of the couple's i n t e r a c t i o n . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e d t h a t deep l e v e l s of e x p e r i e n c i n g were important, perhaps even c r u c i a l , i n good therapy s e s s i o n s . Subsequent i n t e r a c t i o n between the p a r t n e r s became l i k e t h a t seen i n s a t i s f i e d c o u p l e s . 8 8 C o n c l u s i o n The two major hypotheses o f t h i s p r o c e s s study o f m a r i t a l therapy were both supported. When both s e l f - and o t h e r - f o c u s e d behaviours were compared i n peak and poor s e s s i o n on the SASB, a l l p r e d i c t e d comparisons a c h i e v e d s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s , t h a t i s , both the autonomous a f f i l i a t i v e and submissive a f f i l i a t i v e 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 -i s t i c o f peak s e s s i o n s than poor. When s e l f - and o t h e r - f o c u s e d behaviours were examined s e p a r a t e l y , s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s o c c u r r e d . Both Quadrants I and IV, o t h e r - f o c u s e d 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 peak s e s s i o n s than were Quadrant I I I , o t h e r - f o c u s e d statements. In the s e l f - f o c u s e d comparisons Quadrants I and IV achieved s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e compared w i t h Quadrant I I (take h o s t i l e autonomy). However, t h i s was not t r u e when Quadrants I and IV were compared w i t h Quadrant I I I ( h o s t i l e comply). T h i s may have been due t o the presence o f two couples i n the study who i n t e r a c t e d q u i t e n e g a t i v e l y even i n t h e i r peak s e s s i o n s and who, tog e t h e r , comprised 81% of the Quadrant I I I , s e l f - f o c u s e d behaviours i n peak s e s s i o n s . More d e t a i l e d o b s e r v a t i o n o f the data showed t h a t peak s e s s i o n s had more s e l f - f o c u s e d statements i n g e n e r a l , and more of thes e statements were Quadrant I, enjoy f r i e n d l y autonomy, ones. Poor s e s s i o n s had more o t h e r - f o c u s e d 89 statements i n g e n e r a l , and more of these statements were Quadrnat I I I , h o s t i l e power, ones. Hypothesis I I s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e would 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 4 and above e x p e r i e n c i n g on the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e ( K l e i n , e t a l , 1969) i n peak s e s s i o n s than i n poor. In the c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s o f the data peak s e s s i o n s d i d c o n t a i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of l e v e l 4 and above e x p e r i e n c i n g . A p i c t u r e o f the good m a r i t a l therapy s e s s i o n emerges from the s e r e s u l t s . The p a r t n e r s have stopped blaming each o t h e r f o r t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s , have turne d t o t h e i r own i n n e r e x p e r i e n c e s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r s i t u a t i o n , have been w i l l i n g t o d i s c l o s e t h i s new i n f o r m a t i o n t o each o t h e r and respond t o new i n f o r m a t i o n i n a p o s i t i v e manner. I f these k i n d s o f s h i f t s i n awareness and behaviour can be maintained, i t seems l i k e l y t h a t the outcome of the m a r i t a l therapy w i l l be s u c c e s s f u l . C l i n i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e To p r a c t i c e as e f f e c t i v e l y as p o s s i b l e the c l i n i c i a n needs t o understand what t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s e s f a c i l i t a t e change. T h i s study has i l l u m i n a t e d s e v e r a l p r o c e s s e s which 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 i n E m o t i o n a l l y Focussed Therapy f o r c o u p l e s . The s t r o n g l i n k between s e s s i o n s seen by the couple as f a c i l i t a t i v e of change and movement toward problem r e s o l u t i o n and the depth of e x p e r i e n c i n g as r a t e d 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 a focus on themselves and t o move deeper i n t o s e l f - e x p l o r a t i o n and 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 need t o be i n v e s t i g a t i n g as they work w i t h c l i e n t s i s , "how do the i n d i v i d u a l s e n s i t i v i t i e s and v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s on the p a r t o f each of these p a r t n e r s f u e l t h e i r n e g a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s ? " The answers t o t h i s q u e s t i o n seem t o emerge as each p a r t n e r accesses h i s or her i n n e r world. The r e s u l t s from the 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 Behavior r a t i n g s o f the s e s s i o n s i n many ways conf i r m s the focus i n d i c a t e d by the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e r e s u l t s . C l e a r l y , a couple i n the 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 i n t e r -a c t i o n , c o n s i s t i n g o f a g r e a t d e a l o f blaming and demeaning of the o t h e r i s not l i k e l y t o a b l e t o n e g o t i a t e c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n nor t o c r e a t e an atmosphere i n which v u l n e r -a b i l i t y and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e can occur. As spouses begin t o d i s c l o s e and express t h e i r thoughts and f e e l i n g s i n an a f f i l i a t i v e manner, the p o s s i b l i t y f o r c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n 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 process appears t o be 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 o f each p a r t n e r and a decrease i n the number o f o t h e r d i r e c t e d statements, e s p e c i a l l y " h o s t i l e power" statements. The t h e r a p i s t , then, needs t o encourage the experience and e x p r e s s i o n o f u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s on the p a r t o f each spouse and, a l s o , 91 the acceptance of these f e e l i n g s by the o t h e r p a r t n e r i n an a f f i l i a t i v e manner. L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study The sample used f o r t h i s study was randomly drawn from a p o o l o f 29 couples who had r e c e i v e d 8-10 s e s s i o n s of E m o t i o n a l l y Focused Therapy i n p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s study may be g e n e r a l i z e d t o comparable couples who would respond t o a newspaper advertisement o f f e r i n g f r e e m a r i t a l therapy i n r e t u r n f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a 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 . However, my c l i n i c a l i n t u i t i o n , a f t e r over t e n y e a r s o f work as a m a r i t a l t h e r a p i s t , i s t h a t the couples i n these p r o j e c t s were s i m i l a r t o ones who come f o r p r i v a t e therapy. They d i f f e r e d mainly i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n t o seek f r e e therapy. There are some qu e s t i o n s about the e f f e c t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n such r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s on the s u b j e c t s . Webster's N i n t h D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s the Hawthorne e f f e c t as "the s t i m u l a t i o n t o output o r accomplishment, as i n an i n d u s t r i a l o r e d u c a t i o n a l methods study, t h a t r e s u l t s from the mere f a c t o f b e i n g under concerned o b s e r v a t i o n " (p. 557). However, these e f f e c t s should be uniform throughout the d u r a t i o n o f therapy r a t h e r than s p e c i f i c t o any p a r t i c u l a r s e s s i o n . The approach o f o b s e r v i n g p r o c e s s w i t h i n s e s s i o n should minimize t h i s problem. 92 The use of the 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 meassure posed the problem t h a t the number r a t i n g of some co u p l e ' s peak s e s s i o n s were lower than the number r a t i n g o f o t h e r couple's poor s e s s i o n s . In t h i s d e s i g n couples were b e i n g compared t o themselves, r a t h e r than t o each o t h e r . The s t r o n g r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e t h a t couples were showing r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s between p r o d u c t i v e and u n p r o d u c t i v e s e s s i o n s i n these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s even though the i n d i v i d u a l number assessment d i f f e r e d between co u p l e s . The i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y o f the r a t i n g s of the E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e ( K l e i n , e t a l , 1969) was somewhat lower i n t h i s study than t h a t achieved i n r a t i n g s of i n d i v i d u a l t h e r a p i e s . A f t e r t h i s p r o j e c t was w e l l under way, M. K l e i n ( p e r s o n a l communication, June 25, 1986) suggested t h a t the newer T h e r a p i s t E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e ( K l e i n , Mathieu-Coughlan, 1986) might prove t o be a b e t t e r s c a l e t o use w i t h c o u p l e s . Future Research The scope of t h i s r e s e a r c h d i d not permit an a n a l y s i s of the sequencing of i n t e r a c t i o n s . I t would be important t o l e a r n more about the s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n s of i n t e r a c t i o n which 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 . One would l i k e t o know what responses by a p a r t n e r encourage or d i s c o u r a g e the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the o t h e r ' s r e v e l a t i o n o f h i s o r her i n n e r world. A s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s approach c o u l d be u s e f u l i n t h i s p r o j e c t (Gottman, Markman, Howard & N o t a r i u s 1977; Hahlweg, Revenstorf, S c h i n d l e r & Brengelmann, 1984). As was mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, the use of the Quadrant l e v e l a n a l y s i s of the SASB meant t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of data c o n c e r n i n g the degree o f h o s t i l i t y o r a f f i l i a t i o n and autonomy or submission was obscured. Future r e s e a r c h u s i n g e i t h e r the c l u s t e r l e v e l s or the number r a t i n g s of the 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 o f these k i n d s o f behaviours i n good and poor t h e r a p e u t i c s e s s i o n s . A major s t e p i n t h i s k i n d o f r e s e a r c h i s t o l i n k i n - s e s s i o n p r o c e s s w i t h therapy outcome. T h i s work has a l r e a d y begun w i t h the Johnson & Greenberg (1988) study. F u r t h e r work i n t h i s area would be q u i t e i l l u m i n a t i n g . 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 term r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of  Marriage and the Family. 45(3), 481-493. Benjamin, L. S. (1974). 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 b e h a v i o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 81(5), 392-425. Benjamin, L. S., F o s t e r , S. W., Roberto, L. G. & E s t r o f f , S. E. (1986). Breaking the f a m i l y code: A n a l y s i s of v i d e o t a p e s of 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 a n a l y s i s of s o c i a l b e h a v i o r (SASB). In L. S. Greenberg & 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, (pp.391-438), New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Berman, E. M., & L i e f , H. I. (1975). M a r i t a l therapy from a p s y c h i a t r i c p e r s p e c t i v e : An overview. American J o u r n a l  of P s y c h i a t r y . 132, 583-592. B i l l i n g s , A. B. (1979). 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 married 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 Psychology. 47. 368-376. Bradbury, T., & Fincham, F. D. (1987). Assessment of a f f e c t . In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.) Assessment o f m a r i t a l  d i s c o r d . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Buber, M. (1957). D i s t a n c e and r e l a t i o n . P s y c h i a t r y . 20, 97-104. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of s e l f esteem. San F r a n c i s c o : W. H. Freeman. Cotton, N. S. (1983). The development o f s e l f esteem and s e l f esteem r e g u l a t i o n . In J . Mack & S. L. Ablon (Eds.), The development and sustenance of s e l f esteem  i n c h i l d h o o d (pp. 122-150). New York: 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 P r e s s . Deutsch, M. (1969). C o n f l i c t s : P r o d u c t i v e and d e s t r u c t i v e . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l I ssues. 25(1), 7-41. Doherty, W. J . (1982). 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. Fincham, F., & O'Leary, T. (1982). A f f e c t i n the 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 therapy? Paper 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 Frey, J . , H o l l e y , J . , & L'Abate, L. (1979). Intimacy 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 c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n models. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and Family  Therapy. 5, 35-41. Friedman, M. (1958). E x i s t e n c e , a new dimension i n p s y c h i a t r y and psychology. New York: B a s i c Books. Friedman, M. (1976). H e a l i n g through meeting. In J.H. Smith (Ed.) P s y c h i a t r y and the humanities (191-233), 1, New Haven: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . G e n d l i n , E. J . (1981). Focusing. New York: Bantam Books. G l a s s , G. V., & G l a s s , K. D. (1984). S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n  e d u c a t i o n and psychology. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . G l i c k , B., & Gross, S. (1975). M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n and m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t : A c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of c u r r e n t 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 of Marriage and the  Family. 37. 505-512. Goldman, A. (1987). The d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of e m o t i o n a l l y  focused m a r i t a l therapy and a system i n t e r a c t i o n a l  m a r i t a l therapy. Unpublished 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 of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Gottman, John (1979). M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J . (1982). Emotional 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 of Communication. 32(3) . 108-120. Gottman, J . M., & Levenson, R. W. (1985). A v a l i d procedure f o r o b t a i n i n g s e l f - r e p o r t o f a f f e c t i n m a r i t a l 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  Psychology. 53(2), 151-160. Gottman, J . , & Levenson, R. W. (1986). A s s e s s i n g the r o l e of emotion i n marriage. B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. 8, 31-48. Gottman, J . , Markman, H., & N o t a r i u s , C. (1977). 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 of v e r b a l and nonverbal b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of Marriage  and the Family. 49, 461-477. Greenberg, L. S. (1984). A t a s k a n a l y s i s of 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 . In L. R i c e & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), P a t t e r n s of change (pp. 67-123). New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . 96 Greenberg, L. S. (1986). Change process r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of  C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 54(1), 4-9. Greenberg, L., & Johnson, S. (1986a). E m o t i o n a l l y focused couples therapy. In. N. Jacobson, & A. Gurman (Eds.), C l i n i c a l handbook of m a r i t a l therapy (pp. 253-279). New York: The G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Greenberg, L. S., & Johnson, S. M. (1986b). A f f e c t i n m a r i t a l therapy. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and Family  Therapy. 12(1), 1-10. Greenberg, L. S., & S a f r a n , J . D. (1984a). Hot c o g n i t i o n s : Emotion coming i n from the c o l d . C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research, 8, 591-598. Greenberg, L. S., & S a f r a n , J . D. (1984b). 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 change. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research. 8, 559-578. Greenberg, L. S., & S a f r a n , J . D. (1987). Emotion i n  Psychotherapy. New York: The G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Guerin, P. J . (1982). The stages of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . The  Family. 10(1), 15-26. Gurman, A. S., K n i s k e r n , D. P., & P i n s o f , W. M. (1986). Research on the process and outcome of m a r i t a l and f a m i l y therapy. In S. G a r f i e l d and A. B e r g i n (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and b e h a v i o r change (pp. 565-626). New York: Wiley. Hahlweg, K., S c h i n d l e r , L., Revenstorf, D., & Brengelmann, J . (1984). The Munich m a r i t a l therapy study. In K. Hahlweg, & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), 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. 159-198). New York: The G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Horowitz, L. M. (1979). On the c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e of 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 of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47., 5-15. Jacobson, N. S. (1977). Problem s o l v i n g and contingency 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 of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 45, 95-100. Jacobson, N. S. (1983). 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 therapy. In 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 therapy (pp. 74-98). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Jacobson, N. S. & M a r g o l i n , G. (1979). M a r i t a l therapy. New York: Brunner/Mozel. James, W. (1890, 1950). The p r i n c i p l e s o f psychology. New York: Dover. James, P. (1989). A communication 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 focused couples therapy. Unpublished 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, Vancouver, B. C. Johnson, S. & Greenberg, L. S. (1985). D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f experimental 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 of C o n s u l t i n g and  C l i n i c a l Psychology. 53(1), 275-284. Johnson, S. & Greenberg, L. S. (1988). R e l a t i n g Process t o outcome i n m a r i t a l therapy. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and  Family Therapy. 14(2), 175-183. Kahn, M. (1970). Nonverbal communication and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . Family Process. 9, 449-456. K e l l e y , H. H. (1979). P e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : T h e i r 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 , NJ: Erlbaum. K l e i n , M. H. Mathieu, P. L., G e n d l i n , E. T., & K i e s l e r , D. J . (1969). 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), Madison: U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin E x t e n s i o n Bureau of 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). K l e i n , M. H., Mathieu-Couglan, P., & K i e s l e r , D. J . (1986). The e x p e r i e n c i n g s c a l e s . In L. S. Greenberg & 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 (pp. 21-71). New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Knudson, R. M., Sommers, A. A., & Golding, S. L. (1980). 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 of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology. 38(5), 751-763. Kohut, H. (1971). The a n a l y s i s o f the s e l f . New York: 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 P r e s s . 98 Koren, P., C a r l t o n , K., & Shaw, D. (1980). 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 , outcomes and 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  Psychology. 48.(4), 460-468. L'Abate, L., & L'Abate, B. L. (1979). Family therapy. 6(3), 175-184. La i n g , R.D. (1961). S e l f and o t h e r s . London: T a v i s t o c k P u b l i c a t i o n s . L a i n g , R., P h i l l i p s o n , H., & L e e l , A. (1966). I n t e r p e r s o n a l  p e r c e p t i o n . New York: Harper and Row. Leary, T. (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 p e r s o n a l i t y . New York: The Ronald Press. L e v e n t h a l , Howard (1979). A perceptual-motor p r o c e s s i n g model of emotion. In 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 the study of communication  and a f f e c t (pp. 1-45). New York: Plenum P r e s s . Locke, H. J . , & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short m a r i t a l adjustment 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 . Marriage and Family L i v i n g . 21, 251-255. M a r a s c u i l o , L. A., & McSweeney, M. (1978). Nonparametric and d i s t r i b u t i o n - f r e e methods f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. M a r g o l i n , G., & Weinstein, C. D. (1983). 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 therapy. In L. R. Wolberg & M. C. Aronson (Eds.), Group and f a m i l y therapy (pp. 334-355). New York: Brunner/Mazel. O r l i n s k y , D. E., & Howard, K. I. (1967). The good therapy hour. A r c h i v e s of General 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. (1975). V a r i e t i e s o f  p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c experience. New York: Teachers C o l l e g e P r e s s . Perlman, D a n i e l & Fehr B e v e r l y (1986). The development of i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , from D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p s (pp. 13-41). Newbury Park: Sage. P e r l m u t t e r , M. S., & H a t f i e l d , E. (1980). Intimacy, i n t e n t i o n a l metacommunication and second o r d e r change. American J o u r n a l of Family Therapy. 8(1), 17-23. 99 P e r l s , F., H e f f e r l i n e , R., & Goodman, P. (1951). G e s t a l t  therapy. New York: J u l i a n P r e s s . Peterson, D. R. (1983). C o n f l i c t . In 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. Harvey, T. L Huston, G. L e v i n g e r , E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), C l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p (pp. 360-396). New York: W. H. Freeman. P l y s i u k , M. (1983). A p r o c e s s study of 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 of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A. H e r t e l , R. A., & Swain, M.A. (1974). Communication c o n f l i c t and marriage. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y Bass. Revenstorf, D., Hahlweg, K., S c h i n d l e r , L., & Vogel, B. (1984). I n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . In K. Hahlweg & Jacobson (Eds.), M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n (pp. 159-181). New York: The G u i l f o r d P r e s s . R i c e , L. N., & Greenberg, L. S. (1974). A method f o r s t u d y i n g the a c t i v e i n g r e d i e n t s 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 therapy. Paper presented a t a meeting of the S o c i e t y f o r Psychotherapy Research, Denver, CO. R i c e , L. N., & Greenberg, L. S. (1984). P a t t e r n s o f change:  I n t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s of psychotherapy p r o c e s s . New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . S a t i r , V. (1967). C o n j o i n t f a m i l y therapy. P a l o A l t o , CA: S c i e n c e & Behavior Books. Schaap, C. (1984). A comparison of the 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 married couples 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 . In K. Hahlweg & N. Jacobson (Eds.), M a r i t a l  i n t e r a c t i o n (pp. 133-158). New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Segraves, R. T. (1982). M a r i t a l therapy. New York: Plenum M e d i c a l Book. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring d y a d i c adjustment. J o u r n a l  o f Marriage and the Family. 38, 15-28. Sullaway, M., & C h r i s t e n s e n , A. (1983). Assessment of d y s f u n c t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s i n c o u p l e s . J o u r n a l  of Marriage and the Family. 45(3), 653-660. 100 Swensen J r . , C. H. (1973). 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 . Glenview, IL: S c o t t , Foresman & Co. T o l s t e d t , B. E., & Stokes, J . P. (1983). R e l a t i o n of 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 . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 30(4), 573-580. Truax, C. B. & M i t c h e l l , K. M. (1971). Research on c e r t a i n t h e r a p i s t i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s i n r e l a t i o n t o process and outcome. In A. E. B e r g i n & S. L. G a r f i e l d (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and b e h a v i o r change: An  e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s (pp. 299-344). New York: Wiley. Vaughn, P. (1986). The impact of e m o t i o n a l l y focused couples  therapy on m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Unpublished masters t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B. C. Waring, E. M., & Chelune, G. J . (1983). 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 of C l i n i c a l Psychology. 3_9, 183-190. Webster. M i c h a e l C. (1981). 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 process t o outcome. An unpublished 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 of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B. C. Wile, D. (1981). Couples therapy: A n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l  approach. New York: Wiley & Sons. 7M. • M f w kwfv awtf • * mo ««Hh «Ma or saw "mmm tMfw" to s » mm 0, JW. 1 WOf% Of It off <Vo*» O; * • » * » ' • Ivor. OOOOVt 774 I * « H t t to w*m o • m • * 4MV tn •wono*, I M M M I M I 111. • •*•?•»»». OAfrr* * fo* OMyeMMQ. 8 esss^ • • torn «be«ft 0 . 1 nr. t.< O a m. l | M M i i k i n i m i a t i i f » f S#rMM*v. KM^uKv r**MTC IO H I aaMxt m> <aa ««Vo> NW. I I ' M i » • fM. (»fWMMl«l'«».l»iM<iM«wltAirOlt f t l 1 1 o i w a . M > . a n . i w W M i l O JJ7 • b « # l » , twvfwKv. »»*mi»y«f »o I»I O i n 773 t « M < ffcff«Pf1 t'Ofn 0 protest*. M Ml 10 (W'iwyf Kim o* 714 r •*•»©• O t . - « rfowM* • •won. 1 «o*i o> * > • » • t o * * w«th t » • e ow* d O'ltfrttopi »»»•. * b m i t n > * k i « w t w t«o> 73* (wt*«»t i rM to 0 -*»*t * » W th.n»» 0 » —r. but | M « l and 71« f l o w J i t 1 treo) hr 4mf tmm*U » • * « • " * » O M M hM at IM» 1 7 U . t W M M how or hargslf ffcarty t» • i » n and 31 J. yf« ! . * s o » v «*rJ w r owm 0 712 t ratoaoa, 1* * • » . M t s n . '•»*• v w n r t i ' M too** wtih 0 311 I x i f f N l w . e*rr*««. roviwt. o x * i » w d to b* «•»«* O 710 8 »ov*«»v. •« »»"»f»». *a»y * 0 P P « l 'WP««Ol <M O •»•««•»•» 241. l l W l M y . h, apaWv Stan orovnrf and kewpe -n tour* wit* 0 347 fl ******. ci >w*toti*yi w w w 0"» h**D c w w y w n 747. • c*> m " Mitt mm* M t d tK*Mf | M M * 1 748 t*m Ht, I M A M , dm N . wrfm M or ••W (»•»«»*• 0m f i l l . 7*0. 738 8 t*i I m • »*o*>rj M c I 0 ' * *k»** , m w d j ' d * , H > M 9tm abowt » w »». • «* 0* * *Bt wo. ht*t>*i« mm o* *» • • * •TV tfOM i r tMt f i O • own. 743 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 744 S«HitH*yv * t « * o * i, for 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 * W « 3> X3 TD a. i—>. x 3» 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 outer ring shows 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 Psychi-atric 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 C E x p e r i e n c i n g S c a l e Stage Content 1 E x t e r n a l events; r e f u s e t o p a r t i c i p a t e 2 E x t e r n a l events, b e h a v i o r a l or i n t e l l e c t u a l s e l f -d e s c r i p t i o n 3 P e r s o n a l r e a c t i o n s t o ex-t e r n a l events; l i m i t e d s e l f -d e s c r i p t i o n s ; b e h a v i o r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s or f e e l i n g s 4 D e s c r i p t i o n s of f e e l i n g s and p e r s o n a l experiences 5 Problems or p r o p o s i t i o n s about f e e l i n g s and p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s 6 S y n t h e s i s of r e a d i l y a c c e s s -i b l e f e e l i n g s and experiences t o r e s o l v e p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i s s u e s 7 F u l l , easy p r e s e n t a t i o n of e x p e r i e n c i n g ; a l l elements c o n f i d a n t l y i n t e g r a t e d Treatment Impersonal, detached I n t e r e s t e d , p e r s o n a l s e l f - p a r t i c i p a t i o n R e a c t i v e , emotion-a l l y i n v o l v e d S e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e a s s o c i a t i v e E x p l o r a t o r y , e l a b o r a t i v e , h y p o t h e t i c a l F e e l i n g s v i v i d l y expressed, i n t e -g r a t i v e , c o n c l u -s i v e or a f f i r m a t i v e Expansive, i l l u m i n -a t i n g , c o n f i d e n t , buoyant 104 Appendix D Couples Post S e s s i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e COUPLE NO. SESSION NO. 1. B r i e f l y d e s c r i b e the i s s u e you and your p a r t n e r worked on i n the s e s s i o n today. 2. Was t h i s the same or r e l a t e d t o the i s s u e which you brought i n t o c o u n s e l l i n g ? Please c i r c l e one of the f o l l o w i n g . Very d i f f e r e n t D i f f e r e n t R e l a t e d S i m i l a r Same 1 2 3 4 5 3. How much pro g r e s s do you f e e l you and your 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 the s e s s i o n you have j u s t completed? Please c i r c l e one of the f o l l o w i n g . A g r e a t d e a l o f C o n s i d e r a b l e Moderate Some No pro g r e s s Progress Progress 1 2 3 4 5 4. Are you and your p a r t n e r any c l o s e r t o r e s o l v i n g your r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s u e s than you were when you came t o the s e s s i o n today? Please c i r c l e one of the f o l l o w i n g . Very much C o n s i d e r a b l y Moderately Somewhat Not a t a l l 1 2 3 4 5 5. I f you f e e l t h a t change has o c c u r r e d i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p d u r i n g the s e s s i o n can you d e s c r i b e the change and a l s o suggest what might have l e a d t o the change? 6. Apart from these s e s s i o n s has an y t h i n g happened d u r i n g the l a s t week which may have c r e a t e d some change i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p ? I f so, can you d e s c r i b e what happened? 7. How r e s o l v e d do you f e e l r i g h t now i n r e g a r d t o the concerns you brought i n t o c o u n s e l l i n g ? P l e a s e p l a c e a t i c k i n the a p p r o p r i a t e box. T o t a l l y r e s o l v e d 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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054173/manifest

Comment

Related Items