UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Perceived change processes in an affective systemic couples therapy James, Paul Sowden 1984-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


UBC_1984_A8 J35.pdf [ 6.31MB ]
JSON: 1.0054217.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054217+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054217.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054217+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054217+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054217+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054217 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

PERCEIVED  CHANGE  PROCESSES  IN  AN A F F E C T I V E  SYSTEMIC  COUPLES  THERAPY  by PAUL B.A.,  A THESIS THE  SOWDEN  MCMASTER  SUBMITTED  JAMES  UNIVERSITY,  IN  REQUIREMENTS  PARTIAL FOR  THE  1975  FULFILMENT DEGREE  OF  OF  M.A.  in THE  F A C U L T Y OF  Department  We a c c e p t to  THE  GRADUATE  of C o u n s e l l i n g - P s y c h o l o g y  this  the  thesis  required  UNIVERSITY  OF  B.A.,  Paul  McMaster  as  conforming  standard  BRITISH  September ©  STUDIES  COLUMBIA  1984  Sowden  James  University,  1975,  *© 1984  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be granted by the head o f  department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department o f  C o u n s e l 1 i ng-P,syp,hnl n g y  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  (3/81)  or-.t.nrw-  a  IQR  4  written  i i  Abstract  This  study  categories  of  affective  was  couples  systemic  perspective,  and  theoretical  these  processes.  vis  a  a  model  of  change  21  couples  brief  w a i t - l i s t  change  component  Analysis  means  of  a  of  to  who  These  is  Johnson's in  light  the  incidents of  significant  treatment were  methodology, Latent  of  c r i t i c a l  perspective  incidents  called  (in  the  c r i t i c a l  couples  categorization which  couples  experienced  systemic  group.  the  the  derived  integrated  technique,  from  had  an  processes  collect  events  affective  control  analytic  vis  a  then  the  data  Partition  (LPA).  The  five  processes  empirically  that  experiencing  emerged  derived  from  LPA  leads  to  change  disclosure  of  feelings  (2)  the  (4)  taking  validation. study, to  and  of  by  needs  Greenberg  used  analyzed  this  refine  was  in  in  from  technique,  of  empirically  treatment  descriptive  partner  change  processes  and  descriptions  each  change  discover  exploratory  incident or  to  couples  to  press)  An  designed  be  responsibility Given these tested  the  in  for  were  using  named  of  and  change  (1)  interpersonal  emotional perceptions,  needs,  (3)  understanding,  experience,  and  (5)  exploratory  processes  categories  and  constitute  appropriate  descriptive an  i n i t i a l  methods  of  nature model  of that  verification. Of f i r s t  the  five  empirically  change  process,  that  emotional  report  modified  their to  other  processes,  discussed  in  constitute new  be  change (in  the  that  in  produce  a  that  of  most the  partners  in  their  processes, often  their  partners,  f i r s t  process  i t  an  would  also  change  interview  perceived  the  is  seem  process  change;  the  five  empirically  compared  with  Greenberg  revised  theoretical  of  support  change  model.  possible  expression  couples  model  to  questionnaire,  lent  to  the  the  not  as  change,  theoretical  seem  unlike  in  were  clients  would  Because,  change  the  partners  compelling.  interesting  Finally,  processes  press)  indicates  l i t e r a t u r e ,  most  important  emotion  the  the  knowledge.  indicates to  be  change  experiencing  perception  c l i n i c a l l y four  which  derived  of  feelings  role  of  derived  and  processes  which  Johnson's in  order  to  iv  Table of Contents  Abstract Table  of  i i Contents  List  of  Tables  List  of  Figures  List  of  Appendices  iv v i i v i i i ix  Acknowledgement  x  Introduction  1  Literature  7  Review  Methodology  25  Subjects  25  Treatment  28  Method  of  Data  C o l l e c t i o n : The  C r i t i c a l  Incident  Technique  32  Procedures  34  The  interviewers..  Method  of  recording  The  telephone  The  interview  The  transcribed  Interviewer Method  of  The  Data F-sort  34 the  data  contact  34 35 36  incidents  consistency  Analysis: '  Categorization  39 39 Methodology..41 42  V  Simplification Latent  of  the  partition  The  sorters  The  sorting  c r i t i c a l  incidents  43  analysis  45 47  experiment..  48  Results The  50 Manifest  Selection The  Phi  The  Omega  Categorizations  of  the  Matrix  of  Latent  Latent  Five of  the  in  of  Latent  Latent  Five  50 57  Categories  60  Categories  one:  emotional  interpersonal  category  Categories  Categories  Latent  Latent  category  change  and  of  Matrix  Description  to  Number  50  two:  the  62 experiencing  leads  perceptions  disclosure  of  63 feelings  needs  77  Latent  category  three:  Latent  category  four:  understanding taking  84  responsibility  for  experience Latent Results Summary  and  of  92  category the  five:  Interview  validation  99  Questionnaire  104  Discussion  107  Summary The  107  Theoretical  Interpretation Empirical  Model of  the  108 Latent  Categories  Found  in  Analysis  Latent  category  the 117  one:  emotional  experiencing  leads  vi  to  change  Latent and  in  interpersonal  category  two:  the  perceptions  disclosure  of  117 feelings  needs  119  Latent  category  three:  Latent  category  four:  understanding taking  responsibility  experience Latent  Limitations  for 122  category  Interpretation  121  of  and  General izabi l i t y  five:  the  Future  validation  Interview  Questionnaire  Recommendations..  123 124 ...126 130  References  132  Appendices  136  v i i  List  I.  Group on  Total  the  Dyadic  II.  Phi  Matrix  III.  Omega  IV.  Summary Latent  V.  The  Pre  of  Matrix of  and  Means  and  Adjustment  Scale  (DAS)  27  Categories  57  of  Latent  Five T i t l e s  Categories  Revised  Tables  Post  Five  the  of  Model  Latent and  Standard  Deviations  Categories  Expanded  T i t l e s  61 of  the  Five 109 118  v i i i  L i s t of F i g u r e s  1.  Plot 55  of  Eigenvalues  for  the  First  14  Latent  Categories.  ix  List  A.  B.  Individual  and  Adjustment  Scale  The  Interview  of Appendices  Couple  Pre  (DAS)  and  Post  Total  Dyadic  Scores  136  Guide  138  Section  A  1 38  Section  B  138  Section  C  139  C.  The  F-Sort  D.  Example  of  Directions a  Corresponding  140  Full-Length Form  as  The  full-length  The  simplified  E-1.  Phi  Matrix  of  Four  E-2.  Phi  Matrix  of  Six  E-3.  Phi  Matrix  of  Seven  a  C r i t i c a l Simplified  incident incident  Latent Latent  Incident Incident  (A—Male (A—Male  Categories Categories  Latent  Categories  42) 42)  and  its 143 143 146 147 149 151  X  Acknowledgements  I would  like  extraordinary of for  this  t o thank  h e l p from  thesis  through  (a) D r .  the c r e a t i v e  that  respect  thesis),  his  support  analysis  with  (i.e.,  John F r i e s e n  this  Latent P a r t i t i o n John Banmen  s e r v e on my t h e s i s  committee.  Finally,  like  Shirlie,  who,  s u p p o r t s me "space".  I enjoy  respect to this  and D r .  I would  (e.g.,  my a n x i e t y w i t h  (b) D r .  Bob C o n r y f o r  s t u d y ' s method o f d a t a Analysis), for their  t o a c k n o w l e d g e my  i n a manner t h a t  i n my l i f e ,  s t a g e s , and a l s o  and e n c o u r a g e m e n t  suggesting with a chuckle  for his  conceptualizing stages  the w r i t i n g / e d i t i n g  much p e r s o n a l s u p p o r t  to producing  Les Greenberg  and ( c ) D r . willingness to  lovely  i s characteristic  wife,  o f how she  p r o v i d e d me w i t h much n u r t u r e a n d  1  Introduction  There profound  is  impact  well-being. disruption incidence physical marital other help For  both  On is  of  the  a  one  and  there  people  negatively hand,  psychiatric  separation  hand,  Rosow  the  positively  is  with  that  with  a  found  persons's  accidents, or  after  1978).  On  the  relationships  transitions  that  marital  greater  healthy and  that  during  & White,  a  human  vehicle  occurring  Asher,  has  a  has  on  evidence  motor  stresses  (1967)  marriage  positively  stressor  evidence  to  and  there  alcoholism  is  that  admission,  (Bloom,  adjust  example,  evidence  significant  illness  correlates the  considerable  depth  of  a b i l i t y  to  of  l i f e .  intimacy adapt  over  lifespan. Because  currently  of  one  the  marriage  Nagnur,  S t a t i s t i c s  further  knowledge  to  and  tend  impact  care  in  of  marriage,  three  Canada,  ends  1981), of  i t  in  the  field  for  the  institution  in  and  divorce  would  marital of  because  seem  (Adams  &  important  counselling  marriage  so  to as  more  effectively. There field is  of  are  marital  concerned  effectiveness change  two  with of  occurred).  branches  of  counselling. furthering marital The  research The  f i r s t ,  knowledge  counselling  second,  that  process  pertain  outcome  concerning  (i.e.,  the  research, the  whether  research,  to  is  or  not  2  concerned events  with  that  furthering  occur  in  knowledge  counselling  concerning  (i.e.,  how  the  actual  change  occurred). While or  not  it  is  v i t a l  to  these of  how  couples  in  a  global  effective, of  how  sense  once  whether  this  couples  is  this  knowledge  interventions  that  f a c i l i t a t e  this  outcome  occurrence.  knowledge, is  knowledge  it  concerning  or it  let  would  is change  l i t t l e  produced  Therefore,  known,  change  with  Without  Greenberg  approach and  integrated a  purpose  concerning  particular  that  and  empirically  of  have  is  alone  how  seem  couples  goals.  in  is  emerged  have  change  in  (in found  press)  that  This  its  tested  an  since  is  approach  in  increasing  intimacy,  in  f a c i l i t a t i n g the  1981.  this  effective  f a c i l i t a t i n g  authors,  integrative  be  in  a  approach  literature  have  to  to  and  i t  the  further  designated  approach.  in  to  relation  counselling  press),  systemic  and  complaints,  relationship  thesis  change  couples (in  Greenberg and  this  affectively oriented  have  adjustment  target  to  Johnson  number  of  couples  affective  approaches  in  the  further  general  knowledge  marital  is  because  particular  its  know  knowledge  processes  a  to  to  counselling.  The  Johnson  a  specify  expedite  of  have  processes.  important  one  to  to  valuable  counselling  change  possible  known  is  marital  couples  via  i t  improvement  attainment  of  3  The  role  important Authors  of  issue  such  in  as  suggest  is  issue  of  to  the  tended study the  be  current  that  (1980)  the  the  role  current  issue  of  and  of  decade,  the  role  of  emotion  central  is  currently  providing  effectiveness Johnson  oriented that  is  concerning  integrative based  empirical  on  empirically affective is  theory  is  there  couples  systemic to  guide  counselling, there  role  of  cognition  limiting  approach is  in  highly  research  Gurman  of  on  therapies  is  observations  which  couples  its  the  change  this  relevant.  & Kniskern,  However,  couples  marital  c l i n i c a l  change  evidence  press). how  the  change  1981;  current  in  state  affectively  limited  rather  than  to  theory  on  investigation.  Therefore,  it  in  1978;  an  O'Leary  therapeutic  systemic  outcome  empirical  (Jacobson,  & Greenberg,  knowledge  some  and  Therefore,  to  as  l i t e r a t u r e .  in  as  70s.  affective  recognized  Fincham  affect  integrated is  is  psychotherapy  an  counselling  if  counselling  to  There  of  in  Mahoney  (1982) the  affect  is  change  our  an  evident  investigation.  need  processes  in  to  In  research  stand  pertaining  evident  approach.  must  also  an  the  this  need  to  an  addition,  and  test  to  of  practice  integrated because of  empirical  refine  approach  investigate  by  theory,  couples investigation,  c l i n i c a l l y  empirical  based  4  This  study's  general  couples  change  w i l l  accomplished  be  in  objective  is  processes  from  objective  is  theoretical change that is  to  an  to  of  Because  couples  change  research  design  categories method (the  of  data  Partition substant  a  data  c r i t i c a l  rationale  a  new  used  in  data  of  other and  of  relation and  to  change  technique,  Analysis),  and  the  (c)  in  (b)  of  (Borg  i t  is  that  &  Gall,  of  The  type  of  objective, design. objective  via  from  describing  is  important  a  this  (a)  called  empirical data  via  methodology  called these  are  method  identifying  is  these  of  categorization which  of  knowledge  processes  this  events  press)  objective  nature.  this  processes  called  component  basic  in  (in  light  exploratory  couples  change  f i r s t  research,  involved  analysis  the  explanation of  approach  second  purposes  exploratory  change  the  the  of  f i r s t  couples  in  the  steps  couples  analytic  ively.  the  descriptive  incident  of  provides  area  be  The  Johnson's  for  investigation  procedural  collecting the  is  and  processes  control,  description  therefore, The  is  of  knowledge  systemic  objectives.  perspective;  realizing  the  furthering  affective  Greenberg  The  for  of  description  description  1983).  this  a  change  science--prediction,  that  two  couple's  processes.  necessary  via  refine  model  accurate  integrated  obtain the  purpose  Latent  categories  a  5  The and  second  Johnson's  processes, to  inform  of  task  (in  model  their  empirical  of  the  model  change  idea  of  from  of  using the  refining  couples  order  to  of  Greenberg  couples  empirical  This  change  objective  processes  derived  from  refine,  modify,  change  investigation  rational-empirical  1984).  processes  in  study,  methods involves  with  this  the  study's  or  c l a r i f y  model. objectives  significance. categories affective  of  the  On  a  model  to  theory  construction.  change  processes,  change  processes  order  model,  to  have  the  that  And,  of  change  couples  systemic  contribute  the  example,  be  and to  this  a  this  an a  research  i n i t i a l  of  to  have  more  other for  of methods the  empirical  empirical  refined  and  derived  model  using  integrated  approach  approach  empirically  tested  level,  in  development  integrated  empirical  an  derived  refined  in  contribute  and  an  generalizability  practical  approach in  to  and  the  constitute  needs  in  change to  p r a c t i c a l  empirically  processes  contribute  processes  change to  a  level,  couples  For  t h e o r e t i c a l and  approach  v a l i d i t y  on  couples  couples  how  potential  research.  both  change  which  claim  of  couples of  potential  are  theoretical  couples  systemic  theoretical  how  this  (Greenberg,  analysis  These  in  of  t h e o r e t i c a l model  building  analysis  categories  have  press)  borrows  comparing  their  objective  categories  affective  t h e o r e t i c a l model the  potential  effective  couples  to  of  6  counselling.  7  Literature  As  indicated  knowledge  that  or  the  concerning  integrative ideas  in  marital  are  based  empirical  on  about  oriented  counselling  that  approaches  These  problem-centred counselling, predicated This ideas  on  (e)  chapter  of  w i l l  the  process  approaches,  (b)  the  change  Greenberg  affective  systemic  approaches, couples  and  change  (c) that  of  ideas and  the  new  (a)  (c)  (1981)  Gurman's  (1981)  (1983) of  couples  approach  ideas and  the  which  salient  change  the  shares  Greenberg  integrative  is  conflict.  Johnson's  approach  on  couples  Wile's  inclusive  couples about  change  five  (1982)  (b)  (1982)  marital  oriented  than  to  Pinsof's  is  identify  about  that  (d)  of  1981.  approach,  Guerin's  stages  approaches  approach,  which  couples  underlie  Feldman's  therapy,  state  theoretical  rather  are  (a)  to  of  since  therapy  and  process  ideas  current  a f f e c t i v e l y  emerged  systems  marital  in  observations  interpersonal-intrapsychic  integrative  the  limited  integrative  have  oriented  is  the  c l i n i c a l  affectively  individual  change  therapies  observation.  These  introduction,  couples  assumptions  Review  in  process (in in  about  these of  press)  common the  Johnson  theoretical  couples integrative  with process  these of  contribute.  8  The change  f i r s t  in  the  intrapsychic  salient five  and  the  (1981)  when  states  that  an  a r t i f i c i a l  relationship A change  dichotomy  in  five  the  psychotherapeutic change.  While  (1983)  emphasize  psychological  change  third in  focus  identifies states  this  couples  on  idea  both  the  of  change.  most  clearly  therapy  does  individual  not  change  set and  about is  orientations (1981),  e x p l i c i t l y ,  (1981)  is  that  the  integration  in  order  and  on  for  to  more  couples of  bring  various  about  and  Pinsof  implicitly, and  the  multiple  leads  of  (1982),  systemic,  rationale  change  to  Guerin  integrates  A  experience  process  Feldman  psychodynamic, Wile  the  the  behavioral  psychodynamic the  and  integration  levels  of  of  effective  outcomes  1981).  the  interactional the  emphasis  marital  approaches  orientations.  orientations  A  of  dimensions  between  idea  Gurman  of  orientations,  (Gurman,  process  change. salient  systemic  an  articulates  effective  second  integration  is  the  interpersonal  Gurman  up  about  approaches  Perhaps he  idea  of  salient five  (i.e.,  about  approaches  cycles change.  three  idea  involving Wile  universal  withdrawn,  demanding-withdrawn),  the  the  is  an  the  (1981,  process  common  couples  emphasis  on  conflictual  dimension  of  intimacy  p.  80),  c o n f l i c t u a l  mutually  of  for  example,  patterns  or  couple  accusing, effect  of  which  is  as  9  alienation (1981,  p.  (i.e., 68)  offer  intervenes  to  serves They  the  of  of  a  five-step  in  sequence.  interpersonal  intimacy  than  However,  the  cycles  of  change in  Perhaps  in  order  increase  Guerin  and  because  do  Wile,  focus  of  Feldman  (1981)  assessment  issues  salient  in  five  change.  assumption  that  expression  of  of  or  idea  Wile  terms  his  well  and  this  as  with the  less the  and  Gurman's  power  the  concern  places  Pinsof,  a  on  in  involving  in  of  emphasis issue  of  Guerin.  approach  is  control,  closeness-distance. about  approaches  is  (1981,  symptomatic  the  and  in  as  the  (1982)  position of  which  relationships.  intervenes  dimension  Gurman  c o n f l i c t in  synchrony  with  problem  intimacy to  of  he  together  a  marital  interactional cycles  fourth  couples  (1979),  couple's  intrapersonal  involving  the  a  Wile  intervention,  identify  sequence,  independence-dependence, A  1982),  regulating  dimension,  c o n f l i c t u a l  conflicts  Feldman  pursuer-distanc'er  the  for  relationships.  assessment  emphasizing  on  of  Because  c o n f l i c t u a l patterns  nonproductive  interactional an  intimacy).  these  them.  these  intimacy  five-step basis  in  of  p o s s i b i l i t y  of  function  identifies  that  & Pinsof,  cycle  intervene  level  the  change  (Feldman  maintenance  absence  believes  alienation  Pinsof  an  the  process  of  the  primary  role  p.  85),  behavior  deprivation  of  in  who  begins  couples  legitimate  couples  is  needs,  of  emotion  with an  the  10  interprets  the  behavior  understandable  underlying  intervention, important by  each  the  one  express  Wile  helps  feelings  other.  alienation  basic  by  Underlying affective of  the  each  emotion  in  emotions  steps  hypothesizes  emotion  modified.  In  how  of  called  asserts  the  step  and  implementation,  the  emotional  in  power  and  emotional  responses  have  of  Through  and  feelings p.  a  112)  to  this  express  acknowledged thinks  couples to  these  the  that  the  reduces  accept  to  and  feelings  eight  Pinsof's  primary in  the  that  of  with  problem  the  emotional  four, "the  w i l l  genuineness block  In  solution  may  give and/or  the  is  step  expressed  core  theory as  three, the  process, needs  and to  be  identification  label the  a  maladaptive  process  solution  therapist  approach.  function  identifies  response  adaptive  that  that  the  his  steps  emotions  therapist  approach  f a c i l i t a t i o n  problem-solving.  and  in  four  "action human  (1983)  role  these  emotions  response  affective  to  in  role  associated  accept  i n a b i l i t y  four  plays  adaptive  terms  needs.  distressed  and  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the  inhibited,  (1981,  emotion  factors  these  in  other.  figures  which  f a c i l i t a t i n g  Wile  feelings  assumption  emotion"  have  and to  partners'  assessment-intervention that  feelings  to  of  partners  partners  fact,  factor  emotion  indicates  both  characterizes  important  That  and  In  that  acknowledged  of  and  heighten  adaptive  suppress  adaptive  solution  the  solution"  11  (Pinsof,  p.  26).  Finally,  adaptive  solution  in  therapist  assumes  and  identifies  seven  catastrophic block  so  as  The  that  there  and  to  remove of  is  is  and  the  in  narcissistic  along  continuum)  of  spouses  dysfunctional  of  narcissistic  of  hurt)  and  using  dream  methods  the  proposes  process  varies  classification  of  the  couples  process  three.  that  of  Guerin  c l i n i c a l l y  of  partners  marital  severe  in  alienation. both  the  constitute  (1982)  the  approach (this  the  character  he  hypothesizes  c o n f l i c t .  conscious (and  of  this  of  with  in  term  structure  Feldman  awareness  does  of  this  feelings  particular,  emotional  in  risk  is  feelings  awareness  being  his  of  the  most  that goal  training  vulnerable  to  Guerin  four-stage of  emotion in  couples He  lower  leads is  his  apparent  three  the  that  role  c o n f l i c t .  occupy  states  change  stage  stage  marital  Consequently, to  each  c o n f l i c t ,  stage  feeling  couples  change  c l a s s i f i e s  with  couples  progression  six  work.  Although (1982)  marital  spouse's  of  which  vulnerability the  that  the  steps  vulnerability  deficiency  the  in  respectively  Feldman's  or  heightening  and  the  i t .  weakness  by  of  successful,  block,  fears  a  engenders  not  a  denotes a  implementation  explores  emotion  reducing  the  four  expectations  role  involves  step  if  in  stage who  present  hypothesizes end  from  of  a  expectation  encourage  again.  He  one  does  to  or this  12  by  walking  through with  the  the  their  their  partners,  progression, anger  and  aspects  of  awareness  Gurman  the is  implicitly change.  self  gives  a  of  communication,  feelings  their  sessions,  getting  back  them  in  disappointment,  couples  Pinsof  often  these  change  role  of  the  and  more  include  role  of  and an  that  not  in  role  emotion  and  and  on  couples  to  (1978)  up touch  and  finally  these  the  emotion  part a  of  process.  to  emotion  Gurman  in  on  (1981),  I  the think  behavior  while their  a l l  these  approaches,  generally  secondary  approaches.  not  Wile  give mean  (1981)  a  primary  that takes  they an  in  disregard  Guerin,  However,  approaches does  metalevel  they  l i t t l e  are  the  e x p l i c i t l y  (and,  behavior  expression  negative  Whereas  very  the  change  that  from  he  role  include  behavior  their  of  of  couples  at  the  however,  behavior  uniformly.  in  that  primary  (1982)  blocked  process,  expression  give  and  change  are  states  cognition.  in  experiencing  relationships  focuses  and  the  that  behavior.  Feldman  (1981)  that  change  role  mean,  cognition  that  the  important  emotion  emotion  to  define  cognition  However,  of  the  approaches  Wile  concentrating  of  partner  cognition  i m p l i c i t l y ) ,  role  or  cognition  both  authors  thinks  to  does  (1983),  of  (1981)  Gurman  serves  is  That  to  hurt,  primary  Elsewhere,  feelings  the  eventually  fundamental  of  role  individual  expectations. Because  the  in  role view  to the  insight  13  approach to  to  emotion.  increase  He  couples'  interpretation.  view  emotion  of  emotion  Pinsof give  than  (1983)  the  (1982)  spouses  fully  of  predicated  on  an  emotion  the  solution  says  the  (1981)  more  on  of  affective  e x p l i c i t l y  in  and an  emotional  their  therapist's  underlying  objective  experience  most  the  interpretation  heightens  Feldman  of  Gurman  is  adaptive  that  awareness  through of  thinks  actual  response  terms  Because  in  and  of  an  order  to  because  dream-work they  (1982)  experiencing  emotion.  feelings,  is  feelings  Guerin's  power,  of  task  is  to  view  help  the  role  experiencing  of  emotion. Although intrapsychic they  give  couples place  and  are  for  of  i n i t i a l  position  by  the  reduction  vulnerability as  therapy  from  the of  of  the  self  spouses'  by  of  to  means  or  of  because of  fundamental change.  spouse's  the  partner's (1981, each  self  pp. partner's  motivational  Feldman of  of  more  c l a r i f y  each.  means  change,  process  a  the  and  feelings  by  the  Wile's  feelings  behavior  i n i t i a l l y  is  of  the  interpersonal  stresses  intervention  progresses  to  awareness.  the  in  assign  than  both  levels  emotion  change  example,  exploring  underlie  to  approaches  aspects  blocked  110-113)  that  role  these  (1981),  emphasize  interpersonal  intrapsychic  experiencing which  approaches  the  primary  change,  to  Gurman  a  these  meanings  (1982)  stresses  narcissistic  empathic  emotional  responding awareness  and  14  training  and  dream-work.  counselling  of  conflict  meeting  by  helping  them  couples  to  in  a  (1982)  stage  individually  deal  with  expectation-alienation identifies  Guerin  the  begins  three with  range  continuum.  his  level  each  of  marital  partner  of  feelings  along  And,  Pinsof  (1983)  and  heightens  the  adaptive  emotional  individuals  to  problems,  and  explores  individuals'  blocks  prevent  that  them  from  and  implementing  the  responses  of  inner  successful  solutions. Consistent to  intrapsychic  approaches theory while  not  concepts blocked of  also  than  advocates  use  with  to  their  to  give  more  dominant  a  other  use  selective collusion, of  view it  from  the  legitimate  needs  and  behavior.  In  and  fears,  Pinsof  ego  (1981)  ego  deprivations  their  the  roots  (1983)  experiencing in  his p.  view  in  follows  analysis  underlie  Gestalt  of  espouses order  emphasizes  catastrophic a  The  to  of  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and in  view,  selective  5)  analysis  that  (1981),  concepts.  (1981,  psychoanalytic  emphasizing  have  calls  Gurman  psychodynamic  largely  Wile  these  psychodynamic  example,  and  place  change,  to  psychodynamic  figure  he  role  particular  projection,  that  Wile's  that  For  concepts.  psychodynamics.  blocks  of  awareness  psychodynamic  distinguish  any  fundamental  interpersonal  theories.  a  psychodynamic  more  than  to  areas  a  change  subscribing  of  giving  the  symptomatic removal  expectations  view  of  of  a  15  psychodynamics. as  Because  narcissistic  anxiety,  and  vulnerability,  projective  psychoanalytic  view  is  stresses  a  Bowenian,  projection  and  Feldman  of  (1982)  narcissistic  identification, psychodynamics. the  uses  he  and  the  rage  and  leans  Guerin  psychodynamic  self-focus,  concepts--such  toward  a  (1982),  concepts  who  of  expectation-alienation  progression. However, is  more  although  fundamental  interpersonal dimension for  to  the  (1981,  p.  states  psychodynamic situation. dimension other  and  change  on  an  dimensions, Johnson's systemic  and  (b)  the  his  keeps  as  of  back  the  intrapsychic (1981),  individually  interaction.  analytic  leading  change  the  Gurman  leaving  marital  ego  form to  Wile  of  the  couple  intrapsychic  dimension  (in  the  in  is  implicit  in  the  following and  the  integrative  common  with  salient  these  ideas:  (a)  interpersonal  orientations  integrates (c)  press)  shares  intrapsychic  orientations),  the  of  well.  approach on  than  connect  between  integrating  approach  the  Johnson's  emphasis  both  to  dimension  dimension.  interpersonal  approaches  systemic  approaches  do  danger  connection  the  Greenberg affective  the  that  reasoning  The  three  they  unconnected  81)  approaches  interpersonal  discusses  work  intrapsychic  these  dimension,  example,  focused  in  the  (Greenberg  psychodynamic  conflictual  and  and the  interactional  cycles  16  involving  the  (although  in  cycles  Greenberg  pertain  also  pertain  role  of  the  dimension  shares  in  salient  to  ideas  Wile's  of  of  change,  indebted the  cycles  needs,  process  of  Johnson  process field  of  in  of  couples  conception  interaction environment,  of  the  and  the  the  they  primary stresses  press)  approaches  couples  their  change, to  an  (but  of  and  not  underlying  approach  other  shares  in  integration (b)  Johnson's  the  the  approach  (a)  approach  these  an  of  emphasis  behavior)  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  Wile's  on  in  the  conflictual  feelings  approach with  the  and  is  most  respect  to  change. theoretical  contribute  couples  These change  intrapsychic  (b)  (d)  approach  cognition  change.  of  their  terms  this  press)  dimension,  (in  orientations,  (c)  couples  (in  of  approach  Greenberg  given  other  Because  t h e o r e t i c a l l y to  However, and  and  change  conflictual  approach  Johnson's  process  and  and  of  emotion).  systemic  emotion  interactional legitimate  the  focus  intimacy  Johnson's  five  (1981)  and  and  and  the  evident.  psychodynamic  process  with  the  the  approach  dimension),  Greenberg  about  is  to  of  indebtedness  with  roles  power  as  Johnson's  (Greenberg  common  approaches  the  the  that  theoretical  common  and  experiencing  Given  intimacy  principally  emotion  actual  of  their  view  new  indebtedness, ideas  ideas that  pertain  an  to  emphasizes  dimension that  about  and  Greenberg the (a)  their  the  the  experiencing  of  17  emotion  is  essential  Greenberg couples focus  change  is  on  conception  is  what  environment  In  and  at as  form  based is  on  occurring contact  therapy,  which  between  experience  the  context,  that  and  pattern  of  the  change,  i t  level  of  which  organism  They  of  the and  delineate  the this  field  a  organize  a  or in  be  i t  a  by  particular changing by  partner's  most  occur  by  perception,  other  conception  more  change  Greenberg  and  the  and  can  changing position  likely  by  changing  reciprocally  fashion.  represents  assign  the  conception  in  change  people,  responses,  intrapsychic  which  than and  and an  emphasizes  interpersonal advance  fundamental to  the  place  change  that  couples  emotion  is  essential  view  follows:  for  the  the  to  is  change  Although  purely  conceptual  emotions  may  i n i t i a l l y  press)  to  the  other  the  in  of approaches  intrapsychic  view  of  the  experiencing  reframes  of  level.  occur.  helpful  interaction  dimensions  interpersonal (in  in  be  beyond  Johnson's  emotion  as  is  simultaneously  determining  both  between  therefore,  conditions  contact  this  field  therapy  boundary.  person's  Because  press)  Gestalt  one  both  (in  follows:  the  of  change.  Johnson's  the  couples  changing  for  They  of  role of  state  this  underlying  this  of  therapy  as  18  advanced  organizers  interventions, experiences change  is  They  of  this  is  change  emotion,  of of  that  because  in  primary  signalling  is  a  not  an  that  function  the  from  birth.  follows: and  also  vulnerability,  communicates  attack"  position if  of  the  emotion  (1983)  in  the  and the  besides  analogically  often  represents  interaction  prior  an  Pinsof  position  is is  nor  approaches  essential a  new  by  was  a  that  either  Feldman in  indicates step, system  presenting  (1982),  terms  of  of  this after to  for  maintain change,  contribution.  experiencing  patient  its  other  e x p l i c i t l y  consider  the  affect  fear  emotion  most  to  about'  change  assessment-intervention  solution  'talked  fully  produces  of  in  none  change.  directing  person  withdrawing.  Pinsof  emotion  educational  state  as  or  neither  as  press)  view  blaming  role  the  communication  especially  experiencing  for  a  person,  the  or  (in  compassion,  Because  of  Johnson  serves  "this  major  of  and  expression  that  when  simply  interaction  express  evoking  only  was  emotion  which  The  is  experience  achieved.  interpersonal system  it  what  Greenberg expression  of  an  when,  For view  in  to the  identifying  he  this  an  says  be  the  view  role of  essential  fourth and  adaptive' that  an  example,  experiencing  emotion  implement  problem,  who  that  19  "additionally,  the  heighten  the  solution  affective  this  by  emotional  omission;  experiencing words,  for  therapist  of  experiencing  response  power" that  is  (p.  is,  emotion  Feldman  [italics  may  26).  by  is  that  addedj l a b e l  w i l l  give  Feldman  not  (1982)  and  Pinsof  preferred  but  not  for  adaptive  (1982)  specifying  essential  the  indicates  that  an  change. an  (1983)  considered  and  In  other  emotional  essential  for  change. Greenberg for  their  and  view  of  Johnson's the  intrapsychic  change  experiencing  plays  acknowledging adaptive  is  one  hand,  and  the  other  hand  adaptive were their  experience,  for  define  needs  emotions  is  solving, more  fear, in  adaptive  more and  clearly.  in  pain,  because  by  helping The  to  this  if  is  process,  emotions  press). anger,  the  emotions  on  Primary and  joy--that of  provide by  helping  increasing  spouses  there  on  a  organization  they  expression  adaptive  process  biologically  solving  clearly, by  first  individuals'  problem  two  instrumental  & Safran,  as  particularly  The  adaptive  or  framework  emotional  respect  reactive  enhances  themselves  problem  their  which  role.  primary  dominant  are  involves  which  With  between  (Greenberg  not  in  conceptual  unacknowledged  emotions.  secondary  press)  emotion  important  emotions—such  information to  an  made  previously  of  processes  previously  primary  distinction  role  (in  people  motivation  communicate  of is  primary a  difference  20  between  the  expression  expressions  because  of  this  primary  emotions  provides  new  and  earlier  information  in  the  relationship. However, defensive  because  anger  are  secondary  secondary  reactive  to  more  biologically  adaptive  experiences  instrumental  emotions  such  expressed  make  (in  to  press)  solving,  think  and  The  impacts that  experiencing  accessing  and  This  learned  being when  much that  Safran,  state  in  an  to  and  for  crying  are  and  in  Johnson  problem  which  role  is  state  complex  the  dependent  core  cognitions,  meanings  affective  inspection  because  them.  certain  particular  and  disrupt  important  refers  in  fear,  process  of  as  and  emotionally  reexperienced  and  Johnson  press)  their  view  that  states,  modification (Greenberg  &  press).  Greenberg framework  for  change  delineating  by  change  modification  available is  can  such  underlying  Greenberg  encourage  sequences,  originally  more  not  process  as  manipulative  emotions  plays  subsequent  cognitive-affective were  do  primary  such  others,  intrapsychic  emotional  cognitions.  on  these  therefore  second  as  emotions  (in  of  the  the  objective  emotionally  focused  therapist.  emotionally  focused  therapist  unacknowledged  feelings  role  The is  to  underlying  develop  a  practical  of  emotion  in  couples  and  methods  of  an  objective access  of  and  partners'  an  validate  interactional  21  positions helping of  in  conflictual  partners  themselves,  and  feelings--such  as  resentments—in the  in  their  order  to  therapist  attention  particular,  sadness,  emotionally  objective client  by  means  centred  Gestalt  asking  on  fears,  expose  client  cues  the  technique  of  on  and  does  new  primary  this  by  experiences  adaptive  unexpressed  clients  to  new  aspects  therapy,  of  and  then  the  situation.  of  exploring  to  of  evocative  and  the  As  the  the  and  in  the  and  techniques  attending  uses  new  by  subjective  may  to From  developments  v i v i d l y  response  use  partners'  of  This  idiosyncratic  c l a r i f y  press).  responding.  therapist  and  experiencing.  experiences  partners'  well,  heighten  inner  therapist  recreating  situation  uses  this  therapy  & Johnson,  suggestions,  the  accomplishes  gestalt  therapist  expressions  involves  stimulus  metaphors  the  technique  the  from  (Greenberg  making  as  therapist  methods  therapy,  centred  as  focused  therapy  questions,  nonverbal  such  focus  The  self. The  From  to  cycles.  to  evoking i t ,  experience images  of  and  emotional  exper ienc ing. Having and  established  Johnson's  with  respect  that  an  having  (in to  press)  the  experiencing described  the  that  approach  process of  what  of  emotion  conceptual  distinguishes from  couples is and  the  Greenberg  other  change  necessary practical  is for  approaches their change,  framework  view and of  22  this  view,  emotion In  their  leads  conception  to  summary,  change  of  self  focal  into  will  change  deepening  experience  reframed  in  terms  which  of  then  the  this  which  into  behaviors  lead  approach  brings  and  these  experiencing  new  the  are  change  by  a  aspects  of  interaction.  positively  underlying  to  of  described:  in  awareness  interactional  how  be  occurs  Specific  states,  of  in  emotional the  sequence  of  interactions. Essentially, emotional couple  then,  experiencing  system.  When  the  behaviors  change  in  the  case  the  intimacy  mean  of  that  their  and  conflictual  partner  The  idea  interactional Johnson  (in  that  change.  However,  change,  Greenberg  reframes  of  is  a  afraid in  this  cycle  both of  than  into  the  information,  For  partner's  change  c o n f l i c t u a l  new  cycle.  rather  perception  couples  information  interactional  framing  of  example,  in  pertaining  distancing  to  noncaring  the  partner's  the  partner  or  view  that  to  of  alters  cycle. emotional  change  press)  terms  change  spouse's  interactional  new  interactional  produces  the  theory  therapist in  dimension,  the  indifferent self  a  the  their  introduces  interactional occurs  in  might  propose as and  experiencing  suggest a  in  their  clearly  to  Greenberg  unidirectional  indicated Johnson  that  leads  theory  field  conceive  and of  conception of  change  of as  23  bidirectional change  on  an  or  intrapsychic  interactional level  may  level,  lead  to  Greenberg and  reciprocal.  a  model  1.  couples  change  individual  by  bringing  2.  The  see  spouse,  upon  expressions, example, than 3.  The  your  for  The  press)  between  emotional  focal  a  change  on  an  interactional  of  level.  articulate  the  intrapsychic  five  complex  change  experiencing  himself  in  specific  this  accept  my  and  terms  of  hypotheses  need  experiences view  not  of  partner's  partner for  d i f f e r e n t l y  self;  for  vulnerability".  the  the  herself  person's  witnessing  your  or  awareness  in  and  personal  behavior  of  "I  now  in  caring  a and  new  new  affective  way;  for  contact  rather  in  the  ask  reorganization interaction  you  for  leads  with  the  to spouses;  reassurance  from  a  the  lead  to  vulnerability". new  perceptions  responses;  than  withdraw".  As  function  a  an  as  h o s t i l i t y " .  spouse's  different  5.  see  example,  position  on  to  just  intrapsychic  (in  perceives  individual's  different  4.  "I  that  lead  change an  perceives  dominant  "I  may  consisting  into  previously  via  means  processes:  An  example,  on  relationship change  of  also  Johnson  interactional theoretical  level  change  and  reciprocal  so  This  of  for  their  of  example,  partner's  "I  new  partner comfort  you  behaviors,  rather  the  24  individuals example, as  and  "since  valuable  As of  this  I  see  can  necessary the  thesis  to  refine,  is (in  This  processes from  themselves  f u l f i l l  in  processes.  derived  and  to  indicated  Johnson's  above  come  press)  to  this  the  study's  a  new  needs,  I  way; see  for myself  you".  i n t r o d u c t i o n , the modify,  theoretical  objective will with  your  in  be  categories empirical  or  clarify  model  achieved of  second  of by  change  analysis.  objective  Greenberg change comparing processes  the  25  Methodology  Subjects The  subjects in this  participated Solving and  Project  couples  (Johnson  selected  who r e s p o n d e d  offering  a r e among t h e 45 c o u p l e s  in a research project,  Greenberg  couples  study  & Greenberg,  45 c o u p l e s  distressed  range  (i.e.,  Adjustment  Scale  (Spanier,  than  these  experimental cognitive  fell  w i t h i n the  100) on t h e D y a d i c  r a n d o m l y t o two  (an a f f e c t i v e  ( i n press)  comparative  systemic  treatment,  and t o a c o n t r o l  r e c e i v e d the a f f e c t i v e  systemic  and a  group  treatment  after a  period. The  study  criterion  i s t h a t they  treatment. systemic group. on  groups  for their  1976).  behavioral treatment),  which a l s o wait  couples  to help  The c r i t e r i o n  Once s e l e c t e d , J o h n s o n and G r e e n b e r g assigned  p o p u l a t i o n of  i n t h e V a n c o u v e r Sun  one p a r t n e r  less  a wider  Johnson  sessions designed  resolve marital conflict. was t h a t a t l e a s t  Problem  in press).  from  t o an a r t i c l e  e i g h t m a r i t a l therapy  selection  the Couples  who  used  t h e 21 c o u p l e s  r e c e i v e d the a f f e c t i v e  Of t h e 21 c o u p l e s ,  experimental The 13 from  practical  in selecting  grounds  treatment  (i.e.,  systemic  13 came from  the a f f e c t i v e  and 8 came from  the experimental  in this  treatment  the c o n t r o l were c h o s e n  a l l who were a v a i l a b l e and  26  willing the  to  participate).  control  because  group  S.  M.  indicated  group  received been  couples from  in  the  that  assessed the  as  treatment  manual,  in  on  to  were  total  the  experimental  Table  (1976),  the 1.  Dyadic This  consists  measuring items), items). choice  1  means  dyadic  for  r e l i a b i l i t y  is the  Pre  test  1  and  Appendix  couples  were  the  in  had),  only  thought  on  as  not  the couples  basis  of  an  received  the  affective  systemic  Greenberg  and  Johnson's  (in  standard  and  deviations  control  Adjustment  items  groups  Scale  which  was  of  into  press)  four  marital  adjustment  to  DAS  for  post  the  wait  by  Spanier subscales (10  expression  of  the  be  outcome  presented  satisfaction  affectional  (Johnson,  couples  main  are  assessment v a l i d i t y  the  the  developed  items),  and  on  (DAS),  arranged  (13  items),  refer  (their  the  to  A  November,  eight  present  on  and  control  check  at  scores  sample,  the  treatments  from  selected.  and  32  complete  couples  communication,  group  who  in  the  considered  and  1  (5  the  a l l  implementation  concensus  cohesion It  an  measure, of  to  effective  have  specified  The  variable,  as  group,  treatment  from  a l l  experimental  judgement  not  (personal  not  equally  control  informal  required  Johnson  1983)  having  were  Because  the  (4  instrument in  terms  of of  1984).  control scores.  group  in  Table  27  Table 1 Group T o t a l Pre and Post Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) Pre Gr  oup  n  Experimental Control Combined The mean t o t a l  Note.  Post  SD  M  SD  M  13  93.46  8.98  112.15  8  89.75  11.13  98.94  11.51  21  92.05  11.06  107.12  12.79  score in Spanier's  married and d i v o r c e d couples was  114.8  1 0.77  (1976) sample for  (SD  17.8)  and  70.7  respectively.  Although  c o n c e p t u a l l y Spanier suggests  be c o n s i d e r e d a measure of the adjustment f u n c t i o n i n g group-rather adjustment  than a measure of  that the  scale  of the dyad as a individual  to the r e l a t i o n s h i p , the pre and post t o t a l  DAS  scores of i n d i v i d u a l s as well as couples are presented i n Appendix A.  2  T h i s was  any p a r t i c u l a r  done to f a c i l i t a t e the comparison of  i n c i d e n t with the DAS  scores of the  i n d i v i d u a l c o r r e s p o n d i n g to i t . Johnson  (1984) c o l l e c t e d the f o l l o w i n g demographic data  from the 21 couples used  i n t h i s study: f i r s t ,  the mean f o r  the number of years the couples had been l i v i n g 8.24  2  (range:  1-24); second,  there was  an average  together of  1.75  The couple scores were computed by adding the male and  female  scores and d i v i d i n g by  two.  was  28  children been  per family  (range:  0-4); t h i r d ,  t h r e e c o u p l e s had  i n v o l v e d i n p r e v i o u s m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g (14% of the  total);  fourth,  13 i n d i v i d u a l s  been p r e v i o u s l y m a r r i e d relationship;  fifth,  years  24-50);  (range:  (30.95% o f t h e t o t a l ) had  before engaging  upon t h e i r  t h e mean age o f t h e p a r t n e r s was 35.69 sixth,  t h e median  range o f f a m i l y  income was 35,000-45,000 C a n a d i a n d o l l a r s t h e mean number o f y e a r s was 15 ( t h i s college  present  of e d u c a t i o n  was d e f i n e d a s h a v i n g  per year;  completed  completed  seventh,  by s p o u s e s  a community  program or p a r t of a d e g r e e ) .  Treatment  The  subjects in this  consisting systemic frequency per  approach  (Johnson  of these  of  Greenberg  in  a linear  1.  received a brief  of e i g h t s e s s i o n s of the i n t e g r a t i v e  week o v e r  circular  study  & Greenberg,  Although  the nine  and J o h n s o n ' s a p p r o a c h w i l l sequence,  r a t h e r than  The d e l i n e a t i o n  the therapy a linear  of c o n f l i c t  The  one s e s s i o n treatment  be p r e s e n t e d  actually  manner.  affective  in press).  s e s s i o n s was a p p r o x i m a t e l y  two months.  therapy  progressed  These  steps below in a  steps a r e :  i s s u e s and themes  i n the  core s t r u g g l e . In conflict  this  initial  step the t h e r a p i s t d e l i n e a t e s  i s s u e s and d e s c r i b e s a t t e m p t e d  p a r t n e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p explored  V  and v a l i d a t e d .  This serves  solutions. issues i s  to e s t a b l i s h a  Each  29  positive  therapeutic  therapist control the  also  and  core  alliance  begins  to  identify  issues  in  marital the  the  therapist  perceives  the  relationship  identifies  the  uses  pursue-distance frequently  occurring  the  core  negative  The  accessing Having  of  does  responses  at  The  therapist  therapy  and  emotional The  the  most  interactional  cycle  in  the  identifies  therapist  by  the  or  "dance" A  basic  and  distressed this  as  fears,  feelings.  core  interactional  accessing  and  underlying in  the  and  of  to  cycle,  validating  the  awareness  unexpressed  such  as  resentments.  techniques  drawn  centred  therapy  f a c i l i t a t e  the  problem.  The  emotional  various  experiencing.  the  cycle.  partners'  to  the  partners'  problematic  attending  periphery  uses  of  to  partner  therapist  be  appears  upon  client  reframing  the  each  issues.  unacknowledged  this  vulnerabilities,  issues,  how  its  feelings  the  about  cycle.  to  positions  therapist  often  cycle.  focuses  interactional  clear  interaction  relation  identified  unacknowledged  are  cycle  cycle  Therefore,  therapist  as  interaction  in  The  conflicts.  is  negative  couple  couples.  partner.  themes--such  negative  Once  the  each  seperateness-connectedness—which  The , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  that  with  from  gestalt this  30  The  therapist  partners  in  the  the  newly  and  relates  The  experience  the  reframing  this,  is  negative  synthesized  a  their  of  observing  spouse.  Identifying  the  with  Having  therapist aspects  is  an  their  disowned  in  partners'  awareness  gain  control  some  interactional  some  to  of  and  identify  experience, of  the  and  in  of  terms  Its  underlying  previously  and  cycle  in  In  of  this  partner's  the  needs,  the  with and  disowned to  and  is  associated needs.  This  focusing  to  step  experience.  the  is  acceptance  experiences.  Such  focus of  the  on  and  to  behaviors  f a c i l i t a t i n g  other's  acceptance  is  in  new  each  emotional  contrast  on  heighten  needs  automatic  partner's  the  terms  cycle.  Acceptance  of  needs  intervention  rationale  their  meaning  behaviors  feelings  oriented  of  emotion,  experiencing  and  of  needs.  the  experience  parts.  unmet  both  feelings  the  experiences,  perceived  previously'disowned  disowned  cycle  of  terms  the  individual  engage  legitimate  in  of  partners  intrapsychically  enacting  their  the  cycle  significant  modifier for  behaviors  emotional  interactional  cycle  the  their  deliberately with  the  to  and  emotional  asks  of  underlying  redefined  underlying  problem  interactional  strong  powerful in  the  behaviors  of  behaviors  of  reframes  to  the  in  31  usual p a t t e r n  of r e c i p r o c a l d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n which  occurs in d i s t r e s s e d  relationships.  e x p l o r e s blocks to one accept the  The  therapist  partner's a b i l i t y  other's experience, and  to hear  and  i n t e r p r e t s them in  terms of that p a r t n e r ' s view of s e l f , past l e a r n i n g h i s or her 7.  family  F a c i l i t a t i n g the  of o r i g i n , and  catastrophic  e x p r e s s i o n of needs and  in  fears.  wants.  Given the mutual acceptance of each o t h e r ' s u n d e r l y i n g f e e l i n g s , the partners'  disclosure  of the  with these f e e l i n g s , and implications 8.  The  emergence of new  statement of the  associated  h e l p s them to examine wants as  increased  the  individuals.  partners'  c l a r i t y of  the  needs c r e a t e s a context  a l t e r n a t i v e responses or p o s i t i o n s  solutions  wants  the  solutions.  interactional cycle. new  facilitates  needs and  of t h e i r needs and  In t h i s step, the  new  therapist  These new  in  the  alternatives  to the couple's negative  for  constitute  interactional  cycle. 9.  The  consolidation In t h i s f i n a l  to c o n s o l i d a t e  of new  positions.  step, the  t h e i r new  therapist  helps the  p o s i t i o n within  couple  a changed  i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e by encouraging them to metacommunicate about t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p from a shared perspective  in which both seek to f i g h t to "draw"  rather  32  than  to  win.  Method of D a t a C o l l e c t i o n : As  indicated  design  used  change  processes  This  design  The  and  a  to  an  satisfied  p r i o r i  collection not  of  The study  of  was  this  a  which  which  accesses  and  with And,  a  in  turn  data  in  by  John  or  c r i t i c a l  general of  because in  data  it  is  contrast  before  exploratory  or  incident  method,  what  because  events  degree  hypotheses  an  these  change  c r i t e r i o n  limit  data  c r i t e r i o n  fair  posteriori makes  of  opinions  the  of  exploratory.  both  study,  than  exploratory (an  method  descriptive this  design.  is  the or  is  and  manner).  c r i t i c a l the  another  relate  to  the  incident  performance  asking  c r i t i c a l  method data  collected,  open-ended  method  of  developed  1954).  the  use  a  research  couples  exploratory  rather  does  of  which  (in  of  and  descriptive  the  Technique  type  met  change) it  the  technique  events  (Flanagan,  posteriori a  of  because  objectivity  an  satisfied  moments  technique  incident  specific  the  both  technique,  (1954),  c r i t i c a l  be  Incident  investigation  descriptive  would  This  accesses  a  Critical  introduction,  necessitated  c r i t i c a l  Flanagan  the  empirical  is  that  c r i t e r i a .  ideas,  this  also  collection  it  in  in  The  group  to  of  one  describe  performance  incident  technique  of  technique  the has  involves  group  of  c r i t i c a l f i r s t also  individuals  by  incidents  that  group.  been  typically  used  However, in  a  the  the  33  self-report which  Flanagan  were  to  pilots  flying  in  describe In have  manner.  which this  this  been  asking  asked  they  used  the  (a)  therapists  in to  (b)  self-report  describe  in  detail  events,  or  forms.  However,  it  is  the  (c)  in  these  are  to  partners'  accessible  interactional collecting  would  constraints  study  accesses  asking  clients  of  couples  the  incident  to  to  to  have  that  are  of  information  particularly  technique  are  the  ideal  in  time of a  or and  change  of  change,  the  focus  partners  the  concerning  case  experiences,  perspective  they  interactional  source  limited  what  self-report  the  the  by  been  is  and  form  recall  processes  events  than  could  clients,  and  with  which  are  partners'  Consequently,  been as  the  i t  therapists'  such  only  and  intrapsychic  have  and  detail  for  considered  therapists  the  given  c r i t i c a l  is  experiences.  both  perspectives  to  in  events  change  best  This  in  combat  observational  describe  addition,  the  experiences.  respect less  who  In  to  in  technique  observational  study  pertaining  study  disorientation  intrapsychic  investigation.  themselves  the  a  by  they the  a  occasion  incident  and  form  both  an  convential  change  what  partners'  experiences of  in  c r i t i c a l  been  reports  detail.  recall  to  the  in  its  considered in  have  recall  experienced  experience study  (1954)  although couples'  research  strategy,  and  finances,  the  couples  self-report  by  this using  fashion.  34  According of  data  (i.e.,  to  collection individual  questionnaires, individual is  Flanagan  and  the  i t was  with  the  interviews, record  interview  probably  because  used  (1954),  best  namely,•collecting  forms). was  satisfactory suited  for  counselling  from each p a r t n e r ' s  ensure  partners'  their  that  spouses,  the  of  procedures  incident  technique  interviews, In  this  used  not  study  the  only  because i t  1954),  purpose of  perspective. were not  but  this  change e v e n t s  descriptions  interviews  four  (Flanagan,  the  descriptions  are  critical  group  procedure  most  there  study;  in  In  also  couples  order  to  influenced  by  were c o n d u c t e d  independently.  Procedures The  interviewers.  Although provide I  a  I was  the  reliability  employed  a  interviewed  second five  couples  w e r e M.A.  counselling,  and  In  order  had  or  24%  students  recording to  with  respect This of  the  the  t o my  accuracy  of  the  data  accustomed  to  being  recorded  i t is unlikely  that  in  family  data. interviewees  taped.  Both  experience.  the  were a u d i o  interviewer  sample.  to  interviews  to  interviewing,  second  attend  the  in order  specializing  interviewing  facilitate  sessions,  check  interviewer,  interviewer.  interviewers  Method of  primary  this  to  collection,  Because from  and  the  the  the  interviewees  earlier  influenced  were  treatment the  collection  35  of  the data  The  adversely.  telephone c o n t a c t .  Whereas I c o n t a c t e d between t h r e e counselling, couples  t h e 16 c o u p l e s  and f o u r months a f t e r t h e second  termination  Flanagan's  types  three  to five  o f t h e most  change e v e n t s by c a u s i n g into  the r e c a l l  salient  critical  the less c r i t i c a l  the couples,  themselves as a s s o c i a t e d with Project,  that the  f a c i l i t a t e the  i n c i d e n t s or events  t o recede  incidents to  and r e q u e s t e d individually  the i n t e r v i e w e r s  a one-half  information  about  interview  home.  Solving with  how c o u p l e s  each  They i n d i c a t e d  of the Couples  Problem  i t s p u r p o s e was t o c o l l e c t  i n t e r v i e w method a s o p p o s e d h a d been u s e d  hour  i n the couple's  P r o j e c t , and t h a t  identified  the Couples Problem  t h e i n t e r v i e w was a f o l l o w - u p  Solving  that  months would  or other  i n t o the foreground.  In c o n t a c t i n g  partner  the lapse of  of dramatic  t h e b a c k g r o u n d a n d t h e most c r i t i c a l  emerge  that  that  o f i n c i d e n t s , i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d  o f between  recollection  the f i v e  months a f t e r t h e  (1954) r e p o r t  s e v e r a l months f a c i l i t a t e s  lapse  contacted  of c o u n s e l l i n g .  Following  special  five  interviewed  t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of  interviewer  whom she i n t e r v i e w e d  whom I  resolve c o n f l i c t s  more  v i a an  t o t h e p a p e r a n d p e n c i l measures  i n t h e Couples Problem S o l v i n g  Project.  36  The The  interview. researchers  interview Appendix  guide B  following  for  conducted  consisting an  example  questions  What  2.  In  what  ways  was  3.  In  what  ways  could  The  interviewers  each as  of  the to  these  possible  that  most  was  most  responses be  used  beginning  as  helpful  for  each  by  helpful  for  these  counselling?  in not  interviewees  for  section  of  recollection 1.  Please  either  in  How  3.  What  was  order with this  changed  in  as  of  much  counselling  helpful  incident 2.  in  statement  description  describe  incident  Then,  and  the  to  e l i c i t  incident for  you  more  as  were  placed  helpful/not this  at  the  the  guide. the  possible for  information the  else  intended  incidents  out  fully  Although  not  e l i c i t e d  as  to  anything  primed  stands  change,  through  helpful?  responses  respond  interview  detail  hindering.  to  they  c r i t i c a l  or  respect  were  which  that  The  counselling?).  questions  (see  guide:  more  there  questions  because  the  been  to  Is  about  interview  B,  have  (e.g.,  an  helpful?  them  the  section  the  interviewees'  of  In  guide).  of  of  questions  you  general  B  means  A  asking  you  these  by  section  the  question  data,  interview  counselling  exhausted  to  the  counselling  questions  to  of  interviews  semi-structured  comprised  1.  was  of  the  was: a  you  about  specific as  each  interviewers  helpful? incident?  asked:  37  4.  How  After  did  this  change  interviewees  through  four,  another  incident  case,  the  through As section  four the B,  and  (i.e.,  then  interviewees the as  remarks  the  that  indicating  that  permitting the  the  avoid  If  the  question  understood,  it  can  be  c l a r i f y i n g  observer story,  had  he  essence  encourage bringing  what  seems  his him  out  interviewer  repeated  given be  to  continue  many did  This and  relevant  not  know  the  two  in  following  leading been  stated.  being  most  of  the  by  by  get  said  unbiased  seem  to  be  some  reference  i t .  If  the  part  of  only  restating  usually may  expert.  is  with  like  as  and  what  not  details  the  questions  has  do  meant  encouraged  remarks.  questions  observer  does  is  the  incident.  usually  what  should  of  to  just  recall  was  and. p e r m i s s i v e  the  can  this  ask  asking  understands  incidents.  to  to  could  one  (1954):  neutral  interviewer  If  the  question  observer  questions  they  to  to  adhered  accepts he  if  second  Flanagan  be  he  the  main  to  one).  responded  by  should  show  talking,  to  should  after  asked  proceded  interviewers defined  f u l l y  question  respect  interviewer  should By  responded  interviewers  with  questions His  had  interviewers  guidelines The  the  occur?  tends  result  in  that  the  situation  well  the  the to his  enough  38  to  ask  If what  for.  been  requested  that  incident,  (e.g., began  to  it  was  not  no  a  giving  the  specific  incident.  the  recall doing  incidents to  third  the  Although  specific  this.  The  and  by  vividness  recreating  c r i t i c a l  session,  of  interviewers  a  specificity  pertaining in  to  d i f f i c u l t y  recalled  impressions  helpful,  unable  the  general  and  with the  incident  your  spouse  cry).  emotional  because  interview complete  of  experiencing  Johnson's  (in  guide a  (Did  you?  Did  the  you?)  on  a to  press)  the  the  to  mechanism  approach,  of  (5),  definitely record  the  expressed  that  was  important,  expressed  that  was  most  scale  and  feeling and  important.  make  (b) that  that  C  of  in  Greenberg  of  the  interviewee  (a)  feelings  five-point  idea  change  each  of  feelings  the  section  asked  of  of  of  in  consisting  expression  Likert-type  interviewees  a  importance  researchers  expression  very  the  as  questionnaire  questions  (1)  by  recall  heightened  Finally,  all  had  situation  so,  or  were  interviewees  stimulus  and  they  most  interviewers  began  helpful  interviewees  which  342)  interviewees  had  three  (p.  two  parallel  lead a  to  they their  change  difference  ranging two  to  from  questions  for  not  at  asking  themselves partner  for  39  The  transcribed  Following of  61  c r i t i c a l  interviewees  these  61  completion  incidents  to  transcribed  from  the  Five  did  not  Two  incidents  third over not  couples  incidents. more  than  specific  c r i t i c a l  22  reported  incidents  incidents of  the  verbatim. for  were  events  that  total  of  guide)  were  However, the  of  following  eliminated  involving  were  being  because  incidents  that  were  excised  events  that  occurred  because  the  investigated.  they  session  eliminations,  incidents  1.40  tapes  a  were  the  continued because in  a  in  only time  they  were  particular  session. these  of  interview  removed  two  responses  the  change  were  change  counselling After  one  the  interviewing,  eliminated  change  The  the  incidents  constitute  of  of  were  hindering  processes third  B  audio 9  of  (i.e.,  section  incidents,  reasons. they  the  incidents.  a  reported per  single  each.  37  incident  women  men  remained  a  interviewees  interviewee.  Finally,  incidents;  by  there  each  Of  these  sample with  15  reported  reported  23  incidents  29  52  mean  interviewees,  and  reported  a  of  incidents  or  two or  56%  of  44% the  inc idents. Interviewer The  three  consistency respect  to  are  Consistency.  factors  that  fluency,  fluency,  the  influence  r e l i a b i l i t y , second  interviewer and  bias.  interviewer,  who  With interviewed  40  5  couples  17%  of  or  the  couples,  1.34  terms  of  full-length  violations  suggests  that  the  interview  With from did  the not  f i r s t  the  incidents,  perceptions. that  influence  this  study  both  the  the  16  couples  or  83%  per  or  of  average,  an  76%  the the  or of  the  incidents. second  interviewee  inspection  interviewers  interview  interviewers  to  the  (for  This  of  bias,  were  the  compared  of  the  did  not  guidelines. consistent  second  an  the  from  least  Therefore,  that not  a  the  of  the in  with  interviewer  achieved  five  This in  adhering  incidents  latent  over  latent  the  categories  of  respect  consistency, level  of  five  categories,  interviewers  terms  reasonable  of  distribution  interviewer  understanding  indicates at  distribution  over  significantly  from  consistency.  r e l i a b i l i t y ,  of  incidents  interviewee.  interviewer  differ  categories  incidents  9  guidelines.  respect  incidents  below).  the  incidents  s t a t i s t i c a l  .9  incidents  indicate  43  per  to  collected  interviewed  a  collected  respect  couples,  I  incidents  With  to  the  collected  in  interviewer my  of  incidents;  and  Expressed  to  24%  did  not  see bias  sorters'  to  the it  of  three  would  factors  appear  interviewer  that  41  Method of D a t a A n a l y s i s : The  method  of data  critical  incident  category  system  reliability  Categorization analysis  technique  consists  by d e t e r m i n i n g  into  induction  of categories  the categories. from  study  a d i f f e r e n t method method  been employed basic  idea  by M i l l e r ,  form c a t e g o r i e s  manifest  categorizations  underlie  the manifest and that  discriminations. components:  computational  the  algorithm  Partition  F-sort  categories.  when  because  (hence  the term  t h e i r common p e r c e p t i o n s  developed  (LPA) t h a t  that latent or  the manifest (F-sort); a  (1967) c a l l e d  analyzes  i n s u c h a way a s t o d i s c l o s e  they  o f two m a j o r  produces  by W i l e y  to  of t h e i r  "latent" categories  that  The  sorters  a comparison  consists  has  (1967).  i s c a l l e d the Free-sort  Analysis  that  or s t i m u l i together  methodology  and that  methodology  categories),  reveals  a s o r t i n g procedure  categorizations  Latent  units  categorizations  This  the  i s "more  and Lambert  groups,  reflect  place  analysis.  i s that  (called manifest unit  raters  1954, p. 3 4 4 ) , t h i s  of data  Fowlkes,  content  s i m i l a r content  categories)  (Flanagan,  methodology  place  a  However, because t h e  i s a categorization  of t h i s  independently  form  objective"  the  checking i t s  the incidents  than  with  of developing  how c o n s i s t e n t l y  subjective  This  typically  i n d u c t i v e l y , and then  incidents  used  used  Methodology  the r e s u l t s of  the latent  42  The The  F-sort. F-sort  c o n s i s t s of s u b j e c t s  s o r t i n g stimulus  into categories  according  dissimilarities  which they p e r c e i v e  a  sorters are free to construct  s e t of items,  categories  items  t o t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and among t h e i t e m s .  a s t h e y w i s h , and t o i n c l u d e  Given  a s many  a s many o r a s few  items as they choose  i n any one c a t e g o r y .  constraints  s o r t s a r e t h e s e t o f i t e m s and t h e  criterion  on t h e i r  or s o r t i n g cue i n the task  accompanies the s e t of items. the  The o n l y  i n s t r u c t i o n s that  Miller  et a l .  (1967)  define  s o r t i n g cue as f o l l o w s : The  sorting  jitalics  i s the  thematic  thereby  content  abstraction manifest  serving  at which  to guide  of  manifest  to define  the general  and t h e l e v e l o f t o form  ( p . 24) was p r o v i d e d  sorters  in their  i n the task f o r m u l a t i o n of  was a s f o l l o w s :  The  criterion  you  think  the  change  occurs  judgement  s o r t e r s are expected  categories.  instructions  Because  of  of c a t e g o r i e s  s o r t i n g cue t h a t  categories  criterion  added} f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n  categories  The  cue  f o r your  forming c a t e g o r i e s  the i n c i d e n t s are s i m i l a r with f o r the person  frequently  (A) r e p o r t i n g  more t h a n  f o r A, we would  like  one change  i s whether respect to  the change. process  you t o choose f o r  43  categorizing significant  the  c r i t e r i o n  of  Although incident  the  incident  the  change in  occurred  A,  the  most  its  the  person  because  the  for  to  per  ways  was  form  to  be  was  (the  was  repeated  three  full-length  by  A.  three-step  First,  omitting  a l l  a  lot  of  double the  procedure c r i t i c a l  the  of  elaborated  pages),  of  simplified  for  and  number  an  counterpart).  s t i l l with  contained  a  a  process  limited  with  example  to  incidents.  average  incident  change  process  sorted  often  limited  addition,  categories  change c r i t i c a l  one  reporting  was  In  simplified  simplified were  the  which  different  were  c r i t e r i o n  processes  person  A.  than  not  these  the  for  more  sorters  incidents  pages  occurred  significant  information  incidents  B),  sorting  sorting  of  an  c r i t i c a l  criterion  Simplification  and  for  given  the  the  D  any  A),  given  you  dominant  for  (i.e.,  to  Appendix  C  to  of  respect  incidents  (i.e.,  incident  typed  respect  perspective  requesting  spaced  in  reported  any  slightly  whether  the  by  in  is  Appendix  is  therefore,  from  further  diverse  think  directions).  that  Because  with  (see  processes  for  you  categories  processes  incident  described  A  that  reiterate,  similar  F-sort  sometimes  the  To  forming  for  change  were  reporting  the  process  A.  are  processes  example  because  for  incidents  change  change for  most  think  were  the  (see incident  full-length  redundant  material  44  and  retaining  respect the  to  self), and  the  stimulus  activity,  information  change  of  the  partner  (b)  (c)  the  the  the  events.  change  response  partner's incidents  supervisor  of  this  modifications.  and  rated  to  their  ranging her a  simplified  from  rating  rating  not  are:  of  at 37  same  who  had  (1)  to  simplified  simplified  of  four;  received  a  rating  of  three.  give  rationale  of  three  refinement. additional In  rated  This  a  the  simplified  any  less  in  resulted  student  one  (or  incidents  to  order  assist  only  one  scale  71.2%)  which  of  received  26.9%)  was  incident  in  incidents  incident  student  to  the  results  (or  simplified  This  of  The  minor  in  five-point  (5).  the  (or  1.9%)  instructed she  in  assigned  its  incident  to  second f i t  check  the  graduate  between  the  counterparts.  r e l i a b i l i t y  of  requiring  this  rating  counselling-psychology full-length  incidents  The  of  results  this  to a  subsequent  refinement.  order  process,  or  for  a  these  albeit  full-length  on  the change,  incidents,  incidents  14  rating  rating  the  to  comparing  five  (a)  therapist  the  additional  total  five;  a  by  interviewed  counterparts all  reporting  graduate  between  a  pertaining  full-length some  with  included  either  Second,-  made  received  her  person  the  " f i t "  information  a c t i v i t y  the  the  thesis  Third,  the  of  or  essential  (i.e.,  response.  counselling-psychology couples  This  event  a c t i v i t y ,  simplified  considered  student and  their  student's  45  rating five;  are: 25  The  (or  of  of  3.85% gave a  a  rating  the  of  of  occurrence  of  sorters  who  categories. K  frequency  stimulus  simplified  37.5%  of  to  only  three.  five  the  of  the  a  of  the  the  the  of  the  four; raters  incidents  incidents  that  of  incidents  rating  together  a  and  indicates  simplified  incidents  well.  analysis. component  the  matrix where  two is K  study  of  the  Analysis  matrix,  by  categorization (LPA),  the  summarizes  F-sort  combined  c r i t i c a l  estimate  58.7%  the  full-length  f i r s t  this  of  rendered  of  3  scores  mean  96.2%  of  four;  combined  That  concurred  S-matrix,  of  to  3.85%  Partition  The  (in  an  received  matrix  set  as  of  raters'  five)  five;  or  This  or  of  major  categorizations  three.  are:  four  the  of the  the  rating  rating  percentages  Latent  or  of  four  However,  partition  matrices.  range  a  a  as  represented  methodology,  rating  were  strongly  second  a  inappropriate  rating  three  Latent The  a  raters  incidents  three  ratings  rating  received  rating  that  the  received  received  received  r e l i a b i l i t y .  a  46.2%)  restricted  expressed  received  (or  48.1%)  association  interrater ratings  (or  5.8%)  severely  96%  measure  incidents  incidents  incidents  (i.e.,  24  probability the  in  their  constructed is K  the  number  corresponds  incidents),  (b)  of  of joint  manifest  indicating  items  consists  the  proportion  manifest  by  (a)  of  forming  items  to  a l l o t t i n g  the  in  a the  52  entries  a  K  x  46  value  of  one  each  time  items  in  the  same  manifest  and  (c)  dividing  not,  sorters the  (in  this  proportion  items  in  the  sorters  of  sorters  same  provides  that  the  other  which  are  of  these  complex  Each  entry  in  or  that  particular Given  "defined"  by  "defined"  occurring factor  an  Omega one to  of the  third  estimate is  do  number  to  and  for  of  determine pair is  of not  Omega,  a  both  description  factor  factor,  category, in  matrix,  the  have  loadings  high  is  category  similar  (Conry, or  that  categories  on  probabilities  confusions.  category.  is  latent  matrix  probability  latent  a  analysis  confusion  latent  high  that  latent  analysis  Phi-matrix  category the  have  category  probability  particular  and  which  factor  the  latent as  which  latent  estimated  in  items  indicated  the  the  factor  the  matrix  of  matrix,  a  corresponding  other  of  computations  Phi  1967,  to  variables  interpreted  the  the  S-matrix  the  belongs a  those  that  pattern  The is  in  by  they  particular  matrices,  indicates  that  with) by  a  for  Wiley,  second  item  those  (correlations is  the  Phi-matrix,  category.  (see  if  sorters)  The  basis  LPA  zero  pair  computations).  matrix a  37  combine  the  particular  entries  category.  two  interpreted  were  a  and  these  who  manifest  but  of  of  there  interpreted, produce  category,  each  study,  combine  An  w i l l  a  1973).  Omega  any  to  of  matrix,  entry item  be  in from  assigned  47  Of Omega  the  matrix  optimal the  three are  number  stimulus  latter  of  In  how  The  comprise  cohesive the  Phi  former that  these  the  matrix  and  the  indicates  the  " f i t " the  categories;  categories  more  data the  are.  unambiguous  and  The  can  be  more  the  conclusions.  sorters. general,  undertake general  that  the  categories  categories,  researcher's  The  latent  items  the  only  interpreted.  indicates  cohesive  matrices,  the  the  F-sort,  guideline  analytic  greater  results  is to  the  more  that be  the  at  number  stable  least  considered  of  are  30  sorters.who the  results.  sorters  seriously  are  A  needed  (Miller  et  for  a l . ,  1967) . Given  this  guideline,  were  selected  on  graduate  counselling-psychology  minimum  of  individuals minimum  the  of  basis  one  to of  do  homogeneous  students  a  selected  a  (a)  eight-month  and/or  couples  the  sort.  their at  semester's  courses  family-marital  modalities  of  willing  using  this  of  volunteer  homogeneous  perceptions  homogeneity  to  of  or the  the of  In  is  other  a  and  The is  having  that  the  a  and/or (d)  their  rationale  function words,  having  counselling  their  individual  sorters  discriminations sorters.  (c)  were  in  their  experience  task.  37  students  (b)  psychotherapy,  for  sample  in  of  enrolled  U.B.C.,  families,  two  being  These  being  c l i n i c a l  and  sample  for  commonality of more  48  homogeneous  the  sorters  experience,  the  more  discriminations less  ambiguous The  number  of  remainder  The In  which  one  to  task  to  The  the  the  the  (76%)  were  this  personal  in  recruited  via  a  insufficient the  telephone  that  time  of  the  the  basis as  been  order  c a l l .  ideal  to  to  would  19  have  simplified  the  sort  the  a  who  (range:  sorting  hours.  in  did  classroom  varied  the  experiment  a  terms  sorters  have  (51%)  in  used.  to  sort  (24%)  52  randomly  of  in  perceived  been  necessitated  students  order  to  completed  two  setting in  of  were  do  individuality  sorting  only  series  students  the  opposed  decks  sorters  by  of  ordered  required  one-half  the  the  decks  had  Most  and  on  engendered  incidents,  random  setting,  9  in  hours).  complete  a  bias  together  of  because  one  via  minimize  among  three  the  experiment.  appeared  classroom  home.  students  recruited  different  commenced  the  manner,  amount  l i f e  categories.  in  Although  the  resulting  recruited  were  classroom  data  were  within  sorters  the  in  students  incidents  somewhat  of  be  an  they  The  make  and  w i l l  Because  incidents  five  there  education  classes.  similarities  of  of  of  five  sorting  c r i t i c a l  terms  to  order  placing  they  latent  appeal  in  consistency  which  majority  personal  are  so.  that  A 9  setting  were  had  a l l  the  standardized lack  of  sorters  time  (24%)  completed  recruited  via  i t a  in who  at  49  personal  telephone  following  call  standardized  B e c a u s e the  sorting  the  requiring  sorters  standardized setting  task  appear  task  instructions proved  i n t h e i r homes (see  t o be  Appendix  straight  minimal d i r e c t i o n beyond  instructions,  d i d not  adversely.  d i d the  to  the  lack  influence  of a the  C).  forward  with  the  standardized sorting  experiment  50  Results  The Manifest The  Categorizations  F-sort  categories. sort  was  ranged  experiment  The  seven;  from  4  modal the  to  produced  number  number  20,  with  of a  of  37  sets  manifest  manifest  median  of  of  manifest  categories  categories 8.88  and  per  per  a  sort  mean  of  9.68.  S e l e c t i o n of the Number of Latent C a t e g o r i e s According problem  that  to  is  M i l l e r  not  et  completely  estimating  the  number  sufficient  for  describing  Miller  describes  dealing If  with L  is  of  this  latent a  (1967,  p.  183),  resolved  is  that  categories  given  problem,  set  and  of  a  major  of  (L). n e c e s s a r y  sorting  suggests  a  data.  means  of  i t : set  at  computational estimates  of  parameters  of  a  particular  procedure Phi a  and  But  models  differ  which  L,  of  the  is  requested  do  number to  Omega—which  in  model  be  well  is  to  for  the  ...  a  rough  the of  data  of  say,  L  produce  are The  [i.e.,  latent  the  sorting  estimate,  categories  number  the  produces  substantively.  latent the  then  selections  how  and  yield of  number, rotation  different  mathematically  computations  of  particular  experiment.  both  a l .  f i t LPA called when  roots  L  equal  and  51  to  or  greater  found, the of  of  sorters.  improved,  Until  analyzed  (pp. to  be  is  much  the  be  This  to  made,  make  using  this  the  University  computor  runs  instructed  to  extract  categories  on  each  by  requesting  or  greater  However,  revealed  various  one  incident  a  run  number  procedures of ad  the  of  are  latent hoc  was  made,  37  sorted  Alberta  computor  particular  L  a  rough  be  1.0.  (L=14).  the  when  (Division  program  with  the  number  decks of  SCAL06.  A  program  of  latent  run.  that  than  than  by  selection,  sequence  f i r s t  been  especially  number  part,  has  183-184)  Services)  the  larger  the  in  Research  On  imprecise,  of  Educational of  estimate  mathematical  selection  must  reasoning. order  items  the  categories  were  1 . Oj .  empirically,  number  In  than  the  This  number  each)  which  of  produced  inspection anomolies  estimate  of  was  determined  roots  latent  categories  that  equal  to  categories  corresponding  two  indicated  L  latent  14  the  (e.g.,  of  Phi  matrix  with  only  overfactoring  had  occurred. Therefore, requested.  on  the  Because  second  the  median  per  manifest  categorization  was  chosen.  However,  indicated  anomolies,  an as  run,  was  an  smaller  number  of  L  of  this  inspection  was  manifest  approximately  inspection did  a  of  categories  nine,  Phi the  L=9  matrix Phi  nine also  matrix  52  for  L=8. The  f i r s t  therefore was  Phi  interpretable  requested.  with  s t i l l  fewer  L=4  were  their  Appendix  a l l  of  matrices E  for  the  Table  2  for  terms  of  a  model  constituted  the  the  that  in.the  fourth  run  and  when  L=7  if  there  were  models  which  might  also  be  were  models  in  the  requested  matrices  indicate  matrix  of  ad  the  of  hoc  any  with  L=7,  solution  the of  content  an  L=6,  L=5,  in  L=4;  of  the the  L  in  which  of  number  number  of  of  categories,  categories, as  of  see  examined  terms  size  and  (see  determine  (a)  units  and  were  were  the  L=5,  inspection  L=6,  to  or  L=6  anomolies  c r i t e r i a  coherence  the  that  they  c r i t e r i a  categories  of  of  L=7,  L=5),  optimal  These  (i.e.,  sense  Phi  application that  small, these  had  two  too  (a)  of the  these  items  c r i t e r i a  fourth  consisting  substantively. model  anomolies  and  decreased  (c)  the  from  four.  indicated quite  runs  not  substantive  to An  the  determine  did  Phi  number  redistribution seven  more  these  categories.  incidents (b)  to  without  on  categories  interpretable  Phi  latent  was  respectively.  Because L=4)  latent  three  that  occurred  However,  interpretable, and  matrix  did  of  category  only  not  two  categories.  i t  was  the  L=7  in  its  Phi  items  (4,  29),  constitute  Consequently, many  to  a  coherent  apparent  that  results matrix and  was (b)  category this  53  When these  L  was  c r i t e r i a  category  in  to  its  had  absorbed  the  Phi  items,  which  in  it  four  When  L  category  in  the  incidents  (43,  incidents  f i t  which  they  category to  4,  categories  it  six  was  the  L=6  six  Phi 15,  2),  categories that  number  of  is  L=5  used  factors  a  (one  conclusion  which  to  because  constituted  method  to  distributed  and  in  that  44),  was  factor  coherence.  four  that  latent  a  model  model  with  constituted  categories,  the  consisted  of 43  5,  optimal had  the  by  L=5  analysis  to  its  four to  distributed  to  solution  the  four  matrix  five  optimal  L=5.  fourth  of  incidents  only  or  Because  was  with  explains  in  eight  lacked  L=6  (incident  the  incidents, category  either  model  second  category  collapsed.  confirmed  best  which to  category  of  required.  which  which  13  these  only and  categories  a  of  that  with  the  fourth  coherent  five  more of  the  occurred  yielded  was  of  narrowed  the  11  consisted  that  matrix,  into  that  absorbtion a  application  indicated  regarding  and  four,  category  had  been  from  to  from  categories  had  well  a  apparent  incident  judged  This  in  choice  11,  were  category  with  The  constituted  latent  decreased  which  incidents  L=5.  was  solution  five  results  underfactoring  than  best  eight  L=5  Therefore, the  L=4  resulted  Consequently,  from  matrix,  where  substantively,  more  the  Phi  a l l  matrix  categories  decreased  15  and  44  larger that  four  a  model  incidents),  solution. application  of  determine  the  correlations  among  a  54  factors.  This  the  of  graph  which is  the  should  stop  level  point  to  four.  of  Phi  matrix,  1,  the  the  basis  of  ad  constituted  step  in  Latent the  model.  specifies  the  item  latent  1978).  the  matrix  on  As  i t  optimal  one  is begin  and  the  category had  was  been  confirmed  solution  in  terms  of  L=5  the  lower  analysis Phi,  the  composition  are  grouped  52  term  part  of  rows  to  examine  rocky  the  latent  category  of  latent  the  As  to  Table  corresponding  referring a  was  according  categories).  has  geological  Categories  data  L=5  in  collects  the  a  whether  five,  latent  c r i t e r i a ,  hoc  the  categories.  of  a  category  latent  at  eigenvalues  categories  the  is  or  point.  the  Opinion  3  forming  to  four  membership  Scree  off  slope  this  where  beyond  factoring  level  of  graph  corresponds  of  items  3  stop  to  latent  model  (i.e.,  Phi  "scree".  point  to  this  categories  the  or  begin  a  next  matrix  l i t t e r  left  P h i M a t r i x of F i v e The  the  to  left  of  on  should  the  examining  point  horizontal  the  model  involves  almost  corresponds  number  The  an  of  the  one  eigenvalues  off  L=5  for  whether  figure  on  Scree-test,  f a c t o r i a l  factoring  in  out the  are  with  Because  ruled that  the  line  indicated to  about  where  straight  the  eigenvalues  factors  divided  point  method,  to  the  slope  their 2  indicates,  to  the  debris  (Kim  &  52  which  Mueller,  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Latent  Figure  1.  Plot  of  Eigenvalues  for  8  9  10  11  12  13  Category  the  F i r s t  14  Latent  Categories  14  56  c r i t i c a l  incidents,  latent  membership  categories  is  loadings)  in  assigned loading  to  the the  with  category  ranked  loading For  with  and  each  the  in  primary  7  90+  considered  basis  of  incidents  incidents  (a  mean  "  in  a l l  two  the  five  tables  decimal  of  with  the  (a  mean  of  LPA  3  the  of  per  and  et  per  indicates, category 8  with  a l . ,  are  by  100.  primary incidents  considered in  the  1967).  On  there  category),  have  loading.  strong,  matrix  and  incidents  primary  with  11  estimated  entries  multiplied  three,  is  highest  latent  loadings  category),  study,  2  primary  range  Phi  are  Table  highest  considered  5.2  the  the  incidents  L=5  has  simplified  primary  the  incident  the  lowest  (Miller  (called  five.  60-90  matrices  this  places  are  weak  i t  category  with  with  in  which  with  9  latent  entries  associated  with  incidents  of  simplified  on  category,  in  schema,  size  category  range  are  the  to  in  As  interpretation,  range  In  with  incidents  loading).  incident  and  Entries  two,  loadings  this  are  latent  moderate,  strong  corresponding  Each  category  incident  the  the  primary  the  of  by  matrix."  category  purposes  loadings  the  from  to  Phi  incidents  four,  Within are  columns  simplified  latent  (called  11  of  determined  simplified  one,  5  categories.  The  17  and  15  weak  30-60 the  were  26  moderate incidents  probabilites.  been  rounded  to  57  Table  2  Phi M a t r i x  of F i v e L a t e n t  Categories Latent  Lat ent Category  Category  Number  Incident No. 8 3 52 23 49 36 21 37  1 1 23 1 1 7 1 1 6 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 06 103 97  2  3  4  5  -25 -9 1 1  4 38 -1 1  5 -25 -1 1  -20  -8 4 25 -21 5 -3 -45 -27  19 5 -7  0 -8 15 -1  -19 -1 1  30 45 1 4 34 28 1 18 10 40  96 92 85  8 - 5 25 22 -1  75  58  16 48 50 24 17 27 42 47 46 38 39  -2 16 -31 -14 -6 -7 14 -14 -8 -3 7  1 22 1 20 111108 93 93 82  -21 -17 33 8 -8 1 0 -17  74  74  4 29 33 5 44  -16 1 4 74 -19 -29  4 -7 -1 1  15 25 9 31  -26  41  72 67 64  25 -14 -8  60  39  56  6  72 70 59  54  3 - 5 -9 5  19 -16  39 3  -14  - 5  -34 1 40 - 5 1 1 9  23 1 17 1 18 1 09 1 04 98 89 88  69 55 45 1 4  20 -4 -14 22 4 -3 6 -6 21 -1 1 -4  -3 -15 -4 7 3 7 31 5 -6 1 10 6 4  -4 -8 -19 -6 39 - 9 42 -23 1 0 10 2  3 -13 2 3 -15 14 -12 1 - 3 8 -10  7 -12 -37 43 3  -14 - 9 -16 -10 47  4 -6 8  45 -18 -21  28  28  1 26  -3  58  5  (a  mean  -1 12 14 -10 27 17 -13  -15 24 -8 23 -27 8 -15  35 32 7 13 11 12 22  -2 -2  -3 -14  of  The called  26 2 20 6 43 19 51  3 3 31 35  per  indicates  that  tended  place  to  another has  a  latent  number  another  in A  an  term  that  an  uncertain. general  membership  in  to of  a  with  high  123 1 22  86 78 54 53 48  latent  this  index  incident  is  of  M i l l e r  category  et  the  a l .  category  in  on  a  corresponding  this  in  to  loadings  confusion).  primary  and  This  ambiguity.  whether is  belong  results  of  are  sorters  latent  (the  membership  determining  that  secondary  magnitude  incident's  for  an  matrix loading  particular  categories  is  Phi  incidents  a  to  the  secondary  When  the an  in  categorizations  with  latent  According  rule  32  -4 9 -1 1 -10 20 -5 18  32  category,  matrix  related  indicates  the  latent  Omega  loadings  -8 -3 -22 26 -16 -3  high  manifest  incident  two  secondary  is  A  incidents  the  the  entries  category.  of  of  the  their  particular  confusion entry  of  loadings.  in  50 47 41 40  30  62  0 5 -10 -14 14 -10  category).  remainder  secondary  1 23 104 1 02  37 27 40  -1 1 -12 28 -1  4  2.2  -7  -42 10  a  latent  (1967, or  ambiguous  p.  term category 186),  not  an  item's  is  to  consider  59  any  item  with  ambiguous.  In  determined of  the  a  secondary practice,  whether  relative  primary  and  the  secondary  loading  its  their  this  was  primary  of  M i l l e r  et  a l .  loadings  criterion  in  necessary  with  the  with  respect  is  to  function  item of  of  complex  stimuli.  sorters  relative  is  to  have  stimuli meant less  more  were  that than  the  sorters  complex,  an a  to  25  a  incident point  are to  number  Because  in  of  of  the  sorters  as  and  considered  25  of  its  congruent parameters  sorters  Item  and  ambiguity  highly  number low  of (the  because was  ambiguous  between  and  ambiguous,  major  was  the  their  was  and  the  and  primary  were  sorted.  stimuli),  difference  two  stimuli  loading  194).  number  study  a  because  explicate  items  d i f f e r e n t i a l of was  p.  between  the  be  this  number than  this  not  The  although  made  implicitly  study.  stimuli  small  not  a l . ,  not  the  received  d i f f e r e n t i a l that  ambiguity  the a  this  or  of  basis  considered  between  functioned  the  example,  apparently  did  be  on  magnitude  been  et  to  193-230)  item which  have  whether  of  an  more  ambiguous  For  difference  a  or  (pp.  the  (1967)  choose  parameters  complexity a  that  to  rule  (Miller  relative  determing  was  difference 76  secondary  30  a l .  between  was  of  the  et  item  should  loading  of  the  39  of  loadings.  judgement  magnitude  was  an  e x p l i c i t  a'substantial  Because  it  not  secondary  to  there  M i l l e r  difference  according  ambiguous,  or  loading  ideal  the  chosen. if  primary  there  This was  loading  60  and this  its  highest  criterion,  latent  The  14  category)  highest bold  secondary  face  in  incidents  were  secondary  loading. mean  of  ambiguous  (the  primary  Omega  matrix,  and  confusion matrix  has  as  categories. diagonal  these  incidents  are  of  per  loading  and  printed  Latent  in  which  Categories an  index  of  latent  cohesion,  appears  in  Table  3.  This  many  and  rows  is to  basis  incidents  is  It  equal  of  2.8  the  2).  Omega M a t r i x of F i v e The  on  (a  loading  Table  Finally,  columns  symmetric, the  with  as  there  each  corresponding  entry  square  are  entry  category  latent  above'  below  the  the  diagonal. The latent More any w i l l  diagonal  entries  categories  (these  s p e c i f i c a l l y , particular be  placed  five  of  with  each  probability  of  is  category  w i l l  sorters'  manifest  the  least The  pair  of  For the  46 have  cohesive  in  the  is  from  this  in  the  example,  as  shown  cohesive  incidents  been  placed  categorizations. with  an  entry  entries  categories  or  of  Table  latent  sorters' in  each  3). that  category  3,  with to  other  Latent  the  manifest  Table  belong  latent  the this  in  category  latent  the three  is  26.  represent their  in  of  probability  category  that  with  face the  other  most  cohesiveness  bold  entry  incidents  that  off-diagonal latent  appear  diagonal  pair  categorizations. category  a  represent  the  tendency  confusion to  merge.  of  any  More  61  Table  The  3  Omega M a t r i x Latent  Lat Cat  ent egor  Category  Number  y  No.  2  3  4  5  12  13  9  5  10  13  9  15  9  37  5  1  1  32  2  12  37  3  13  10  26  4  9  13  15  J  5  9  9  specifically, any  pair  of  categories  an  off-diagonal  content w i l l  appear  categorizations. category  three  confused  with  incidents appear  which is  the  drawn  this  For  and  together  In  in  35.6  per  latent  same  two  factors  namely,  a  complexity  low of  both  the  (the  the  probability  as  of  these  of  sorters'  shown four  15  pair  in  that  3,  the  most  any  latent  manifest  pair  diagonal  cohesiveness  of  the  latent  that of  are  This  from  may  responsible  sorters  incidents.  to Had  be  26-46  w i l l  entries, categories,  with  a  mean  a t t r i b u t e d to  for  item  incidents there  of  categorizations.  the  range  latent  categories  of  entries  latent  Table  are  that  manifest  magnitude  category).  ratio  the  the  category  of  is  particular in  sorters'  the  the  a  example,  probability  study,  low  from  together  latent  from  represents  somewhat  units  entry  46  5  been  and a  of  the  ambiguity; the larger  high number  62  of  sorters,  magnitude  and  of  had  the  the  incidents  diagonal  been  entries  less  would  complex,  l i k e l y  the  have  been  higher. The the  magnitude  confusion  range  from  of  5-15  categories). are What  not  latent  This  be  off-diagonal  latent  categories  a  of  mean  means  that  cohesive,  categories  The  the  concluded  Description  w i l l  the with  highly  may  of  description  consist  of  the  t i t l e ,  (c)  the  category,  (a) the  the  of the  the  a  and  pair  they  each  of  the  suggested of  t i t l e ,  the  simplified  five  abstracted  meaning  of  the  secondary  ideas  and  then  ambiguous The emotional  to  interpreting  central on  the  examine  incidents five  idea  latent  how  perceptions,  (2)  the  of  basis  the  each the  of  that  the  five  leads  to  disclosure  that  latent  to  their  was  of  meaning,  to  category  and  any  incidents, and  ideas.  emerged  change  to  The  incidents  these  belong  of  incidents  category  that  expansion  category.  weaker-loading  categories  categories  an  strong-loading  substantiated  experiencing  confused.  latent  c r i t i c a l  and  formulate  categories  categories.  incidents  pertaining  in  is  (b)  comment  used  latent  very  separate  brief  procedure  entries  latent  matrix  by  the  (the  of  the  accompanied (e)  low  representing  Categories  loadings  (d)  are  Omega  discrete  of the L a t e n t  per  is  although  neither  from  are  10  entries  in  feelings  were  named:  (1)  interpersonal and  needs,  (3)  63  understanding, (5)  (4)  validation.  taking  These  responsibility  categories  are  for  experience,  described  and  below.  Latent category one: emotional e x p e r i e n c i n g l e a d s to change i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n s . Expanded the  t i t l e :  The  acknowledgement  experiencing of  primary  partners--alters  interpersonal  couples  More  change.  emotional results relating  A  to  Loadings:  having B  Category It  23,  21,  (14,  36,  72,  67,  the  loadings  5  For  the  is  inc ident.  10  37,  64),  less  as  of A  feelings  A's.own  the  45),  incidents  B.  of  and  of  B  of  the  observation  emotional  sense  produces of  B's  experiencing,  which  largest  category  leads  with  incidents  4 moderate-loading  (34,  between  to  A  incident 10)  that  their  (40), are  (8,  17 3,  52,  incidents and  2  ambiguous  primary  and  secondary  25.  convenience and  one  the  5  1 weak-loading  than  A's  strong-loading  30,  by  perception  perception  is  differential  sake  designated  new  one  has  moderate-loading because  or  differently.  incidents. 49,  a  emotion—in  s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  experiencing,  in  of  A  is  and  c l a r i t y ,  always  the  partners  person  are  reporting  the  64  C r i t i c a l 1.  Incidents:  Incident  8,  Couple  14  (strong  loading  of  123)  A-Female Both A and the t h e r a p i s t n o t i c e d t h a t B had been on the verge of b r e a k i n g down a n d c r y i n g when he had q u i c k l y r e g a i n e d c o n t r o l of h i s emotions. In spite of their wanting him to open up, he did not. •However, A r e c o g n i z e d t h a t B was u p s e t about their handicapped baby, and concluded that he had not dealt with his pain around their baby being handicapped because it was too overwhelming. B e c a u s e A h a d n o t b e e n a w a r e o f how h u r t B was about the baby, seeing his reaction caused her to feel more u n d e r s t a n d i n g and s y m p a t h e t i c t o w a r d h i m . She stopped nagging him to d e a l w i t h h i s p a i n as she thought best ( i . e . , by e x p r e s s i n g it) and accepted his right to deal with it by n o t e x p r e s s i n g it b e c a u s e t h i s was most c o m f o r t a b l e f o r h i m . In hurt  this  and  incident  pain  B's  concerning  characterized  by  and  awareness.  pain  into  implicitly A  to  be  has  more  a  hurt,  B's  new  their  allowing As  the the  Because  A  emotional  of  had  experiencing  handicapped  perception  understanding  behaviorally. B's  his  emotional  B, not  primary result  of  (i.e.,  child) feelings  of  his  is of  observing  hurt this,  B  as  hurting  which  and  to  respond  differently  been  experiencing  aware is  a  of  new  the  leads  extent  emotional  expression. 2.  Incident  3,  Couple  1  (strong  A  loading  of  117)  A-Female It became e v i d e n t t h a t B f e e l s a f r a i d t h a t he will l o s e c o n t r o l when A is emotional. The therapist helped B to r e a l i z e that t h i s reaction is connected to-his father's drinking. A saw that B realized that he w i t h d r a w s f r o m p e o p l e by b e c o m i n g r a t i o n a l when he i s a f r a i d of b e i n g r e j e c t e d . As t h e result  of  65  of seeing B get in understanding why i t emotions, and how thi intimate with her, A fel In  this  getting  in  incident  touch  acknowledgement result of  B  to  B.  of  as  became is 3.  a  of  of  new  his  in  emotional  experiencing  his  feelings)  is  primary  this,  addition,  evident  B's  the  observing  afraid In  with  touch with his feelings, is he is so s c a r e d of his s blocks him from being t closer to B.  A  implicitly  emotions  because  this  feeling  which  B's  fear  incident,  B's  (i.e.,  characterized of  fear.  As  has  a  new  leads  A  to  of  losing  by  the  the  perception feel  closer  control  emotional  experiencing  expression.  Incident  52,  Couple  21  (strong  loading  of  116)  A-Female In a p a r t i c u l a r s e s s i o n t h e t h e r a p i s t r e q u e s t e d that B s h a r e how h e f e l t r a t h e r than what he thought, which technique he continued to use thereafter. Through hearing B's f e e l i n g s , A f e l t t h a t she gained a better understanding of him, t h a t he was more t r u s t i n g of h e r , and t h a t they were brought closer together. In sharing  this his  incident feelings)  acknowledgement acknowledged As  the  result  perception  of  of  of B of  Also,  B  emotional  emotional  is  feelings  B) had  is  experiencing  this,  leads  a  new  they  her  A's to  had  primary  implicitly in  (i.e.,  the  because  A  disclosed is  by  implicitly  implicit  which not  which,  are  observing (this  experiencing  characterized  previously,  understanding because  B's  not  been  feelings.  has  a  new  increased feel  feelings expression.  closer  to  previously,  B. B's  66  4.  Incident  23,  Couple  6  (strong  loading  of  114)  A-Female A, who had been t a l k i n g t o the t h e r a p i s t about how she h a d b e e n h u r t by B n o t t e l l i n g her about his a f f a i r , admitted spontaneously t h a t she might have h a n d l e d t h e a f f a i r t h e same way. When B replied, "My gawd, y o u ' r e r e a l l y h u m a n " , A was s t r u c k by t h e insight that although inappropriately she perhaps imposed her values a n d h i g h s t a n d a r d s on h i m , and t h a t she was n o t a s p e r f e c t a s s h e p r e s e n t e d herself to be. B e c a u s e A h a d b e e n b l a m i n g B f o r some t i m e for the a f f a i r , she felt embarrassed and guilty concerning this admission. However, the admission e n a b l e d A t o see B's p e r s p e c t i v e and c o n s e q u e n t l y to p e r c e i v e him i n a more p o s i t i v e light. In  this  statement, by  the  (i.e., affair)  "My  B's  accompanied and  more  As  the  positive  understanding 5.  of  Incident  of 49,  really  an  an  (in  human")  A's  a f f e c t i v e l y press)  result  of  have  and  comes  herself  and  of  13  to  is  feeling attitude laden  this,  an  (i,e.,  of  resentment  toward  his or  loading  A  perceives  increased  of  what  "hot"  B.  (strong  the  characterized  thought,  labelled  observing  light  Couple  experiencing  implicit  concerning  by  Safran  emotional  you're  resentment  cognitions. a  gawd,  B's  acknowledgement  Greenberg  in  incident  112)  A-Female A f o u n d i t p a r t i c u l a r l y m o v i n g w h e n B, who did not show emotion easily, and when he did expressed mostly anger, s a i d w i t h t e a r s t h a t he n e e d e d h e l p in knowing how t o r e s p o n d t o h e r : t h a t i t w a s n o t that he was u n w i l l i n g t o r e s p o n d b u t t h a t he d i d n o t know how. A's seeing this side of B changed her p e r c e p t i o n of h i m - - f r o m n o n c a r i n g t o w i l l i n g but not k n o w i n g how. C o n s e q u e n t l y , when B i s u n r e s p o n s i v e A a l s o i s aware t h a t r a t h e r than feeling badly and powerless and reacting to t h i s by w i t h d r a w i n g o r  B  67  attempting to forget about i t , that choose to access his responsive side what she wants. In  this  expressing  incident  a  Given in  a  that  Safran,  by  by an  direct in  of  B  of  B's  leads  A  to  because  emotions,  B's  respond A  36,  or  wants  feelings  are As  knowledge  rarely  10  seen  (strong  and to  expression.  inform  (Greenberg in  result  has  rather  a  new  than  express is  a  new  loading  of  people & the  of perception uncaring)  behaviorally. B  experiencing  Couple  A  is  implicit  the  (i.e.,  felt-need  tends  differently  had  a  arousal  experiencing, in  emotional  Incident  desires  tears)  of  feelings  felt-need.  lacking  addition,  6.  B's  emotional  as  of  primary  of  with  emotional  their  press),  help  is able to expressing  experiencing  acknowledgement  acceptance  way  (i.e.,  which  the  for  heightened  acknowledgement observing  emotional  "felt-need"  characterized accompanied  B's  she by  In  "soft" expression. 106)  A-Female When B s a i d t h a t o n e o f h i s b e e f s was that A had quit giving h i m c o m p l i m e n t s , A r e a l i z e d t h a t B was really wanting compliments even though he was uncomfortable receiving them. A understood this dynamic a l i t t l e b e t t e r and began c o m p l i m e n t i n g him more. In stating  this the  incident beef  characterized affectively As  the  by  laden  result  of  that the  B's A  emotional had  quit  giving  acknowledgement  thought observing  or  hot  this,  experiencing  of  him a  cognition A  (i.e.,  compliments)  resentment  and  accompanying  implicitly  has  a  new  is the i t .  68  perception  of  responding  differently behaviorally  more).  addition,  In  resentment, 7.  B  as  B's  Incident  wanting  compliments  because  B  acknowledging  21,  Couple  6  had it  (i.e., been  is  (strong  which  a  leads  to  complimenting  suppressing  new  loading  her B  this  expression. of  103)  A-Male When B c r i e d a n d A saw t h e p a i n e d e x p r e s s i o n on B's face, i t meant a l o t t o A. A's feelings toward her changed, and they were brought c l o s e r t o g e t h e r . A a l s o f e l t d i s c o m f o r t b e c a u s e he r e a l i z e d t h a t he was responsible for her pain, and he p u r p o s e d t o n o t j e o p a r d i z e t h e i r m a r r i a g e a g a i n as he h a d d o n e . In crying  this with  incident a  characterized of  pain  has  a  new  emotional respond  by  acknowledgement  the  As  the  perception closeness  by  on  new  affective  8.  Incident  B's  on  experiencing  expression  heightened  result of  B  of as  between  d i f f e r e n t l y .  expression  emotional  pained  accompanied  expression.  B's  In  face  her of  primary  feeling  emotional  arousal  and  hurting and  addition, a  is  the  observing  them  meant  face)  (i.e.,  lot  this,  which  A  implicitly  leads  to  to  A's  resolve  that  the  pained  to  implies  A  that  greater to  i t  expression. 37,  Couple  11  (strong  loading  of  97)  A-Male B's c r y i n g and pouring out her feelings of how isolated she feels in the relationship is e x p e r i e n c e d by A d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n s i m i l a r emotional expressions a t home b e c a u s e i t was n o t b e i n g caused by what normally causes i t . A realizes the seriousness of the s i t u a t i o n , and i s c o n c e r n e d t o work h a r d e r to r e c t i f y i t .  is  a  69  In crying  this and  incident  pouring  B's  out  her  characterized  by  of  accompanied  loneliness  expression. has  a  new  which  As  of  to  his  the  experiencing 9.  the  result of  B  therapeutic A  by  of  of as  9  (i.e.,  isolation)  of  the  heightened  is  primary  feeling  arousal  and  observing  this,  implicitly  desperately  in  to  respond  setting  perceives  Couple  30,  feelings  resolving  occurs,  Incident  experiencing  acknowledgement  perception  leads  Because  the  emotional  in  it  (strong  need  of  differently  which  to  A  be  loading  this  a  to  B.  emotional  new  of  support  expression.  96)  A-Male When A s e e s on B ' s f a c e an expression of fear or vulnerability which A had not seen b e f o r e (rather t h a n t h e u s u a l mask of a n g e r ) , A p e r c e i v e d B in a new way. This perception made A feel less d e f e n s i v e , more w i l l i n g t o be vulnerable, and to share himself in counselling. In  this  expression  incident  of  fear  characterized  by  vulnerability  into  this,  new  him  A  to  willing the  has  a  respond to  experiencing 10.  Incident  or  her  emotional  allowing  of is  45,  a  the  awareness. perception  in  experiencing  vulnerability  differently  share  expression  B's  As of  B  new Couple  on  B's  primary the as  B's  face  face)  of  Because  A  before,  B's  loading  of  of  which being  had  (strong A-Male  or  not  leads more seen  emotional  expression. 20  fear  observing  vulnerable (e.g.,  the  is  feeling  result  behaviorally  counselling).  fear  on  (i.e.,  92)  70  When A t o l d B i n a d i r e c t w a y how h e f e l t - - t h a t h e needed her support very much, A e x p e r i e n c e d t h i s as a beautiful moment. A r e a l i z e d t h a t he had been p e r c e i v i n g B i n terms of her deficiencies as the cause of their problem, and o v e r l o o k i n g what she contributed to their relationship. A accepted her as an e q u a l i n s p i t e of h e r l o w e r e n e r g y level. In  this  incident  experiencing beautiful a  B  as  leads A's  to  is  As  valuable his  of  emotional  his  result  of  accepting  her  implies  as  that  by  this,  contributer  experiencing  felt-need  characterized  the  experiencing  new  11.  a  own  sharing  moment)  felt-need.  of  a  the  A's  to an  the A  equal.  B  as  a  acknowledgement  has  their  A's  for  (i.e.,  a  new  perception  relationship The  emotional  of  which  intensity  of  experiencing  is  expression.  Incident  14,  Couple  4  (moderate  loading  of  85)  A-Female When B unloads h i s p a i n in a nonblaming manner, A f e e l s c l o s e r t o B. A also feels good because she interprets B's sharing t o mean t h a t he a p p r o v e s of the t h e r a p i s t and c o u n s e l l i n g and i s serious about r e s o l v i n g t h e i r p r o b l e m , and because i t was A ' s idea t o come t o c o u n s e l l i n g , she i n t e r p r e t s his sharing t o a l s o mean t h a t he a p p r o v e s of her. In  this  unloading by the  the  incident  his  pain  in  B's a  acknowledgement  result  of  observing  perception  of  B  of 12.  herself) Incident  (i.e.,  which 34,  emotional nonblaming  of  the  this, as  experiencing manner)  primary A  leads  to  A  feeling  Couple  17  (moderate  characterized  feeling  implicitly  approving  is  of  the  (i.e.,  of  has  pain.  a  new  counselling  closer loading  to of  As  B. 75,  and  71  ambiguous) A-Female A, who had been suppressing her thoughts and feelings regarding s o c i a l i z i n g — t h a t she does not like s o c i a l i z i n g a l o t , s h a r e s t h i s w i t h B. B, who had been under the impression that socializing was easy for her, understands her p o s i t i o n and responds t o h e r i n a new way behaviorally. In A  this  sharing  incident  her  thoughts  socializing) resentment it.  As  is  and  the  perception  A's and  the  A  of  (this  is  and  responding  differently  new  a  A  the  of  uncertain.  13.  B  thought  this,  B  implicitly  his  has  a  a  understanding  behaviorally. her  of  of  accompanying  understanding  resentment,  secondary  of  This of  Incident  loading  feelings  membership  disclosure  to  dislike  acknowledgement  laden  in  her  (i.e.,  A's  Given  emotional  new  of  position  that  A  had  experiencing  expression.  high  disclosure  her  leads  experiencing  regarding  the  implicit  which  is  by  observing  position),  suppressing  feelings  affectively  her  been  emotional  characterized  result of  own  her 28,  this  and  thoughts 8  58  needs,  incident  secondary  Couple  of  category  however,  in  loading and  on  indicates  category may  be  two,  one  the that  is  attributed  to  feelings.  (moderate  loading  of  72)  A-Male Early in A's marriage he had f e l t uncomfortable b e c a u s e B was d o m i n a n t in the r e l a t i o n s h i p . In the session A r e l a t e d an e x p e r i e n c e f r o m t h a t p e r i o d of t h e i r m a r r i a g e a f t e r w h i c h he had become d o m i n a n t in the relationship. When A r e l a t e d t h i s experience,  A's  72  he experienced a f l o o d of f e e l i n g s a s s o c i a t e d with how u n c o m f o r t a b l e h e h a d felt in the subordinate p o s i t i o n early in the marriage. Besides discomfort, he also experienced a release--a giving up of something he had held on to t i g h t l y because he r e c o g n i z e d s o m e t h i n g was i n n e e d of change. This intense emotional experience enabled A to empathize w i t h how B f e l t i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , a n d h e b e g a n t o see that she was e n t i t l e d t o f e e l d i s s a t i s f i e d . A a l s o came t o see t h e d i f f i c u l t y was n o t B ' s problem but a r e l a t i o n s h i p p r o b l e m c e n t e r e d on an imbalance of power. In the  this  flood  position  of in  incident  A's  feelings  associated  the  of  experience,  A  entitled  feel  B's  primary  emotional  to  position  implicitly  has  and  the  A's  emotional  experiencing Couple  is 1  his  result  which  leads  more  new  A  the  by this  of  B  The  indicates for  loading  as  understand  clearly.  expression  (moderate  by  to  (i.e.,  one-down  of  perception  experiencing a  former  accompanied  the  new  relationship  emotional  1,  As a  experiencing  characterized  feelings  dissatisfied  of  Incident  with  is  arousal.  intensity  14.  emotional  relationship)  acknowledgement heightened  own  that  this  him.  of  67)  A-Male When t h e t h e r a p i s t instructs the couple to stop t a l k i n g and t o look at each o t h e r , A r e a l i z e s that B is another person rather than a set of past impressions. This e x p e r i e n c e b r e a k s b r i e f l y a few p a t t e r n s of r e l a t i n g and p r o v i d e s A with a l i t t l e greater understanding of the relationship. Because verbally, in  this  A  A  does  not  acknowledge  does  not  have  incident  (it  is  an  primary  explicit  likely  that  A  feelings  emotional has  an  experiencing  implicit  73  experiencing at  B).  As  perception  the of  relationship of  the  15.  of  emotion result  B as  a  on  of  an  this  person  patterns  and  intrapsychic experience,  which  his  level  leads  having  a  A  to  has  as a  gazes  new  changes  greater  he  in  understanding  relationship.  Incident  18,  Couple  5  (moderate  loading  of  64)  A-Male When A a n d B r a i s e d an h i s t o r i c i s s u e — B wanting A to correct for past hurts concerning A's daughter ( i . e . , B's stepdaughter), the t h e r a p i s t pointed out to B that it was f u t i l e t o a t t e m p t t o c h a n g e the past. When B a c c e p t e d t h i s , A f e l t r e l i e v e d because he w o u l d no l o n g e r be a s k e d t o do t h e i m p o s s i b l e . A saw i n t h i s i n c i d e n t an i n d i c a t i o n that they were willing to work for solutions rather than impute blame to each o t h e r . A l s o , A f e l t d e e p l y t o u c h e d by B's p a i n w h i c h i n d i c a t e d how d e e p l y s h e c a r e d about her relationship. In pain  this  incident  regarding  her  characterized of a  pain. new  16.  As  by the  perception  Incident  10,  B's  relationship  the  with  acknowledgement  result of  emotional  B  of  as  Couple  observing  deeply 3  experiencing her of  (moderate  stepdaughter) the  this,  caring  (i.e.,  for  loading  primary A  B's is  feeling  implicitly  his of  daughter. 60,  ambiguous) A-Female B e c a u s e when A t r i e d t o d i s c u s s things with B he would get angry and would not l i s t e n , A had d e c i d e d t h a t t h e r e was no s e n s e i n discussing things with him. After an i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h t h e t h e r a p i s t got behind B's feelings of anger and helped him to relieve them, B seemed to look at things in a different light. B realized that A was not purposely b l o c k i n g him out but that A j u s t could not  has  74  respond to him when B was a n g r y . B d i d not react w i t h a n g e r , was more relaxed and at peace with himself. Then A f e l t she c o u l d s h a r e her feelings, and t h e y were a b l e t o d i s c u s s t h e i r feelings which t h e y had not been a b l e t o do b e f o r e . In  this  therapist him of  to  getting  relieve  primary  anger.  that  she  secondary  them)  leads  the  B's  is  B  to  of  anger  characterized  by  the  40  feelings  and  needs,  category  one  ambiguous. A's  the  develop  share  of  experiencing  feelings  underlying  could  to  B's  relationship  loading  attributed  emotional  behind  feelings  This  understand feel  incident  her  on  makes  category this  This  feeling  and  feelings.  i t  was  it  the  incident's  that  and  of  to  leads  However,  two,  secondary  helping  affect  responses  d i f f e r e n t l y ,  and  A  disclosure  loading to  to  the  membership  safe  the  acknowledgement  secondary  new  (i.e.,  may  share  of  in be her  feelings. 17.  Incident  40,  Couple  12  (weak  loading  of  56)  A-Female When the therapist confro alternatives in their separation, it forced A r e l a t i o n s h i p and to express being really pissed off. a n g r y a n d was blown away helpful to realize that d e s p e r a t e , b e c a u s e he d o e s ' might e a s i l y have done. ;  In being of  the  this  really  incident angry)  primary  is  feeling  B's  nts A and B with relationship includ to commit h e r s e l f to t h i s t o B. A recalls A had never seen him by i t . She finds B is angry but not reject her as  emotional  characterized of  anger  experiencing by  the  accompanied  the ing the B so i t not he  (i.e.,  acknowledgement by  heightened  75  arousal either  and a  Safran, this  emotional  primary in  incident a  primary.  As  new  very  angry.  like  this  felt-need the  the  emotion  the  of  before,  basis  for  result of  B  39,  A,  of  as  A  Meaning:  The  of  three  main  of  by  awareness  hot  A  is  implicitly  B  never  experiencing  idea  feelings  the  30)  second  feelings  he  is  a  has is  express  or  form  by  (49,  (23,  form  by  36,  by  21,  sense  one  of  anger  new  of 34).  45,  an  leads  to  feelings  the by  them  allowing (3,  52,  primary  arousal the  of  and  third  feelings  them 14,  acknowledgement  28);  is  the  primary  either  the  category  of  which  heightened  37,  of  involves  verbalizing  involves  acknowledgement  cognitions  the  latent  perception  feelings  accompanied  expression the  first  primary  (8,  this  acknowledgement  The  of  of  emotion--in  primary  forms.  acknowledgement  involves  this,  incident  seen  This  change.  emotional  this  of  anger  had  couples  primary  in  B's  recall  though  emotional  experiencing  10);  where  be  and  even  interpersonal  18,  (Greenberg  desperate  partners—alters  into  may  independent  anger  observing  anger  expression.  acknowledgement  takes  B's  p.j83 )  the  not  because B's  Although  secondary  incident  Also,  Abstracted that  on  (see  perception  affective  a  press),  expresses  a  or  expression.  form  accompanied  76  The two  experiencing  change  result  of  18,  observing  by  (23,  40),  relating nine  A  to  B  49, has  one  weak-loading In  A  by  two  the  to  B  to  the A  3,  exhibiting three  the  A  to  ways  A  behavioral  closeness  to  B  (3,  resolving  to  respond  of  52,  52,  which  36,  the  21,  leads  pattern  is  (8,  52,  49,  3,  as  via  either  change  has  a  as  new  implicitly This (45),  23, (14,  to  37, A  supported 36,  18),  21,  and  and  in  21);  result  of  by  A's  perception  of  (28)  leads  pattern by  which is  B  supported  to by  two  1).  which  A's  incidents new  There  understanding  are  four  responses A  the  strong-loading  more  there  occurrences  3,  B  differently.  becoming 45);  pattern,  incidents  (28,  ten  B  of  pattern,  or  incidents  23,  new  1)  incident  of  (8,  change  (40).  change  specific  of  52,  This  incidents  (45,  relating  occurrences  perception  differently.  analysis  indicates  are  new  couples  change  implicitly  experiencing,  e x p l i c i t l y  An  (8,  or  incident  moderate-loading  B  30)  to  experiencing  moderate-loading  strong-loading  leads  emotional  a  leads  primary  B's  secondary  emotional  relating  one  the  strong-loading  30),  either  In  differently.  37,  own  emotion  patterns.  e x p l i c i t l y 14,  of  differently  are or  occurrences (8,  experiencing there  perception  are (21,  36,  30,  greater  two 37).  of  B  five accepting of  of  A  49);  there  emotional  occurrences  of  A  77  Finally, incidents that  an a n a l y s i s  also  indicates  a l t e r s perception  emotional  implicit  that  This  incidents  i n two  strong-loading  the emotional  and r e s u l t s  expression.  strong-loading  of t h e t e n  experiencing  i n c o u p l e s change  is explicit  i n seven  (8, 3, 52, 49, 36,  strong-loading  i s new  incidents  37,  30) and i s  (21, 4 5 ) .  Latent category two: the d i s c l o s u r e of f e e l i n g s and needs . Expanded to  title:  The e x p e r i e n c e  the p o s i t i v e v a l u i n g  the  disclosure  A's e x p e r i e n c e positive  disclosure  of d i s c l o s i n g  of needs l e a d s  incidents.  50, 38),  24,  Critical 1.  two  More  change.  i s the second  largest  17, 2 7 ) , t h r e e m o d e r a t e - l o a d i n g  A's  category  incidents incidents  ( 3 9 ) , and one  incidents: 16, C o u p l e  15  (strong  loading  of  122)  with  (16, 48, (42, 46,  ambiguous  (74).  Incident  and  specifically,  of f e e l i n g s ;  to couples  incident  leads  leads A t o the  I t has s i x s t r o n g - l o a d i n g  one w e a k - l o a d i n g  incident  feelings  feelings  of f e e l i n g s ,  t o change.  of t h e d i s c l o s u r e  Loadings: Category 11  of t h e d i s c l o s u r e  of needs l e a d s  valuing  of d i s c l o s i n g  78  A-Male When A expressed the concern t h a t b e c a u s e B was going out too much they were d r i f t i n g apart e m o t i o n a l l y , a n d B s a i d t h a t t h e r e was n o t h i n g t o be worried about, A realized that his concern was unfounded. C l e a r i n g up t h i s c o n c e r n s t a r t e d A and B c o m m u n i c a t i n g on o t h e r issues. Also, A realized that he c o u l d e x p r e s s h i s f e e l i n g s w i t h o u t h i s head g e t t i n g chopped off. In  this  incident  and  realizes  that  2.  Incident  48,  it  A is  Couple  experiences safe 13  to  do  (strong  disclosing  his  feelings  this. loading  of  120)  A-Male When A s p o k e t o B f r a n k l y a b o u t h i s f e e l i n g s , B felt that this was a significant moment--that A was l e t t i n g B i n s i d e of A f o r the f i r s t time. As a result, B f e l t c l o s e r t o A and more s e c u r e t o t a l k a b o u t some t h i n g s . A l s o , B no l o n g e r p e r c e i v e d A a s closed and unwilling to reveal himself. A's p e r c e p t i o n of t h i s i n c i d e n t d i f f e r e d from B's. A did not think t h a t t h i s was t h e f i r s t t i m e he h a d expressed his emotions and she did. However, A recognized the practical value of being more e x p r e s s i v e so t h a t t h e o t h e r p e r s o n knows what is g o i n g on and he b e g a n t o do t h i s . In  this  incident  and  recognizes  3.  Incident  the  50,  A  value  Couple  experiences of 21  disclosing  expressing (strong  his  loading  his  feelings of  feelings more.  111)  A-Male When the therapist asked A how he felt about something and A e x p r e s s e d h i s thoughts rather than feelings, the t h e r a p i s t a s k e d a g a i n how h e f e l t in t h e h e r e and now. T h i s moment c o n s t i t u t e d f o r A t h e breaking of a b a r r i e r to expressing his feelings, the setting of a precedent that enabled his acquiring the pattern of expressing feelings. Moreover, A recognized the value of expressing rather than suppressing f e e l i n g s and began to feel t h a t t o do t h i s was a c c e p t a b l e .  79  In  this  rather  than  feelings 4.  incident his  is  experiences  disclosing  thoughts,  and  recognizes  valuable  and  acceptable.  both  Incident  A  24,  Couple  16  (strong  his  that  loading  feelings  disclosing  of  108)  A-Male When A f i n a l l y r e a l i z e d t h a t he a s w e l l as B have the need to express their feelings more i n the relationship, A f e l t very emotional and took B's hand and conveyed t h i s to her. As a r e s u l t , A felt less confused in counselling and an even greater d e s i r e to share himself. In  this  incident  A  partner  have  to  their  share  realizes  to  B.  less  in  counselling  this  incident  himself.  In  discloses  his  component  of  connection  these  this  that  experiences  In  which  informs  on  other  It  feelings  communicated describes  this of  people is  only  that as  this  need.  The  when  very  to  feelings in  want,  direct  peoples'  or  truely  needs  and  wants.  The  between  feelings  connection  in  or  to  feelings wish  information of  their  wants  experienced  he  human  primary  fashion  are  share  According  provide  they  feel  strong  missing,  needs  to  to  wants  from  are  feelings  A  this  emotional  press).  results  his  emotional- as  the  and  and  conveys  motivated  their  they  a  leads  very  primary in  need  feels  connection  words,  and  more  Safran,  he  more,  attributable  and  that  also  between  what  this  and  A  of  is  exists  people  for.  desires.  need  (Greenberg  authors,  informing  Disclosing  perception  need  feelings  understanding confused  the  are  based  and  expression and  "felt-need" wants.  80  Consequently, considered 5.  a  Incident  the  need  expressed  in  this  incident  may  be  felt-need. 17,  Couple  5  (strong  loading  of  93)  A-Male A's l o s i n g some i n n e r b l o c k s a n d b e c o m i n g m o r e open by s p e a k i n g a b o u t p e r s o n a l i s s u e s a n d f e e l i n g s i n a way that n e i t h e r B nor the t h e r a p i s t f e l t they had heard b e f o r e , marked a t u r n i n g p o i n t in c o u n s e l l i n g . A realized that B's c r i t i c i s m of h i m — t h a t he d i d n o t e x p r e s s h i s n e e d s c l e a r l y , was v a l i d a n d t h a t he had to take the i n i t i a t i v e t o do t h i s . He also realized that it was his responsibility to work continually on the relationship by t a l k i n g a b o u t p e r s o n a l i s s u e s and feelings. In  this  incident  and  discloses  his  his  responsibility  6.  Incident  27,  A  experiences  feelings to  in  a  disclose  Couple  7  new  losing way.  feelings  (strong  some  inner  Also, in  loading  the of  he  blocks  realizes  relationship.  94)  A-Female When A b r o k e down a n d c r i e d , a n d B g o t u p a n d left the room, A became v e r y upset about his lack of support. Later they c l a r i f i e d that both his leaving the room and her f e e l i n g u n s u p p o r t e d were p r e d i c a t e d on misinterpretation that r e s u l t e d from inadequate communication. A r e a l i z e d through this experience that i t was s a f e t o c r y i n f r o n t of t h e t h e r a p i s t , and t h i s put her at ease with the therapist. A r e a l i z e d a l s o t h a t i t was a c c e p t a b l e t o e x p r e s s real anger in c o u n s e l l i n g , and that their relationship would survive this. In realizes these 7.  this  incident  that  i t  feelings  Incident  in  42,  is  A  both  expresses safe  and  her  anger  acceptable  and  hurt,  to  express  of  82)  counselling. Couple  19  (moderate A-Male  loading  and  81  When A t e l l s B how he felt, he became very e m o t i o n a l , f e l t very h u r t and j u s t about s t a r t e d to cry. However, rather than his t y p i c a l response of blaming B for his hurt, A responded by expressing his hurt and h i s wanting her. I t made a d i f f e r e n c e to A that B did not respond in her typically defensive manner but opened up t o h i m . A realized how d i f f i c u l t t h i s new way of responding was for him; that he could get what he wanted without d r i v i n g B away by e x p r e s s i n g t h a t he f e l t hurt and really wanted her rather than by blaming and demanding. In without  this  blaming  realizes  that  d i f f i c u l t idea  of  incident  i t  value  discloses  This  although  that  the  B.  A  is  this  a  new  new  disclosing  hurt  and  need  response  for  A,  way  f a c i l i t a t e s the of  his  of  and  responding  intimacy  feelings  he  is  for  B  he  is  wants.  The  implicit  in  this  realization. 8.  Incident  47,  Couple  13  (moderate  loading  of  74,  ambiguous) A-Male When the therapist asked B t o s t a t e how s h e felt about something and B began to c r i t i c i z e A, the therapist i n t e r v e n e d and p o i n t e d out the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s h a r i n g o n e ' s own f e e l i n g s and c r i t i c i z i n g one's partner. A and B agreed that the former was more f a c i l i t a t i v e of l i s t e n i n g responses than the latter. The awareness of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e e n a b l e d A and B to m o n i t o r t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s and to choose to share feelings. Through t h i s they learned that it was s a f e t o s h a r e f e e l i n g s , that sharing feelings received a f a i r l y concerned reception. In  this  disclosing sharing  incident  feelings  feelings  A  and  and  B  learn  the  c r i t i c i z i n g .  f a c i l i t a t e s listening  difference  They  realize  responses  between that  and  also  is  82  safe. equal  However, to  its  category on  primary  this  incident's  loading,  its  is  highly  ambiguous.  category  three,  understanding,  term 9.  because  "awareness" Incident  in  46,  this  Couple  secondary  membership  This  high  may  be  in  loading  this  secondary  is  latent loading  attributed  to  the  incident. 20  (moderate  loading  of  72)  A-Female A r e a l i z e d how i m p o r t a n t h e r n e e d t o be loved was and that i t was okay to need that in the r e l a t i o n s h i p , t o want t h a t and t o ask f o r that. A experienced this realization as an exciting d i s c o v e r y of herself as an individual. As the result of c l e a r l y expressing this r e a l i z a t i o n to B and B's own p r o c e s s o f c h a n g e , t h e r e was somehow a change i n B such t h a t they became c l o s e r and started working together rather than f i g h t i n g each other. In and to  this  incident  expresses change  in  this B  and  A  realizes  realization to  greater  her  to  felt-need  B.  This  emotional  to  be  disclosure  closeness  in  loved leads the  relationship. 10.  Incident  38,  Couple  11  (moderate  loading  of  70)  A-Female When t h e t h e r a p i s t was t a l k i n g t o A a b o u t h e r needs, A broke down a n d c r i e d i n t e n s e l y . It f e l t natural and good to cry--a release of frustration. A's needs came into awareness in t h i s e m o t i o n a l way b e c a u s e she was n o t a w a r e o f t h e m . A felt surprised that she felt that way and realized she has a h e s i t a n c e in r e c o g n i z i n g her needs. She came to recognize that as a mother, w i f e , and c a r e e r woman she had p r a c t i c a l n e e d s . She. e x p r e s s e d t h e s e needs t o B, a n d a l s o t h a t s h e n e e d e d a n d l o v e d h i m . In through  this an  incident  emotional  A  becomes  experience  aware and  of  her  expresses  felt-needs them  to  B.  83  This  awareness  leads  A  to  herself-in-relationship; recognize 11.  her  Incident  a  realization  namely,  that  about  she  has  a  hesitance  to  needs. 39,  Couple  12  (weak  loading  of  59)  A-Male In a moment o f h e a r t - o p e n i n g A g o t r e a l l y a n g r y and s h o w e d B how d e s p e r a t e h e w a s . For a few minutes there seemed to be a change in B r e l a t e d to her s e e i n g how much h e n e e d e d h e r . However, rather than asking what she could do that would help, her r e s p o n s e was t o e x p r e s s how s h o c k e d s h e f e l t t h a t h e needed her so badly that he would express such anger. A r e a l i z e d through expressing h i s anger that he was c o m m i t t e d t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p — t h a t he w o u l d n o t h o l d b a c k t o make t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w o r k . In for  B.  this  incident  This  leads  B  A to  expresses a  himself-in-relationship; commitment  to  Abstracted  Meaning:  the  the  experience  valuing  of  valuing  includes  (a) (50,  valuable 27),  supported 27),  the  of  one  incident  and by  (d) five  namely,  the  and  felt-need  about extent  of  his  relationship.  The  main  disclosing  notions 50, a  of  idea  in  category  feelings  leads  feelings.  that  42),  (b)  the  safe  strong-loading  (16,  This  (17).  (42),  the  of  that  positive  feelings  (c)  This (16,  and  is  positive  27),  incidents  incident  two  to  disclosure  responsibility  moderate-loading (47).  anger  realization  disclosure  (48,  his  an  is  acceptable  main 48,  idea 50,  is 17,  ambiguous  84  A secondary  idea i n category two i s that the d i s c l o s u r e  of f e l t - n e e d s leads to change.  As mentioned on page! 7 9  l f  the  e x p r e s s i o n " f e l t - n e e d s " r e f e r s to the c l o s e connection between f e e l i n g s and wants or needs in human e x p e r i e n c e . T h i s idea i s supported by one s t r o n g - l o a d i n g i n c i d e n t (24), two moderate-loading weak-loading i n c i d e n t  i n c i d e n t s (46, 38), and one (39).  The change that occurs as the  r e s u l t of the d i s c l o s u r e of f e l t - n e e d s i n c l u d e s (a) g r e a t e r understanding of the s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n s h i p i n c r e a s e d w i l l i n g n e s s to s e l f - d i s c l o s e  (38, 39), (b)  (24), and (c) g r e a t e r  emotional c l o s e n e s s (46).  Latent  category  three:  understanding.  Expanded t i t l e : The development of i n t e l l e c t u a l understanding, emotional understanding, or a combination of these leads to couples change.  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  developing i n t e l l e c t u a l understanding, understanding, or a combination  A's  emotional  of these leads to A r e l a t i n g  to B d i f f e r e n t l y .  Loadings: Category  three'-is the t h i r d l a r g e s t  category with nine i n c i d e n t s . incidents (44,  I t has four s t r o n g - l o a d i n g  (4, 29, 33, 5), two moderate-loading  15), and three ambiguous  latent  incidents  incidents  (25, 9, 31).  85  C r i t i c a l 1.  incidents:  Incident  4,  Couple  2  (strong  loading  of  118)  A-Male The t h e r a p i s t helped A and B to acknowledge a pursue-distance pattern and asked them t o become more aware of this pattern. A experienced this i n i t i a l l y as reassuring and a r e l i e f . Then, he began to f e e l u n c o m f o r t a b l e and wanted to change. It increased his readiness t o change in t h a t a f t e r he had l o o k e d a t h i s b e h a v i o r f o r a while (rather than jumping and changing i t ) , he f e l t p r e p a r e d t o do s o m e t h i n g a b o u t i t . In  this  incident  A  develops  an  understanding  relationship  dynamics  pertaining  to  the  pattern Safran  in (in  emotional  the  relationship.  press),  in  1913.  that,  in  addition  awareness conflicts, emotional  of  Implicit  using  "knowledge about  the  impulses), insight  the by  experiential  contents i t  is  discussions,  the  contact.  of  their i t ,  o r i g i n a l l y is  for  the  ego  these  by  refers  latter  refers  to  contents. has  to  been and  knowledge  direct  understanding  understanding  attain  description"  former  pursue-distance  notion  to  distinction  The  A's  the  by  unconscious  experiencing same  and  intellectual  (i.e.,  the  and  intellectual  noted  an  "knowledge  Because  the  Greenberg  distinction  essential  d i r e c t l y  while  was  having  acquaintance".  about  experiencing  by  this  ego  to  between  insight  in  expressions  something,  knowledge  to  disavowed  philosophical  made  or  pursue-distance  According  distinction  understanding  Freud  In  a  of  involves  pattern  rather  in  incident  this  than is  an  86  intellectual  in  2.  29,  Incident  character. Couple  8  (strong  loading  of  109)  A-Female When the t h e r a p i s t e x p l a i n e d t h a t people have areas of vulnerability, A began to understand their behavior in terms of u n d e r l y i n g m o t i v a t i o n s . She r e a l i z e d t h a t she had t o l o o k f o r something deeper as a reason for t h e i r c o n t i n u e d arguments. In  this  incident  A  develops  an  understanding  relationship  dynamics  pertaining  to  underlying  This  leads  her  explanation involves its in 3.  to  for  their  knowledge  implications this  look  Incident  is  33,  underlying  arguments.  about  for  incident  for  the  their  concept  Couple  of  17  in  (strong  as  A's  the  understanding  vulnerability  relationship,  intellectual  motivations.  feelings  Because  of  the  and  understanding  character. loading  of  104)  A-Male Because the t h e r a p i s t monitored t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n , A and B were a b l e t o d i s c u s s the f e e l i n g s around t h e i r c r i s i s more c a l m l y than had the t h e r a p i s t not been present. A discovered that he d i d not l i s t e n as w e l l as he t h o u g h t he had a n d began to understand B's perspective. His a b i l i t y to l i s t e n to words and emotions improved. He d e v e l o p e d m o r e understanding of what underlay B's e m o t i o n a l s w i n g s , a n d o f how c r i s e s d e v e l o p e d so as t o a v o i d them. In did  this  not  listen  understanding listen  incident  to  involves  to  develops  B  as  well  leads  to  an  words A  A  and  making  a  as  he  the  understanding  thought  improvement  emotions. discovery  Because about  in  he B's  this  himself  had.  that  he  This  a b i l i t y  to  understanding through  directly  87  experiencing  how  understanding 4.  Incident  in 5,  he  listened  this  in  incident  Couple  5  the is  (strong  session,  emotional loading  the in  of  character.  98)  A-Male When A and B began to recall unresolved and contentious issues from the past, the therapist acknowledged these issues and gave them an opportunity to express them. H o w e v e r , he u s e d t h e s e issues to focus t h e i r attention on their current relationship and on what was o c c u r r i n g i n t h e h e r e a n d now in the session. A found this helpful because i t kept him aware of h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r his present behavior. He found i t sobering to notice that he easily engaged in unproductive behavior in the session. T h r o u g h t h i s e x p e r i e n c e he r e a l i z e d t h a t he was n o t a s open a n d f l e x i b l e i n his p o s i t i o n s as he had thought that he was. This realization opened h i m up t o b e g i n t o q u e s t i o n his p o s i t i o n s and t o h o l d them l e s s r i g i d l y . In  this  incident  A  develops  himself-in-relationship; in  his  positions  understanding positions. lack  of  through  leads  A's  he  direct  combination Incident  to  this  44,  Couple  20  he  become  more  of  and  this his is  was  was.  involves  incident  intellectual  that he  However,  experiencing  understanding  thought  understanding  in  of  namely,  had  him  f l e x i b i l i t y .  understanding  5.  as  an  not  as  in  behavior.  about  Therefore,  insight.  loading  of  89)  A-Male When the therapist helped A to h a d b e e n on h i m s e l f , a n d t h a t he solve others' problems in order A f e l t he had f i n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d  his  occurs  c h a r a c t e r i z e d as  emotional  (moderate  his  knowledge  understanding  best  flexible  This  flexible a  of  r e a l i z e how h a r d h e did not have' to to have s e l f - w o r t h , himself, and was  the a  88  r e a d y t o a c c e p t who he was and feel good about himself and love himself. T h i s was an e m o t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e — h e was on t h e v e r g e o f tears—that was d i f f i c u l t to put into words. He felt a great r e l i e f , l i k e a b i g burden had been l i f t e d off his shoulders. Moreover, b e c a u s e a f t e r t h i s he became more a s s e r t i v e and l e s s o v e r w h e l m e d by t h e problems of l i v i n g , he s e e s t h i s i n c i d e n t as a t u r n i n g point not o n l y i n terms of h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p but also in t e r m s o f how h e d e a l s w i t h h i s world.  been his a  In  this  on  himself  solving  new  in  incident  others'  acceptance  his  love and  involves  he  had  incident  is  emotional  Incident  15,  his  of  how  hard  self-esteem  did  not  problems.  hard  6.  understandins  that  and  relationship  understanding how  and  A  been  of  in a  on  This  world.  direct himself,  in  Couple  that  emotional the  changes  Because  had  depend  understanding  himself  the  he  on  leads how  A  he  to is  A's  experiencing  understanding  in  of "this  character. 4  (moderate  loading  of  88)  A-Female When the therapist pointed out the between their belief system and how relating to each other, A realized e a s i e r for her to extend forgiveness to to herself. This changed her p e r c e p t i o n t r a n s p i r e d and also her opinion of realized that she was valuable, th salvagable—that she was n o t so f a r o f f t o n e v e r be a c c e p t a b l e t o B a g a i n . In  this  incident  herself--that  i t  h e r s e l f — t h a t  leads  and  a  heightened  awareness  of  the  was  A  comes  easier to  view  an of  to  for  an  understanding  her  to  acceptance her  discrepancy  worth  discrepancy they were that i t was others than of what had herself. A at she was t h e mark as  in  between  forgive  of  others  herself  the what  of  as  than  valuable  relationship. she  believes  A's about  89  forgiveness  and  how  she  However,  A's  directly  experienced  this in  changed  incident,  lives  is  intellectual  self-perception this  therefore,  indicates  awareness. is  both  in  The  character.  that  she  understanding  intellectual  and  in  emotional  character.  7.  Incident  25,  Couple  7  (moderate  loading  of  69,  ambiguous) A-Male When B was crying A got up and r e t u r n e d w i t h a coffee and kleenex. Although A meant well, B experienced this action as his ignoring her and became a n g r y . As a r e s u l t , A r e a l i z e d t h a t when B needs him to l i s t e n to her, i t is important for him t o l i s t e n t o her f e e l i n g s r a t h e r than d o i n g what he thinks she needs. A began t o l i s t e n more and t o be aware of when he f a i l s t o do this. In  this  namely, needs more A's of  him and  to to  listen. become  listening  to  through  a .combination  on  in  interpersonal  three  is  aware a  of  incident  he  and  has  a  leads  A  f a i l s  to  B's  is  best  emotional  high  secondary  when  to  she  listen listen.  importance  Therefore,  characterized  as  insight.  secondary  membership  B;  understanding  anger.  experiencing its  the  this  of  high  of  feelings  about  However,  emotional  This  B's  knowledge  incident  perception,  ambiguous.  to  when  experiencing this  understanding  understanding  intellectual  one,  an  listening  feelings.  in  this  category  This  direct  54  of  more  B's  of  develops  involves  understanding  Because  A  importance  understanding  occurs the  the  incident  leads in  loading  loading to  change  category may  of  be  90  attributed A's  to  the  observation  relate  to  B  (thus  in  anger  leads  main  of  idea  B's  incident  A  to  B's  feelings) .  8.  Incident  being  A's  3  category  experiencing in  this  observation  of  B's  the  (weak  importance  loading  of  one  (i.e.,  leads  present  understand  Couple  9,  latent  emotional  differently)  this  of  A  incident crying  of  to  and  listening  to  ambiguous)  55,  A-Male When B e x p r e s s e s t h a t she f e a r s f o r her well-being when A becomes a n g r y , A b r e a k s down a n d c r i e s , feels c o n f u s e d , sorry and ashamed. He c o m e s t o understand his temper as a f u n c t i o n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n b l o c k s in t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h t h e y t h e n w o r k e d on removing through counselling. And, A i d e n t i f i e s h i s f e a r of showing a f f e c t i o n and not having it received or r e t u r n e d b y B. B was n o t a w a r e of t h i s fear. In  this  incident  A  discovers  himself-in-relationship; showing  affection  communication concerning  them  involves  the  of  his  fear  incident  is  is  in  of  the  showing  because this The  into  he  is  temper  is  a  blocks  Because  affection,  the  in  character.  of  a  secondary  secondary and  needs,  may  of  function  A  to  of  understanding work  on  understanding  direct  experiencing  understanding  loading  membership loading  afraid  A's  or  about  The  leads  awareness  incident's  feelings  that  relationship.  counselling.  emotional  ambiguous.  his  communication in  of  two,  disclosure  that  bringing  However, category  blocks  the  changing  and  namely,  understandings  on be  in  of  39  in  on  category  category  this  three  two,  attributed to  the A's  91  disclosing 9.  his  Incident  feelings  31,  in  Couple  9  this (weak  incident. loading  of  45,  ambiguous)  A-Female Because the t h e r a p i s t empathized with what A was feeling and s a i d the r i g h t t h i n g to l e a d her to the next s t e p , A e x p e r i e n c e s the f e a r , sadness, and p a i n of becoming emotionally aware of a protective mechanism t h a t she had taken on as a c h i l d and without which she felt she would have d i e d . A i d e n t i f i e d t h i s as a b a r r i e r t h a t p r e v e n t e d her from trusting B. A felt more relaxed and sees this b a r r i e r as something which is not automatic but about w h i c h s h e h a s some c h o i c e i n t e r m s o f whether o r n o t t o t r u s t B or l e t him i n . In  this  incident  A  develops  herself-in-relationship; protective  mechanism  understanding or  not  to  bringing  trust into  protective emotional  28  on  category four,  B.  in  because  she  understanding  direct  in  B.  inner This whether  involves  experiencing  understanding  an  chooses  of  this  this  incident  has  a  the  a  incident  secondary  and-five,  its  ambiguous.  The  secondary  loading  responsibility  of  responds  A's  validation,  validation  that  about  of  trusting  four  to  five,  or  the  her  realize A's  presence  category  taking  she  to  awareness  the  inhibits  Because  attributed how  her  understanding  is  character.  both is  namely,  that  mechanism,  However, of  leads  an  of  A  by  for  realization to  may the  B; be  the  membership  experience,  that  she  secondary  attributed  therapist's  to  has  on  may a  the  empathy.  in  this  category be  choice  loading  loading  on  implicit  in  terms  category  92 A b s t r a c t e d meaning: The main idea i n l a t e n t  category three  i s that A develops i n t e l l e c t u a l understanding emotional understanding these  (5, 25, The new  reached by A p e r t a i n s to (a)  dynamics (4, 29, 33),  (b) the  (33, 5, 9, 31),  (d) the s e l f  (44, 15).  which A develops a new understanding  In the two  of the s e l f  to B d i f f e r e n t l y .  d i f f e r e n t l y to B by developing new i n c l u d e improved  motivation  (33,  incidents in  i s accompanied by an acceptance  As the r e s u l t of a c h i e v i n g new  flexibility  (c) the partner  understanding of the s e l f , t h i s  which precedes A r e l a t i n g  responses  of  15) that leads to A r e l a t i n g to B d i f f e r e n t l y .  self-in-relationship 25), and  (44, 9, 31, 33), or a combination  understanding  relationship  (4, 29),  understanding, A responses.  listening  relates  These  (33, 25), g r e a t e r  (5), a n a l y z i n g behavior i n terms of u n d e r l y i n g (4), choosing whether to t r u s t  a u t o m i c a l l y not t r u s t i n g  r a t h e r than  (31), and working  to remove  communication b l o c k s (9).  Latent  category  four:  taking responsibility  for  experience.  Expanded t i t l e : the r e l a t i o n s h i p  The awareness of p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n results  to t a k i n g a s e l f - f o c u s .  i n the s h i f t  from a t t r i b u t i n g  blame  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , A comes to a  awareness of p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  i n the  relationship  new  93  that a  results  category  shifting  19,  C r i t i c a l  Category with  incidents  1.  A  from  attributing  blame  to  taking  self-focus.  Loadings:  43,  in  four  eight  (41,  26,  is  the  fourth  incidents. 2,  20)  and  It  has  four  largest four  latent strong-loading  ambiguous  incidents  (6,  51).  incidents:  Incident  41,  Couple  18  (strong  loading  of  126)  A-Female When A t e l l s B a b o u t an i n c i d e n t a n d how she felt that he was going to react, A realizes that i t is h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o n o t a n t i c i p a t e how B i s going to r e a c t , but r a t h e r to t r u s t t h a t B w i l l speak for himself, that he is responsible for his own reactions, and A for hers. Also, A realizes that she can not blame it on B that she gets upset because of the way she a n t i c i p a t e s he i s g o i n g to react. In  this  incident  realizes  B  for  own  reactions  him  for  how  she  anticipates  he  is  the  notion  these  respond 2.  differently  Incident  26,  to  Couple  that  his  that  her  incident  and  A  and w i l l  she  that  is she  react.  responsible cannot  blame  Implicit  realizations  lead  in A  to  B. 7  (strong  loading  of  for  123)  A-Female A r e a l i z e d t h a t B was n o t t o t a l l y t o b l a m e f o r their r e l a t i o n s h i p d i f f i c u l t i e s , b u t t h a t by a s s u m i n g too much responsibility and blaming him rather than s e t t i n g l i m i t s she too was responsible for their  this  94  d i f f i c u l t i e s . When A e x p r e s s e d t h i s t o B she saw him sit up taller in h i s c h a i r and puff out his chest and i n t e r p r e t e d this to mean that B felt b e t t e r t o be no l o n g e r i n t h e b l a m e d p o s i t i o n . As a r e s u l t , A l e a r n e d t o s e t l i m i t s c o n c e r n i n g what she was w i l l i n g to be responsible for in the relationship. In set B  this  limits  is  not  incident  in  terms  t o t a l l y  d i f f i c u l t i e s , realization 3.  to  but  leads  Incident  2,  A  of  realizes what  blame  she  for  that  she  A  learn  to  Couple  1  that took  their  too  is  to  on  in  she  the  failed  to  relationship,  relationship  responsible.  set  (strong  because  This  l i m i t s .  loading  of  104)  A-Female When A cried s h e r e a l i z e d how d i f f i c u l t i t was to e x p e r i e n c e t h i s w i t h another person and to ask for comfort. L o o k i n g a t B a n d s e e i n g t h a t he was caring e n a b l e d her to ask him to h o l d her at home. She felt this moment to be a s h a r e d e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h overcame her isolation. She realized that by shutting him out and blaming him f o r her isolation r a t h e r t h a n by r e a c h i n g o u t , she was r e s p o n s i b l e for her isolation. In is for  a  shared  responsible i t .  This  for  Incident  her  20,  at  of  intimacy,  isolation  realization  contact/comfort 4.  experience  leads  and A  to  A  that ask  realizes B  B  is for  not  that to  blame  physical  home.  Couple  5  (strong  loading  of  she  102)  A-Female When A brings up an o l d issue p e r t a i n i n g to her r e l a t i o n s h i p with B's stepdaughter, and wants B to i n t e r v e n e between them, B became v e r y a n g r y and said t h a t i t was a d e a d i s s u e w h i c h he d i d not want to deal w i t h anymore. A found t h i s p a i n f u l to hear and cried. However, she p e r c e i v e d this to be a new  95  response on B ' s part. I t was t h e c l e a r e s t thing B had ever said on t h i s i s s u e . A realized that the issue, w h i c h was b e t w e e n h e r a n d h i s step-daughter, was her p r o b l e m and t h a t she had been m a k i n g i t an issue i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h B. A also realized that rather than wanting to c o r r e c t what had happened, t h a t she had t o a c c e p t i t as it was; that t h i s was d i f f i c u l t b e c a u s e she t e n d e d t o hold grudges. F i n a l l y , A r e a l i z e d t h a t she had used this i s s u e as an e x p r e s s i o n of resentment a g a i n s t B for other things, and f e l t embarrassed and a bit ashamed. In  this  intervening realizes B's  incident in  is  stepdaughter.  A  relationship  inappropriately in  this  to  respond  5.  also issue  the  with  in  B's  B  her for  notion to  for  realizes  blaming  is  blames  with  responsible  differently  relationship relat  an  by  incident  implicitly  relationship  she  this  that  A's  A  B  B  for  B's  step-daughter  her  relationship  that  she  had  relationship not  that  not  been  this  B Implicit  realization  (i.e.,  by  ceasing  stepdaughter  an  issue  in  to  with making  with  intervening.  and  make  leads her  their  ionship).  Incident  6,  Couple  2  (weak  loading  of  50,  ambiguous)  A-Female Although a s e s s i o n i n w h i c h A and B b r o u g h t up o l d p a i n f u l i s s u e s and A c r i e d a l o t and blamed ended with both feeling locked in their positions, it intensified A's feelings around these issues such t h a t she e i t h e r had t o r e s o l v e her f e e l i n g s or leave B. A r e a l i z e d not o n l y t h a t she had a choice to r e a l l y be i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o r o u t o f i t , b u t also t h a t she r e a l l y wanted to be in i t . She also realized that she had not been d e a l i n g w i t h issues d i r e c t l y , a n d t h a t B was open t o h e r d o i n g this.  A  96  In this  this  experience  choosing weak  to  be  primary  category four  incident  is  in  the  loading the  may  understandings  about  choice  not  been  6.  Incident  that  she  dealing  and  be  to  old  is  a  However,  attributed  loading  this  secondary  be  in  the  issues  Couple  19  and  responsible  secondary of  issues  A  of  for of  a  of  37  on  incident  in  category  loading to  out  because  on  category  coming  to  herself-in-relationship;  with  43,  for  relationship.  The  understanding,  a  B  membership  ambiguous.  had  blames  realizes  three,  she  A  relationship,  three,  new  namely,  that  and  that  she  had  47,  ambiguous)  directly.  (weak  loading  of  A-Female A understood B's position of taking on other's problems as h i s i s s u e , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g that B felt oppressed by this helped A to feel less like she i n f l i c t e d h e r p r o b l e m s on him. A understood her position—that she was not responsible for his taking on her problems and then blaming her. U n d e r s t a n d i n g w h e r e t h e blame came f r o m e n a b l e d A t o feel unburdened, less g u i l t y , a l o t f r e e r — t o feel okay about herself. A a l s o f e l t more e n t i t l e d to h e r own p r o b l e m s , a l l o w e d B to deal with others' problems without joining in, and reacted to B's blaming less. Moreover, A felt more relaxed and compassionate toward B. In for  B's  this  incident  taking  understanding to  B's  on  other's  primary  on  others'  leads  blaming  A  less,  and  to and  problems.  loading  A  realizes  problems feel to  is  of  responsible  her.  herself,  involved  incident  loading  not  blaming  about  become  this  secondary  she  and  better  not  Because a  that  has 27  on  when a  This to  react  B  takes  weak category  97  three,  its  secondary  membership loading  attributed  to  A's  on  in  category  category  achieving  herself-in-relationship  a  that  four  three, new  is  ambiguous.  understanding,  understanding  leads  her  to  The may  be  of  relate  to  B  di f ferently. 7.  Incident  19,  Couple  5  (weak  loading  of  41,  ambiguous)  A-Female When B expresses a particular dissatisfaction regarding his r e l a t i o n s h i p for the f i r s t time--that he finds A's perfectionism demoralizing and distressing, A feels distressed because of the impact o f t h i s p a r t of h e r c h a r a c t e r on o t h e r s , and elated because B's comment d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t he was more involved in the r e l a t i o n s h i p than previously. A c o m e s t o a new p e r s p e c t i v e o f herself concerning her perfectionism, and begins to deal w i t h her perfectionism by lowering her standards and by c l e a r l y s t a t i n g them. In  this  incident  perfectionism  and  Because  of  a  weak  loading  of  40,  primary  for  experience,  for  her  three,  to  primary  loading may  to  deal  loading  this  a  new  with of  on  this  be  attributed through  them  the  secondary  may  be  clearly;  understanding,  Incident  of 51,  her  41  a  lowering  her  secondary  highly  taking A  of  differently. and  is  category, to  understanding i t  incident  perfectionism  understanding 8.  comes  begins  however,  The  stating  A  responsibility  taking her  responsibility  standards  loading  a t t r i b u t e d to  ambiguous.  on A  and  category  coming  to  a  new  perfectionism.  Couple  21  (weak  loading  A-Female  of  40,  ambiguous)  98  When t h e t h e r a p i s t a s k e d how l o n g A was w i l l i n g to w a i t f o r B t o d e c i d e how h e f e l t , a n d s u g g e s t e d t h a t A set a date pending which she would not press issues b u t w o u l d work on b u i l d i n g t h e relationship, A f e l t l e s s of a v i c t i m and more powerful in her relationship. A f e l t t h i s way b e c a u s e t h e therapist helped her to take charge of her direction by setting a specific length of time t h a t she was w i l l i n g to wait rather than waiting i n d e f i n i t e l y . In  this  incident  relationship  by  because  of  a  weak  loading  of  32  ambiguous. taking A's  The  category  a  category weak  for  loading five,  setting  a  time  feeling  validated  Abstracted  meaning:  in  the  to  a  relationship  attributing  to  the  four  by  20).  remaining  the  The  involve  A  by  main  a  the  the  highly  category, attributed part  in  secondary  latent  to  to  the loading  A  category  personal  in  A  incidents  shift  idea (41,  (6,  43,  is 26,  2,  19,  responsibility  from  is  from  This  incidents  personal  four  responsibility  shifting  self-focus.  greater  is  therapist.  in  ambiguous  However,  be  secondary  attributed  strong-loading  four  a  this  for- her  the  of  and  may  be  idea  results  taking  assuming  relationship.  on  her However,  incident  limit; may  in  limit.  40,  this  awareness  that  blame  supported  also  The  new  of  responsibility  implicitly  comes  time  experience,  validation,  A  control  loading  five,  that  some  specific  primary  taking  by  assumes  primary  responsibility  relationship on  setting  on  implicitly  A  attributing  51) in  blame  99  to  taking As  a  self-focus  the  result  self-focus, (26),  and  strong from  A  loading  differently  Expanded who  for  to  t i t l e :  who  is  in  shift  from  differently  (20,  a  Validation  observes  leads  and  the  and  change  the  behavior  A's  validation.  32),  one  incidents  C r i t i c a l 1.  Category  five It  is  has  11,  the  In  leads  taking  setting  to  that A  35,  other  two  the  shift  responding  12,  change in  of  the  of  B  the  for  behavior  validation.  who  leads  strong-loading (13),  of  Couple  category  four  22).  10  (strong  loading  A-Female  of  for  process  incidents  and  the  change  the  latent  partner  More  to  observes  smallest  incident  the  incidents:  Incident  a  limits  the  notion  validation  two  moderate-loading (7,  by  (2).  to  change  process  receiving  incidents.  B  to  validation.  A's  seven  blaming  to  self-focus  specifically,  Loadings:  41),  incidents.  implicit.  validation  in  these  contact/comfort  taking B  absent  category f i v e :  receives  partner  the  incidents  to  Latent  of  responds  asking  blaming  is  123)  A  of  with (35,  ambiguous  100  When the therapist asked B if he d o e s anything w r o n g , he s a i d , " N o " . The l o o k on the therapist's face validated A's e x p e r i e n c e and h e l p e d her to feel that B i s in the wrong a l s o at t i m e s . Also, A felt entitled to having complaints and experienced a r e l e a s e i n s h a r i n g them and h a v i n g them understood by t h e t h e r a p i s t . In  this  validates to  her  2.  incident  A's  position  position  Incident  the  32,  and  look  with  to  the  having  Couple  9  on  the  result  therapist's that  A  face  feels  entitled  complaints.  (strong  loading  of  122)  A-Female At one p o i n t B b u r s t out l a u g h i n g and t h e therapist focused on the meaning of his reaction. When A observed the t h e r a p i s t ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n , she felt a sense o f r e l i e f t h a t B was f i n a l l y b e i n g confronted by someone he w o u l d listen to, and that he was hearing her side. A f e l t v a l i d a t e d t h a t she was not wrong a l l the time. As a result, A felt more confident to be who she was. Because she felt u n d e r s t o o d by t h e t h e r a p i s t a n d c o n f i d e n t a b o u t the therapist's a b i l i t y to i n t e r v e n e , she t r u s t e d the t h e r a p i s t and the c o u n s e l l i n g p r o c e s s more. In with  the  trusting Also, hear 3.  B's A's  this  incident  the  result  that  of  therapist  the  observing  A  the  therapist  feels  validates  affirmed  and  the  process  as  a  A's  position  person,  counselling  of  A's  and  more  process.  validation  leads  position.  Incident  7,  Couple  14  (moderate  loading  of  86,  ambiguous) A-Female When A who was disappointment  feeling shared  isolated with her these feelings, A  pain felt  and good  B  to  101  because the t h e r a p i s t understood and v a l i d a t e d her experience. A l s o , B, who responded t y p i c a l l y by invalidating her feelings, upon h e a r i n g h e r hurt, r e a l i z e d t h a t her f e e l i n g s were v a l i d and began to understand her pain more. Consequently, were the need to a r i s e , A f e e l s confident about expressing her feelings t o B b e c a u s e she t h i n k s t h a t he w o u l d understand. In with  this  the  result  observation accept  and  because  incident  of  of to a  the  is  category  two,  the  attributed  to  A  confidence  that  therapist  feels  process  understand  highly  Incident  A  secondary  incident  4.  that  the  affirmed.  of  A's  A's  ambiguous. of  her  it  to  is  safe  Couple  4  62  This  disclosing  13,  of  on  B's B  to  However,  category  secondary  feelings  feelings  leads  more.  feelings  do  A's  Also,  validation  feelings  loading  disclosure  validates  and and  two,  loading needs,  this on  may  developing  be the  .  this.  (moderate  loading  of  78)  A-Male When the therapist told them in a sincere and c o n c e r n e d manner t h a t she was i m p r e s s e d with their commitment, the p r o g r e s s t h a t they were making, and t h a t t h e r e was hope f o r t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , A felt encouraged to keep at counselling. Also, because the t h e r a p i s t ' s comments enabled A to give less importance to his inner doubts about his r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h B, a n d t o b e g i n t o b e l i e v e t h a t it was on t h e mend, he f e l t c a l m e r and more c o n t e n t . In to  and  this  incident  progress  encouraged  in  with  5.  11,  Incident  therapist  counselling  regarding  relationship  the  with  counselling  and  validates the  A's  result  assured  commitment  that  A  regarding  feels his  B. Couple  3  (weak  loading  of  54,  ambiguous)  1 02  A-Female As a r e s u l t of t h e t h e r a p i s t ' s comments, B realized that they both had a independent a c t i v i t i e s and c o n s e q u e n t l y more a c c e p t i n g of A ' s need t o do t h i s . e n t i t l e d t o h a v e h e r own a c t i v i t i e s w i t h guilty. In  this  position  with  a c t i v i t i e s . to  be  incident  more  the  result  Also,  the  accepting  of  a  loading  of  32  on  membership  in  category  loading  category  to  A's  6.  12,  that  A's  primary category  A  three,  of  Couple  have 54  to of  these and  however,  ambiguous.  A's  own  leads  B  a c t i v i t i e s .  a  secondary  this  may  her A  incident's  This  understanding,  B's 4  of  implicitly  e nti tl e d  validation  to  loading  is  validates  feels  need  five  three,  understanding  Incident  therapist  therapist's  of  Because  on  weak  the  A felt that need to do that B was Also, A felt out feeling  secondary  be  attributed  realization. (weak  loading  of  53,  ambiguous)  A-Male A f e l t good about the t h e r a p i s t r e i n f o r c i n g h i s view in s u c h a way t h a t B r e a l l y h e a r d i t . As a r e s u l t , B realized that she had been perceiving A as vengeful and s e l f - c e n t e r e d r a t h e r than as hurting. I t f e l t g o o d t o A t h a t B was s t a r t i n g t o understand how h e w a s f e e l i n g . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n A f e e l i n g more hopeful about a genuine renewing of their relationship, and t o open up a b i t t o B because he r e a l i z e d he was n o t t r u s t i n g h e r enough. In with  this  the  incident  result  that  receiving  validation  and  more  weak  to  be  primary  the A  therapist  feels  leads  B  understanding  loading  of  53  validates  affirmed. to  change  of  his  and  a  A's  According her  to  response  feelings.  secondary  position A, to  Because  loading  of  his him, of  31  a on  103  category  one,  however,  category  five  is  category  one,  emotional  interpersonal to  primary  7.  incident's  ambiguous.  22,  This  may  (i.e.,  Couple  67  membership  secondary  experiencing  perception,  feelings  Incident  this  be  leads  hurt)  in  this  (weak  loading  loading to  attributed  in on  change  to  the  in reference  incident. of  48,  ambiguous)  A-Female When B affirms A in an a r e a of sensitivity--A's physical attractiveness--by looking at her and saying in an emotional and sincere manner that indicated he was reaching out to her, "You're b e a u t i f u l , I l o v e y o u t h e way y o u a r e " , A b u r s t into t e a r s and thought t h a t perhaps she c o u l d b e l i e v e B. A r e a l i z e d t h a t she had been i g n o r i n g B's sincerity i n r e l a t i o n t o h e r , a n d t h a t B was not ashamed of her. A began to f e e l good about h e r s e l f again. In  this  incident  attractiveness of  B  and  primary  her  with  B  the  loading  of  48  however,  category  five  is  category  one,  emotional  interpersonal  Abstracted that  meaning:  validation  (i.e.,  A)  A  in  may  be  this  her  of  loading  incident's This  main  changes  Because  perception  a  weak  of  35  membership  secondary  experiencing  The  leads  that  physical  secondary  ambiguous.  perception,  validation  a  this  expression  A's  improves.  and  one,  and  result  self-esteem  category  arousal  validates  leads  attributed  in  loading to  change  to  on  A's  on in emotional  incident.  idea  in  to  change  fo-r  and  change  in  latent the  the  category  partner behavior  who of  five  is  receives the  1 04  partner  who  The include (b)  observes  ways A  as  and  encouraged  of  and  A's  the  in  therapist  needs  In  of  but  (c)  process  leads  than  plays  one  the  a  A,  more  B's  change  and  for  (35, of  regarding  the  the  of  the  more  feelings  (12,  7),  incident  partner  therapist's  position  (35,  the  Interview  (22)  who  i t  does  is  the  needs  the validating,  role  in  A's  focus  in  validating  32,  12,  13),  receiving A  is  feelings  f i r s t  accessed  relationship (i.e., you? you?).  Did Did On (1)  part  most  (7),  and  the  expression  a  Likert-type very  questionnaire, data  expression  expression  the  to  the  quantitative  between  the  Questionnaire  of  of of  feelings  five-point  definitely  (5),  p a r a l l e l  concerning of  feelings  two  feelings lead  make scale  the  to a  the and  for  difference  ranging  mean  change  change  of  the  from 42  A  11),  (d)  observation  become  B).  trusting  assured  to  A's  to  position  (32),  and  B  of  central  A's  the  questions  all  his/her  22),  to  leads  (i.e.,  (32).  a l l  The  7,  counselling  accepting  validation  (11).  Results  at  (32,  validation  rather  frequently  e n t i t l e d to  According  position  of  validated  counselling  and  validation.  process  being  self  (13).  Because therapist  a  regarding  understanding (11),  (a)  the  relationship process  which  feeling  affirmed  therapist  in  the  for not  105  interviewees latter 4.1.  was  4.05  question.  The  This  indicates  expression A that  of  is  interviewees this  a  s t a t i s t i c  the  scale,  In  the  accessed  the  that  commitment of  to  the  were  partner; weakness,  two  there  self  and  p a r a l l e l the  data  was  one  guilt,  the  What  of  in  change.  indicates  with  Because  to  on  the  upper  which  questions  end  the (i.e.,  were  there  of  powerlessness,  that  deemed  With  did five  you  occurrences  four  caring  for  the  rejection,  of  occurrences love;  despair,  (loss),  acceptance  understanding.  were  express  and  pain  the  respect  sadness  resentment, and  they  were  and  questions  feelings  feeling  fear  two  partners.  there  occurrence  tolerance  the  questions.  that  frustration,  helplessness,  partner,  their  you?),  was  between  questionnaire,  counselling and  .74  the  change).  the  (i.e.,  anger,  the  concerning  in  for  of  questions  in  on  perceived  tended  s t a b i l i t y  and  occurrences  truth,  defensiveness,  interviewees  4.14  important  coefficient  relationship;  vulnerability,  there  definitely  these  of  themselves  important  interviewees  constructs  part  question  questions  these  parallel  expressed  for  of  to  feelings  second  f i r s t  was  of  and  correlation  both  the  question  positive  that  qualitative  important  be  indicates  rated  interviewees  to  means  mean  the  to  strong  it  expression  former  correlation  answer  interviewees the  that  responses  consistently of  r  the  combined  feelings  Pearson  there  on  crying, of  the  106  Because of the c l o s e connection between f e e l i n g s needs, interviewees a l s o expressed to themselves.  There were two  needs that were  occurrences  loved f o r o n e s e l f , the need to understand  or be  understood,  the need to have the p a r t n e r d i s c l o s e f e e l i n g s ;  was  one occurrence  the need f o r r e c o g n i t i o n .  d i d your p a r t n e r express were e i g h t occurrences  that was  ( i . e . , What  most important?),  of l o v e ; there were three occurrences  of acceptance  or s e n s i t i v i t y , and  there were  of the s e l f , p a i n ,  f e a r ; there was  one  discouragement, sadness,  and  two  occurrence  of  loneliness,  sincerity.  interviewees a l s o s t a t e d needs that the p a r t n e r that were important.  the need for acceptance,  There was  one  occurrence  f o r i n d i v i d u a l space,  t o l e r a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s , f o r h e l p regarding d u t i e s , f o r support, fears.  of  understanding  r e j e c t i o n , anger, f r u s t r a t i o n , disappointment,  expressed  there  of c a r i n g ; there were seven  hurt, v u l n e r a b i l i t y , and acceptance;  The  feeling  of commitment to the r e l a t i o n s h i p ; there were  four occurrences  occurrences  there  of the need for the partner to be  With respect to the second q u e s t i o n  occurrences  important  of the need to be  and  s e n s i t i v e and  and  for t r u s t ,  f o r reassurance  for household regarding  had of  1 07  Summary and D i s c u s s i o n  Summary The  objectives  empirical  categories  integrated couples (in  these  processes.  in  technique,  descriptions  each  partner  significant treatment students judged  of  in  to  a  couples. in a a  to  simplified  be in  f a c i l i t a t e  methodology.  suitable a manner their  judged  has  been  objective  incidents  had  group.  couples Two  graduate  interviewing  incidents these  on t h e b a s i s These  represented  of  experienced  systemic  When  v i a a  c r i t i c a l  the perspective  whose 61  the  c r i t i c a l  couples  for analysis.  analysis  Johnson's  the latter  control  format.  which  the  in the  objective  affective  collected  52 w e r e  and  technique,  from  These  w a i t - l i s t  interview  from  processes  to collect  events  brief  be comparable,  transcribed,  c r i t e r i a  to  21  an  chapter.  and d e s c r i p t i v e was u s e d  describe  in  treatment  Greenberg  chapter;  to  processes  change  counselling-psychology,  •semi-structured been  this  change  vis  couples  of  twofold:  change  The former  of  change  v i s  in  were  refine  the previous  exploratory  incident or  and t o  be a c c o m p l i s h e d An  couples  t h e o r e t i c a l model  accomplished w i l l  study  systemic  perspective,  of  this  of  affective  press)  light  of  them  using  was a  incidents of  various  incidents well  categorization  had  in  were order  108  In  the data  F-sort,  collection  phase  37 g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s  of t h i s methodology, the  i n c o u n s e l l i n g - p s y c h o l o g y each  formed c a t e g o r i e s o f a r a n d o m l y o r d e r e d simplified similar person  i n c i d e n t s by p l a c i n g  with  r e s p e c t t o t h e dominant  the data  methodology,  analytic  Latent  matrices--S, select  change  of P h i with  were s e p a r a t e  resulted  categories  process  i n a model  of couples  change  T h i s produced three  The P h i m a t r i x the optimal indicated  these  categories.  was u s e d t o  number o f l a t e n t  that the c a t e g o r i e s  and d i s c r e t e . of P h i with processes  In a d d i t i o n ,  five  latent  being s e l e c t e d .  4 p r e s e n t s a summary o f t h e t i t l e s  a n d expanded  the r e s u l t s  indicated  that partners perceived the expression  be i m p o r t a n t  The T h e o r e t i c a l As  Greenberg  of f e e l i n g s  Model the purpose of comparing  d e r i v e d c a t e g o r i e s o f change  and Johnson's  processes  guide  i n change.  s t a t e d i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n ,  the e m p i r i c a l l y  titles  o f an  q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e d i n the i n t e r v i e w  change  f o r the  the r e s u l t s of  interview  to  t h a t were  of the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  by c o m p u t e r .  t h e Omega m a t r i x  t h i s model LPA  of  incidents  A n a l y s i s (LPA),  P h i , and Omega.  t h e model  categories;  phase  Partition  t h e F - s o r t were a n a l y z e d  Table  together  r e p o r t i n g the i n c i d e n t .  In  of  deck o f 52  ( i n press)  i s to refine,  processes  theoretical  model of  modify, or c l a r i f y  their  with  109  Table 4 Summary of the T i t l e s and Expanded T i t l e s of the F i v e Latent Categories Lat ent Cat e gory No. 1  Title  Ex pa tided Title  Emotional experienc ing leads to change in interpersonal percept i o n s .  The experiencing of e m o t i o n — i n the sense of the acknowledgement of primary feelings by one of the partners—alters perception and produces couples change. More specifically, A's o b s e r v a t i o n of B's emotional experienc i n g , or A's own emot i o n a l experienc i n g , results i n A having a new p e r c e p t i o n of Bwhich leads t o A r e l a t i n g t o Bd i f f e r e n t l y .  The disclosure of f e e l i n g s and needs.  The experience of d i s c l o s i n g f e e l i n g s leads t o the p o s i t i v e v a l u i n g of the d i s c l o s u r e of feelings, and the d i s c l o s u r e of "felt-needs" leads to change. More specifically, A's experience of d i s c l o s i n g f e e l i n g s leads t o the p o s i t i v e v a l u i n g of the d i s c l o s u r e of f e e l i n g s ; A's d i s c l o s u r e of needs leads t o couples change.  Understanding,  The development of intellectual understanding, emotional understanding, or a combination of these leads t o couples change. More specifically, A's d e v e l o p i n g intellectual understanding, emotional understanding, or a combination of these leads t o A r e l a t i n g to B d i f f e r e n t l y .  1 10  model  in  Taking responsibility for experience,  The awareness of personal responsibility in the relationship results in the s h i f t from attributing blame to taking a self-focus. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , A c o m e s t o a new awareness of personal responsibility in the relationship that results in A shifting from attributing blame to t a k i n g a self-focus.  Validation  V a l i d a t i o n leads to change for the partner who receives v a l i d a t i o n and in the behavior of the partner who observes the process of validation. More specifically, A's receiving validation leads to change f o r A and change in the b e h a v i o r o f B who o b s e r v e s the process of A ' s validation.  order  comparing  the  theoretical model  is  model  the  particular  from  a  of  third  refined, of  the  the  in  examples  phase,  empirical  or  building.  empirical to  refine,  modify,  rational-empirical the  aspect,  an  i n i t i a l  the of  is  f i r s t  developed  second this  on  phase,  c l a r i f i e d  investigation.  in  the the  idea  or  phase  of  of  basis  task  light  model  model of  of  of aspect,  investigated;  i n i t i a l  the  this  empirical  are  a  c l a r i f y  theoretical the  of  with  method  the  phenomenon  building,  The  investigation  In  theory  modified,  model  1984).  phenomenon  notions;  series  of  order  rational  c l i n i c a l  the  in  (Greenberg,  method, a  f a c i l i t a t e  results  drawn  analysis  to  the  in  is results  111  The press)  f i r s t  model  differently previously example, change  is by  own  'I  are  see  and  three  to  differently  but  the  in  38),  two  As  four in  themselves  emotional  in  which  to  not  other  implicit  affective  component).  two,  As  becoming three,  aware  the  becoming  As  aware  of  of  Therefore,  while  perception  of  the  to how  as  a  in In  new hard  emotional partner  In  in  had  in  her  other  words,  differently. category  15),  and  the  As  of  44,  46,  their  in  of  in  themselves on  an is  an  category  by category by  themselves.  primarily the  is  there  themselves  of  two do  there  incidents  been  than  or  themselves  experiencing rather  his This  incidents  perceptions they  on  In  incident  the  emotional  perceptions,  function  of  the  interpersonal  two  the  not  for  one,  partners  38  herself  self;  1).  in  (44,  perceptions  felt-needs;  come  28,  their  incidents  experiencing;  new  45,  three  differently  to  of  reports  incidents,  emotional  come  A  perceive  explicit  the  or  (in  experiences  category  change  perceive  (in  view  self-perception.  category  experiences  himself  interpersonal  (i.e.,  do  Johnson's  v u l n e r a b i l i t y ' " .  in  in  and  awareness  latent  leads  rather  However, and  in  change  than  perceives  focal  my  experiencing  rather  Greenberg  person's  accept  incidents  incident  perceive  this  experiencing  perception  (46,  into  in  leads  in  individual  identified  emotional  each  process  bringing  process  emotional  in  "an  dominant  experiencing there  change  self,  influences it  does  11 2  bring the  into  focal  self's An  press)  felt-needs  idea  that  f i r s t  awareness  it  on  what  primary  may  w i l l  This  be  aspects  idea  The  of  his  of  or  idea  fear as  in  reorganization  refining  Greenberg as  follows:  herself  d i f f e r e n t l y  experiences  not  in  and "An by  to at  Greenberg any  and  given  moment  of  into  third  a  are  in  awareness  results  Even  their  process  images)  emergence  (in  produces  experiential  determines  in  though  a  people  reorganization, It  is  in  person's  change  this behavior.  process  in  model.  of  experiences the  self  Johnson's  individual bringing  previously  in  into  may  (in  be  press)  focal  awareness".  refined  change  process  is  not  self  but  reorganization  of  the  the  new  self.  focal  made  awareness  e x p l i c i t  f i r s t  organizes  into  this  the  and  focal  awareness  interactions.  the  self  Johnson's  into  vulnerability  aware  their  bringing  produces  process  in  "vulnerable". be  and  sensations,  the  or  the  bringing  her  bodily  even  Johnson's that  or  example,  articulated  and  that  According  self-organization is  Greenberg  For  on  Greenberg  previously  emotions,  effected  that  is  self.  organized  report  in  about  self-perception.  self-organization  feelings  being  not  sense  the  awareness.  person  implicit  not  insights  influence  process  person's  thoughts,  focal of  a  of  new  that  experiences  Johnson,  (i.e.,  is  change  reorganization  depends  awareness  by  change  himself  or  awareness What  is  key  perception  in of  the  11 3  This by  refined  empirical  primary  change  categories  aspect  of  the  category  two,  to  disclosing  value  previously  the  in  As  new  to  unacknowledged  for  has  latent  experience,  unacknowledged  The (in  press)  partner's in  a  new  contact  leads  for  rather  to  incidents  in  As  in  which  your  In  a  by  into  the  in  latent  the  As  awareness  change  a  new  process  understanding,  the  come  bringing  that  interactions  a  and  new  change  taking  process  responsibility  self-focus  awareness  the  previously  bringing  in  rather  than  previously a  new  Greenberg  and  upon  expressions, 'I  see  category  your  one,  witnesses  B's  Johnson's  witnessing perceives  h o s t i l i t y ' " .  interpersonal A  the  awareness  spouse,  example,  latent  into  their  four,  that  by  bringing  take  process  "the  than  change in  is  into  In  that  that  implicitly  occurred.  affective  way;  identified  has  change  model new  the  experiences  second  by  occurred.  implies  self-organization  In  about  category  that  blame  feelings,  three,  that  experiences  in  attributing  category  four.  identified  experiences  implies  self-organization  and  implies  understanding  process  identified  of  occurred.  latent  corroborated  process  feelings  has  is  three,  change  unacknowledged  identified  personal  two,  disclosure  self-organization  come  process  need In  emotional  perceptions, emotional  the  for  the  the partner  caring  change  and process  experiencing of  the  14  experiencing,  1 14  there This  are  12  incidents  indicates  process  The press)  and  model  "the  different  spouses;  for  position  of  not  personal  the  f i r s t In  one,  the  the  45,  emotional  in  increased  an  In in  are leads  primary  category  new  way.  change  process  and  in  Johnson's  you  What  for  is in  the  (this  with  the  reassurance  key  in  this  from  a  change  interaction,  was  (in  reorganization  interaction  i d e n t i f i e d leads  to  to  different  leads  of  in  emphasized  to  A  B's one,  (45,  and in.  accepting leads  and  aspect  change  reorganization  leads  different  the as  behavior  the  the  disclosure "valuing in  the  interpersonal  28,  1)  in  In  incident  B  in  a  A  having  of  new  way;  an  leads  to  relationship. process  of  which  the  reorganization of  two,  to  position A's  in  category  behavior.  understanding of  latent  change  incidents  reorganization  personal to  change  personal  the  ask  three  incident  increased  the  latent  A's  understanding in  a  derived  Greenberg  behavior  process  there  relationship; having  now  experiencing  28,  in  process).  reorganization  incident  in  reorganization  reorganization A's  'I  different  change  perceptions, As  in  individual's  behavior  change  second  B  model.  v u l n e r a b i l i t y ' " .  is  perceives  the  process  example,  process  A  empirically  strongly  change  is  which  f i r s t  Johnson's  third  to  their  the  corroborates  Greenberg  leads  that  in  identified  feelings,  the  self-disclosure"  interaction  (i.e.,  As  A  1 15  self-disclosing in  latent  behavior).  category  reorganization behavior greater  in  three,  as  the  feelings.  In  analyzing the  four,  the  personal  reorganization  behavior  limits  and  change  processes and  and  four,  and  Johnson's The  (in  you  model  lead  identified to  for  to  than in  perception  of  in  latent  press)  change is  third  partners  exhibiting  to  respond  A  greater  new  one,  to  setting the  latent two,  process  in  new  emotional This  and  three, Greenberg  for  example,  change  more  of  the  'I  comfort  process  emotional  to  Johnson's  perceptions  experiencing  perceptions,  leads  becoming  differently.  leads  Therefore, four  in  experience,  as  Greenberg  the  interpersonal  accepting  experiencing  In  category  as  B,  in  responses;  withdraw'".  their  for  category  change  spouse's  different  in  f i r s t  of  model.  process  "the  terms  identified  comfort.  principally the  listening,  "self-focused"  the  responses—such of  process  in  latent  change  or  personal  in  interact ion—such  contact  identified  different  responsibility as  As  improved  identified  (in  fourth  rather  leads  the  corroborate  press)  partner  in  asking  categories,  taking  to  behavior  change  category  different  as  process the  leads  interaction—such and  change  understanding,  latent As  the  "understanding"  f l e x i b i l i t y ,  underlying  In  the  As  new  different  understanding  behavioral closeness indicates  or  responses, to  that  B,  and  the  resolving  change  1 16  process  i d e n t i f i e d in  corroboration Johnson's  f i f t h  model  behaviors, way;  for  is  "as  the  example,  change  processes  appear  to  The  Johnson's  add  (in  comparing change  the  not  the  their  f i f t h  follows:  received derived  a  in  strong  Greenberg  and  see  the  change  in  your  five  model. of  the  None  latent  of  model  This  in  a  I  new  see  of  the  categories  process.  any  processes,  (in  new  needs,  latent  i t  Because  change is  category  Greenberg  processes.  their  function  partner's  you'".  i d e n t i f i e d in  change  Johnson's  themselves  f u l f i l l to  and  to  change change  For  the  purpose  processes  seem  as  with  well  as  important  to  process, process  therapist's  change.  and  modify  would  five,  would  read  validation,  example,  'I  feel  p o s i t i o n ' " .  previous (in  strong change  this  experiences  my  Johnson's  can  to  necessary  change  their  individual to  I  come  their  empirically derived  "As  and  provides  process  empirically derived  processes  as  The  one  Greenberg  of  r e f l e c t e d in  press)  to  entitled  and  process  validation,  the  function  corroborate  is  in  i d e n t i f i e d in  change  refine  a  'since  valuable  validation,  to  change  process  individuals  as  the  fourth  change  myself  of  the  category  model.  The press)  of  latent  discussion press)  indicates  second  corroboration process,  (b)  and  from  their  that  fourth the  f i r s t  (a)  Greenberg  change  f i r s t  processes  empirically  change  process  11 7  needed  to  be  refined,  and  (c)  received  no  corroboration.  received  no  corroboration  questionable; data  however,  collection  validity.  Finally,  latent  category  model,  it  a  was  summary  of  is  because  added  their  the  the  revised  revised model  of  process  change  its  v a l i d i t y  that  other  to  support  change was  change  f i f t h  that  evidence  validation,  to  f i f t h  possible  provide  five,  this  That  suggests  it  could  their  process not  process is  forms  of  its  identified  reflected  in  model.  Table  change  processes.  in  their  presents  5  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Latent C a t e g o r i e s Found i n the Empirical Analysis Latent category one: emotional e x p e r i e n c i n g leads to change i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n s . The  change  emotional  to  change  has  change  emotional leads  identified  experiencing  perceptions, primary  process  two  leads  related  pattern,  as  experiencing, A  relating  pattern,  as  to the  B  result  differently.  it  two-pattern  indicates  modifier  of  that  new  of  A's  perception  change  emotional  partners'  new  process  of  of  In  the  observing  In own  of  the  B's B  which  secondary  emotional  of  B  is  significant  each  one,  interpersonal  perception  experiencing  perception  category  patterns.  result a  in  differently.  relating This  the  latent  change  change  has  A  B  a  A  experiencing, to  has  to  in  which  is  a  other.  leads  to  because  powerful Not  A  only  1 18  Table 5 The Revised Model Re vis ed Change  Corr obor at i ng Empirically Derived Change Processes  Processes  An individual organizes h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f d i f f e r e n t l y by bringing into focal awareness experiences not previously dominant in awareness.  2. disclosure The of feelings 3. Understanding 4.Taking responsibility for experience  The spouse, upon witnessing the partner' s new a f f e c t i v e expressions, perceives the partner in a new w a y ; f o r example, "I see y o u r need f o r c a r i n g and c o n t a c t r a t h e r than your h o s t i l i t y " .  1. Emotional experiencing leads to change in interpersonal percept ion  The individual's personal reorganization leads to different behavior i n the i n t e r a c t i o n with the spouses; for example, "I now a s k y o u for reassurance from a p o s i t i o n of v u l n e r a b i l i t y " .  2. disclosure The of feelings 3. Understanding 4. Taking responsibility for experience  The s p o u s e ' s new p e r c e p t i o n s of the partner lead to different responses; for e x a m p l e , "I c o m f o r t y o u r a t h e r than withdraw".  1. Emotional experiencing leads to change in interpersonal percept ion  As a function of the therapist's validation, the i n d i v i d u a l experiences change. For e x a m p l e , "I f e e l e n t i t l e d t o my p o s i t i o n " .  5.  does o b s e r v i n g observing (i.e.,  a partner's  partner's  emotional  perception  Validation  e x p e r i e n c i n g change the  of the e x p e r i e n c i n g  t h e p r i m a r y change p a t t e r n ) ,  partner  b u t a l s o a p a r t n e r ' s own  119  emotional other  experiencing  partner This  (i.e.,  suggests  changes h i s or her p e r c e p t i o n  the secondary  that  pattern).  the importance  experiencing  i n couples  therapy  individual's  perception  of the partner  her  view  aspect than  of the s e l f .  of emotional  experiencing  the i n t r a p s y c h i c aspect  affective That  systemic  and r e s u l t  expressions affective  perceptions couple  system  that  Finally, emotional  are potent  they  the practical  one's p a r t n e r  new  self  understanding  and acceptance  into the  change.  of  perception  change  such  needs.  category  two:  as  of the partner,  intimacy,  and  new  intentions. Latent  that  i s that the  to couples  increased  new  of the f i n d i n g  modifier  of one's  that  interpersonal  f o r perceptual  an  responses,  i n an  affective  information  leads  behavioral  important  interpersonal  appear  in altering  significance  than  alter  I t would  of perception  new  h i s or  experiencing  c h a n g e a r e new  modification increased  than  the communicative  that  i s a powerful  rather  rather  an  i s p o s s i b l y more  introduce  i s a stimulus  experiencing  i n changing  words,  experiences  i s also noteworthy.  because  emotional  therapy.  i n couples  expressions  lies  of  of emotional  couples  the emotional  perception  of  In other  of the  the d i s c l o s u r e of f e e l i n g s  and  120  The the In  change  disclosure the  leads  of  primary to  (i.e.,  the  process  identified  feelings  aspect,  positive  the  the  disclosure  acceptable,  and  a  Because  of  are  reported  disclosing such  by  important against  seven  men,  feelings  disclosure in  men  is  men  felt-needs,  of  of  it  would  a  change  than  in  expressing  by  is  that  women.  emotion,  two  that  feelings  the  safe,  disclosing. this  aspect  experience  understanding  that  Given  feelings  valuable, person  two,  aspects.  of  support  positive  process  has  disclosing  the  appear  to  category  disclosure  feelings  incidents  leading  of  the  responsibility)  the  latent  experience  valuing  that  six  and  in  is  about  possibly  society's  this  finding  this  change  is  of  more  norms not  surprising. In  the  disclosure  secondary of  felt-needs  understanding willingness  aspect  of  to  the  of  leads  to  process,  change--such  self-in-relationship,  self-disclose,  and  greater  an  as  the  greater  increased  emotional  closeness. According may  be  (b)  the  to  Waring  c l a s s i f i e d  beliefs,  expression and  classify  (c)  (d)  Although  terms  of  under  they  do  not  (a)  (1983),  the  self-disclosure  expression  (c)  the  (d)  self-awareness.  types  of  self-disclosure  rubric  of  cognitive  these the  Chelune  of  need,  attitudes,  further and  in  and  do  and  so,  (a)  and  expression  (b)  of  of  emotion, thoughts,  They by  grouping  self-disclosure.  may  be  c l a s s i f i e d  121  under  the  process two  in  types  feelings the  rubric  two  of  latent of  affective  category  two,  self-disclosure  and  the  expression  branches  of  self-disclosure. therefore,  (i.e., of  the  needs)  self-disclosure  The  change  identifies  expression  that  of  comprise  (i.e.,  the  the  one  of  affective  branch). The  significance  existence  of  a  of  strong  this  change  positive  self-disclosure  and  Chelune  self-disclosure  the is  (1983),  level not  of  d i f f i c u l t  change  process  to  in  this  of  aspect,  positive  would the  create  the  more  the  is  of  With  valuing  that  of  both  would  the  would  the  and  determinant Given  of  this,  aspects  of  the  contribute  to  the  to  the  that  would  respect would  contribute  to  of  feelings  contribute  to  it  primary  disclosure  felt-needs  in  Waring  couples.  how  with  lies  between  to  major  respect  of  intimacy;  disclosure  a  married  self-disclosure  of  relationship  According  category  intimacy.  development  aspect,  among  conceive  development the  relationship  intimacy.  intimacy  process  the  secondary  create the  to  change  development  in of  int imacy.  Latent The  category three: understanding.  change  understanding,  process indicates  intellectual-emotional dynamics,  the  identified that  in  latent  intellectual,  insights—pertaining  self-in-relationship,  the  category  three,  emotional, to  partner,  or  relationship or  the  122  s e l f — l e a d  to  new  responses  responses  include  analyzing  behavior  choosing not  whether  or  not  to  working  Although  the  idea  not  new,  but i t  also  is  an  therapy.  insight  repudiated  manipulating  the  negotiate.  The  therefore,  lies  understanding largely  of  to  system  as  a  its  of  or  of  that  currently  therapy  this  change  merely  to  change in  understanding largely  methods  such  partners  been as  to  process,  the in  not  unfashionable  change of  is  have  teaching  blocks.  leads  (1979),  reaffirmation  mechanism  automatically  character  Wile  couples  significance in  is  motivation,  communication  action-oriented  couple  forgotten  Latent  that  in  These  f l e x i b i l i t y ,  than  understanding  According  favour  greater  rather  remove  emotional  in  relationship.  underlying  trust  that  approaches in  of  to  idea  the  listening,  terms  and  couples and  in  trusting,  intellectual is  improved  in  efficacy  an  age  of  that  has  i t .  category  four:  taking  responsibility  for  experience. The  change  process  taking  responsibility  coming  to  or  experience  her  partner taking  a  new  for  awareness in  experiencing a  identified  self-focus.  the a  in  latent  category  experience,  involves  of  responsibility  personal  relationship  shift  from  that  the  results  attributing  blame  four,  partner for  in to  his  this  123  According d i f f i c u l t the  c l i e n t  tendency  problems. attain  behavior spouses  is  outcome  of  suggests  that  latent  Margolin  change  blame  the  in  each  suggests  the  attainment  essential  to  of  in  and to  (1982)  self-focus  the  this  of  Jacobson  Guerin  successful That  to  self-focus the  category  is  category  five:  of  is  change  with  to  a  c o n f l i c t .  d i f f i c u l t  process  significant  spouses  to  marital  is  marital  assisting  both  most  therapy  for  importance  treatment  the  marital other  that  utmost  (1979),  and  identified  respect  to  in  couples  change. Latent The  change  validation,  process  has  two  partner  that  feeling  e n t i t l e d to  self;  in  the  receives the  validated a l l  validated  more  one  to  validation  understanding feelings,  the  and  needs,  affirmed the  spouse  changes  as  partner who  (e.g.,  accepting and  as  observes the  of  the  position).  Because  validating,  the  therapist  plays  a  110),  major  problem  change  a who  rather  this  their  according  the  therapist  role  is  aspect,  of  aspect,  change--such and  five,  the  the  partners  primary  position,  behavior  category  (22)  does  to  the  latent  her  of  incident  partner  According  In  in  experiences  or  the  process  partner's  but  in  his  validation,  becomes  identified  aspects.  secondary  partner's  spouse  in  is  validation.  than  the  central  process.  Wile  (1981,  feeling  of  p.  the  unentitlement  to  their  own  of  1 24  positions.  He  suggests  disqualification,  which  partner-to-partner  p.  110)  partner's  is  danger  a  problem  of  not  but  interactions.  believes  point  this  relationships  therapist-to-partner (1981,  that  that  view  may  only  also  from  in  in  Consequently,  validation have  stems  a  or  Wile  establishing  powerful  each  therapeutic  ef f e c t . The  change  process  supports  Wile's  contention.  methods  and  approaches  concepts to  behavioral, invalidating such,  this  couples  partners'  the  expression  of  two  quantitative  of  of  latent  at  a  major  the  time  category when  the  contemporary  psychoanalytic,  may  have  (Wile,  1981,  significance  lead  make  a  combined  mean  of  s t a t i s t i c  important  in  Interview  the p. with  effect 101).  of As  respect  to  the  to  Questionnaire  questions  concerning  feelings  feelings  perspective  the  p a r a l l e l  data  of  feelings  This  (i.e.,  responses is  so  other  approaches)  process  this  change.  Interpretation On  in  does  by  therapy  systemic  change  It  employed  couples  and  identified  and  the  which  relationship  change  (i.e.,  change  for  you?  difference  for  you?),  4.1  on  indicates  a  expression  change.  Did  Likert-type that of  However,  accessed  from  the  feelings because  between  Did  the  the  expression  the  the  expression  interviewees  five-point  of had  scale.  interviewees' was  d e f i n i t e l y  questions  concerning  a  1 25  the  importance  asked,  these  to  cognition This  or  finding,  that  change  by  couple  the  to  the  the  concerning  the  indicate  important  is  more  finding of  of  of  were  that  in  not  the  change  important  latent  feelings  interpersonal  importance  the  their  was  important  express around  questions feelings  that  and  they  partners  the  that the  for was  of  relationship  occurred  times  second,  on  on  as  than  category  leads  to  one  couples  perceptions),  both  expression  feelings  while  Waring  of  lend  qualitative  five  second;  were  Chelune  these  important  feeling  feeling  in  of  and  on  caring  your  eight  that  to  on  occurred  the question  times both a  and  occurred  on  the  questions. model  provides  their  that  cluster  partner  proposed  which In  express partner  f i r s t  the  times  have  intimacy  you  in  themselves  commitment  the  for  and  four  results.  did  commitment  times  (1983)  did  data  expressed  for  responses  caring  question  occurred  dimension  interpreting  or  qualitative  interviewees  important?),  f i r s t  love  and  the  What  What  accessed  s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  the  the  deemed  love  More  times  that  you? most  ideas  that  (i.e.,  frequently.  for  change  change.  expression  two  counselling  two  as  in  change.  On  seven  only  emotion  in  and  altering  behavior  emotion  that  behavior  or  questions  perceived  showing  (viz.,  support  cognition  p a r a l l e l  interviewees opposed  of  model,  a  of  the  framework  which  126  c o n s i s t s of e i g h t aspects  (i.e., affection,  expressiveness, compatability, c o n f l i c t s e x u a l i t y , autonomy and  identity),  cohesion,  resolution,  love or c a r i n g i s  c o n s i d e r e d the aspect of a f f e c t i o n , and commitment to the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c o n s i d e r e d the aspect of While the e x p r e s s i o n of primary for  cohesion.  f e e l i n g s was  important  both the interviewees and t h e i r p a r t n e r s (e.g., there  were four occurrences  of v u l n e r a b i l i t y , anger, and  on t h e . f i r s t q u e s t i o n , and  there were three occurrences  hurt and v u l n e r a b i l i t y on the second),  a f f e c t i o n and cohesion are important  which h e l p i n c r e a s e intimacy.  Given  expressions  processes  i n therapy  the s t a t e of a l i e n a t i o n  or l o s s of intimacy that c h a r a c t e r i z e s d i s t r e s s e d t h i s f i n d i n g i s not L i m i t a t i o n s and  limited.  The  couples,  surprising.  Future  Recommendations  There are f i v e areas is  of  i t would appear that  in d i s t r e s s e d couples the more complex emotional of  sadness  first  i n which t h i s study's methodology  four, the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n  procedure,  the s e l e c t i o n of the optimal number of l a t e n t c a t e g o r i e s , the s e l f - r e p o r t  nature of the data, and  the homogeneity of  ther s o r t e r s , p e r t a i n to the design of the study;  the  fifth,  the data c o l l e c t i o n component of the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n methodology the  study.  ( i . e . , the F - s o r t ) , p e r t a i n s to the execution of  127  With  respect  full-length would  this  a  loss  loss  nonessential  to  independent  of  the  raters  their  a  essential  of  The select this is  the  danger  L=5  meaning  of  the  number  less  than  apparent  than  real.  when  of  use  and  For  choice  relatively  have  had  one  additional  incident  have  had  two  additional  incidents  merely with  have  added  minimal The  nature  of  partners  an an  effect  third the means  stable  L=6  that  the  (i.e.,  model  on  the  That the  of the  data  three  a  used  two  each). than  that there  danger  is  rather  had  than  been  would  have would  categories  - This an  to  latent  categories  means  L=5  would that  model  latent  would  category  categories.  study  incidents is  L=6  models  five  this  was  this  four-item  other  that  Given  of  had  each;  to  reasoning,  categories  rather  additional  limitation data.  of  among  two  suggests  that  However,  remained  of  five  hoc  example,  is  occur.  substance  optimal.  That  categories. ad  issue  incidents  procedure  of  process  or  well  not  latent  to  selection  two,  the  number  the  essential  simplified  narrowed  the  these  is  this  incidents.  did  the  crucial  counterparts  the  is  that  The  was  the  information  required  chosen  simplifying  inevitable  information  the  been  of  information.  that  categories more  of  was  limitation  optimal  selection  it  full-length  second  the  process  perceived  represent loss  the  incidents,  involve  whether  to  record  is  the  were of  self-report  reported what  by  occurred  the  128  from  their  noted  by  observers.  technique general  perspective  accesses  ideas  convergence as  might  or  of  change  should  is  be  The  increases  the  data  noted  by  of  as  been  incident  rather  than  l i k e l i h o o d of  observers.  by In  the  of  client  from  a  partners  spite  data,  perspective  have  events  reported  self-report  important  and  the  perception  which  change  assessed. fourth  limitation  homogeneous  sample  point  the  may  c r i t i c a l  opinions  of  common  latent  the or  homogeneity  their  that  what  incidents  nature  an  to  actual  been  controvertible  opposed  However,  between  have  as  the  of  sorters. of  To  that  the  latent  worldview,  and  that  in  note  this  the  sorters  is  represented  limitation  categories some  pertains  to  the  were  a  counselling-psychology,  worldview  indeed  study  Because  students  humanistic  categories.  this  reflect such  a  is  in  to  the  make  the  particular  worldview  is  inevitable. The  fourth  execution in  at Phi  could the  the  F-sort.  least and  have  meaning  therefore,  52  matrices  affected of it  the is  the  this this  sorted  sorters,  Omega  of In  counselling-psychology  been the  of  limitation  i t  study 52  have  37  been  that  at  least  Had  the  the as  the students there  entries  higher.  and  In  to  graduate  that  composition  categories.  recommended  pertains  incidents.  likely  would  item  latent  is  study  in  This  consequently future, many  sorters  1 29  as  items  requiring  Other 1.  Given  one  (i.e.,  feelings  important  of p r i m a r y  an a f f e c t i v e  significant  systemic  in couples  treatment  that  five  an  affective  is  recommended  Given  l e a d s t o c o u p l e - change by  t o be  continue  change p r o c e s s e s change were a l s o  as  be p r o m o t e d  empirically  systemic  incident  technique  t h a t a p p e a r t o be identified, i t  i n an  have been  processes  systemic  affective  verification.  therapy  (i.e.,  the  therapy  (i.e.,  important  the  change  critical  and t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  approach) with  identified, i t  be t e s t e d u s i n g  has been c o n c e p t u a l i z e d and a p p l i e d t o one approach to couples  i s that the  d e r i v e d change p r o c e s s e s i n  treatment  that these  in couples  in  t o be e m p h a s i z e d  t h a t a methodology which i d e n t i f i e s  processes  important  well.  a p p r o p r i a t e methods o f 4.  t h a t the  treatment.  recommended t h a t t h e y  Given  indicates  recommendation  feelings  that four other  systemic  in latent  experiencing leads to  t h e e x p r e s s i o n of f e e l i n g s  expression  3.  emotional  of p r i m a r y  c h a n g e , t h e most  is  identified  study a r e :  i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n , and t h a t t h e p a r t n e r s  perceived  Given  to t h i s  in interpersonal perceptions)  altering  2..  used.  t h a t t h e change p r o c e s s  expression  in  be  recommendations p e r t a i n i n g  category change  sorting  methodology) particular  affective  results,  itis  130  recommended study  of  that  change  psychotherapy  this  processes  (e.g.,  Given is  the  technique as  that  evaluate  reported  by  (e.g.,  through  assess  the  the  the an  value  approaches  of  this  the  to  couples  therapy,  self-report the  convergence and  inspection of  to  therapy).  using  partners  applied  couples  nature  studies  be  other  couples  controvertible  recommended  in  strategic  behavioral-cognitive 5.  methodology  of  c r i t i c a l  between  as  technique  as  incident incidents  by  observers  tapes) a  it  the  reported  video  data,  in  order  method  of  level  of  to  data  collect ion. Generalizability Johnson distress couple as the  (1984),  of  pre  92.1 test  moderately combined  in  moderately  and  study  had  than  Scale  distressed.  distress  control  group  is  most  also  mean  characterized  severely  of  a  Adjustment  score),  may  couples be  in  this  differences  s o l i c i t e d couples  who  are  study  the  there  distressed couples  the  Dyadic  DAS  level  sample  for is  the  92.05  accurately  (i.e., her  sample  Given  couples on  the  the  that  from DAS,  considered  the the as  distressed.  Because because  rather  this  the  total  mean  experimental sample  on  whose  and  study  were  between  seek  treatment,  generalizable  with  the  and  moderately  moderately  voluntarily  solicited,  the  greatest  distressed findings  in  confidence  to  this  131  moderately  distressed solicited  experimentally Lower M a i n l a n d . confidence demographic this  study  accessible population To  g e n e r a l i z e beyond  would r e q u i r e t h e v a r i a b l e s and with  samples  in  the  of V a n c o u v e r and this  comparability  population on  outcome v a r i a b l e s of  from a w i d e r  moderately d i s t r e s s e d couples treatment.  couples  who  with  key the  sample  target population  voluntarily  the  seek  of  in  1 32  References  A d a m s , D. B . , & N a g n u r , 0 . N . (1981 mentality. A life table analysis S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Ottawa.  ) . Marriage divorce and for Canada: 197 5-77 .  Bloom, B. L . , A s h e r , S . J . , & W h i t e , S . W. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Marital disruption as a stressor: A. r e v i e w a n d a n a l y s i s . Psychological Bulletin, 85, 867-94.  B o r g , W. R . , & G a l l , D . G . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . e d . ) . NewY o r k : Longman.  Educat i onal  research  (4th  Conry, R . F . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Effects of cognitive style differences and stimulus factors on free sorting behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.  F e l d m a n , L . B. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . M a r i t a l c o n f l i c t a n d m a r i t a l i n t i m a c y : An i n t e g r a t i v e psychodynamic-behavioral-systemic m o d e l . Family 18, 69-78.  Process,  Feldman, L. B. (1982). D y s f u n c t i o n a l m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t : An integrative interpersonal-intrapsychic m o d e l . Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8, 417-428.  F e l d m a n , L . B. & P i n s o f , W. M . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . P r o b l e m ' m a i n t e n a n c e i n f a m i l y s y s t e m s : A n i n t e g r a t i v e m o d e l . Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8, 295-308.  F i n c h a m , F . , & O ' L e a r y , D . K . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Affect in the eighties: A new direction in behavioral marital therapy. A p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 9 0 t h a n n u a l c o n v e n t i o n o ft h e American Psychological Association, Washington-, D.C.  Flanagan, J . (1954). Thec r i t i c a l incident Ps yc hoi ogi cal Bulletin, 51, 327-358.  technique.  133  G r e e n b e r g , L. S. (1984). Task a n a l y s i s . In L. Rice & L. Greenberg (Eds.), Patterns of change: Intensive analysis of psychotherapy process ( p p . 1 2 4 - 1 4 8 ) . New Y o r k : Guilford Press.  Greenberg, L. S., & Johnson, focused couples therapy: systemic approach. In N. (Eds.), New Y o r k : G u i l f o r  S. An S. d  M. ( i n press). Emotionally integrated affective J a c o b s o n & A . S. Gurman Press.  Greenberg, L. S., & Safran, J . ( i n press). cognition in psychotherapeutic change. Guilford Press.  G u e r i n , P. J . (1982). The states Family Journal, 10, 15-26.  of marital  Affect and New Y o r k :  conflict.  The  Gurman, A . S., Knudson, R. M . , & K n i s k e r n , D . P . (1978). B e h a v i o r a l m a r r i a g e t h e r a p y . I V . Take t w oa s p i r i n a n d c a l l u s i n t h e m o r n i n g . Family Process, 17, 165-180.  G u r m a n , A . S . , & K n i s k e r n , D. P . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Family therapy outcome r e s e a r c h : Knowns a n d unknowns. I n A . S. Gurman & D. P . K n i s k e r n (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy ( p p . 7 4 2 - 7 7 5 ) . New Y o r k : Brunner/Mazel.  Gurman, A . (1981). I n t e g r a t i v e m a r i t a l therapy: Toward t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n i n t e r p e r s o n a l a p p r o a c h . I n S. H. Budman ( E d . ) , Fo rms of brief therapy ( p p . 4 1 5 — 4 5 7 ) . New York: G u i l f o r d Press.  J a c o b s o n , N. S. (1978). A review of t h e research on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m a r i t a l t h e r a p y . I n T . J . P a o l i n o & B. S. M c C r a d y ( E d s . ) , Marriage and marital therapy ( p p . 3 9 5 - 4 4 4 ) . New York': Brunner/Mazel.  Jacobson, N. S., & M a r g o l i n , G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principles. New Y o r k : Brunner/Mazel.  Johnson,  S. M . , & G r e e n b e r g ,  L. S.  ( i n press). The  134  differential experiential of Consulting Press.  e f f e c t s of cognitive behavioral and interventions in marital therapy. Journal & Clinical Psychology. New Y o r k : Guilford  J o h n s o n , S. M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A comparative treatment study of experiential and behavioral approaches to marital therapy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver.  Mahoney, M. J . (1980). Psychotherapy and the structure p e r s o n a l r e v o l u t i o n s . In M. J . Mahoney (Ed.), Psychotherapy process: Current issues and future directions ( p p . 1 5 7 - 1 8 0 ) . New Y o r k : P l e n u m Press.  P i n s o f , W. M . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Integrative problem-centered Toward t h e s y n t h e s i s of family and i n d i v i d u a l psychotherapies. Journal of Marital and Family 9, 19-36.  of  therapy: Therapy,  M i l l e r , D . M . , F o w l k e s , J . G . , & L a m b e r t , P'. (1967). Elementary school teachers' viewpoint of classroom teaching and learning. University of Wisconsin, I n s t r u c t i o n a l R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y , USOE P r o j e c t N o . 5-1015-2-12-1.  R o s o w , I. Free  (1967). Press.  Spanier, G. Marriage  Social  integration  of  the  New  aged.  (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment. and the Family, 38, 15-28.  Waring, E. M . , & C h e l u n e , G. J . (1983). s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Journal of Clinical 183-190.  Journal  York:  of  M a r i t a l intimacy and Psychology, 39,  W i l e , D. B . Journal  (1979). An i n s i g h t a p p r o a c h t o m a r i t a l t h e r a p y . of Marital and Family Therapy, 5, 43-52.  W i l e , D. E . approach.  ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Couples therapy: A non-t New Y o r k : W i l e y & S o n s .  radi  ti  onal  W i l e y , D. E . ( 1 9 6 7 ) . L a t e n t p a r t i t i o n Psychornetrica, 32, 183-193.  analysis.  1 36  Appendix A  Table  A  I n d i v i d u a l and Couple Pre and Post T o t a l Dyadic Adjustment Scale  (DAS) Scores Couples  from  the Experimental  Treatment  Individual Couple No.  No.  1  2  3  1  7  8  Pos t  Pre  Post  3  F  4 5 6  M M F  9 10  M  1 03  91  1 24 1 28  97  1 26  80.5  1 23  89.5  109  F 1  1 2  17  18  19 20 6  Pre  M F  13 14 1 5 5  Gender  2  1 4  Incident  Couple  1 05  1 10 1 1 1  101.5  110.5  1 09  121  103.5  120.5  98  120  98  F  M  77  M F F  1 26  84  120  M  94  1 1 2  M F  85  106  F  21 22 23  M F F  1 02  1 25 1 17  98  121  94  25 26 27  M  1 1 2  1 23  102.5  118.5  F  93  1 14  28  M  1 07  1 19  102.5  120.5  - 29  F  98  1 22  F  137  30 31 32  M F F  82 70  97 79  35 36  M F F  101 98  11  37 38  M F  12  39 40  M  47 48 49  9  10  13  7 8 .  15  16  88  112 105  9 9 . 5  108.5  102 62  111 112  82  111.5  92 97  96 94  9 4 . 5  95  M M  97  111  88  106  F  79  101  F  Couples 14  76  from t h e C o n t r o l  _  Treatment  M F F  118  118 94  106  106  94  M  77 95  93 105  86  99  F  16  24  M F  103 106  104 101  1 0 4 . 5  102.5  17  33 34  M F  112 79  121 113  9 5 . 5  117  M F  73 80  79 81  7 6 . 5  80  41 42 43  M  91 84  101 103  8 7 . 5  102  F  44 45 46  M  67  85  73  82  M F  79  79  50 51 52  M  91  103  87  101 105  89  F  18  19  20  21  F  1 38  Appendix B  The  Interview Guide S e c t i o n A.  1.  What was most h e l p f u l f o r you i n c o u n s e l l i n g ? (Repeat the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n are  forthcoming: Is there  helpful 2.  u n t i l no more responses  anything e l s e that was most  f o r you i n c o u n s e l l i n g ? )  In what ways was c o u n s e l l i n g not h e l p f u l ? (Repeat the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n are  forthcoming: Is there  u n t i l no more responses  any other way that  counselling  was not h e l p f u l ? ) 3.  In what ways could c o u n s e l l i n g have been more h e l p f u l ? (Repeat the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n are  forthcoming: Is there  u n t i l no more responses  any other way that  counselling  could have been more h e l p f u l ? ) Section 1.  B.  Please d e s c r i b e incident  i n as much d e t a i l as p o s s i b l e a s p e c i f i c  i n c o u n s e l l i n g that  stands out f o r you as  e i t h e r h e l p f u l or h i n d e r i n g . 2.  How was t h i s i n c i d e n t h e l p f u l / n o t  helpful?  3.  What changed f o r you through t h i s  incident?  4.  How d i d t h i s change occur? (If the interviewees  are able  to r e c a l l a second  i n c i d e n t that stands out as h e l p f u l or h i n d e r i n g ,  repeat  questions Section Interview  one  through  four.  C. Questionnaire  140  Appendix  F-sort  C  Directions  Understanding pressing  issue.  how  We  couples change i n c o u n s e l l i n g i s a  would l i k e you to form your  own  c a t e g o r i e s of couples change processes by s o r t i n g of couple change events.  The c r i t e r i o n  f o r your  c a t e g o r i e s i s whether you t h i n k the statements  statements forming  are  similar  with respect to the change that occurs f o r the person r e p o r t i n g the change.  Because f r e q u e n t l y more than  (A)  one  change occurs f o r A, we would l i k e you to choose f o r c a t e g o r i z i n g the change process that you t h i n k i s most significant  f o r A.  To r e i t e r a t e , t h e r e f o r e , the  criterion  f o r forming c a t e g o r i e s i s whether you think statements  are  s i m i l a r with respect to dominant change processes f o r A. An example of the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s c r i t e r i o n simple statement  to a  i s as f o l l o w s : A—Male  When B requests that A t e l l her at l e a s t once a day that he loves her, A agrees to B's request and t e l l s her that he loves her. In t h i s statement occur f o r A.  there are s e v e r a l change processes that  However, because A's  t e l l i n g B he loves her i s  an e x p r e s s i o n of h i s agreement to her request, the dominant change process f o r A i s something l i k e A's agreeing to request.  B's  141  Please  form  your  categories  according  to the following  directions: 1.  Read  a n d Study  2.  Decide the  3.  without  dominant  Write  a  this  assist 4.  File  5.  Repeat  tentative  change  t h e statement  process  tentative  across  a  have  previously  beneath  pink  during  statement placed  which i t .  describes of  phrase  into piece  categories. of  of dominant sorted,  piece  paper. If  a n y new  change  put  the  by w r i t i n g of  the sorting does  paper  i s to  statement.  a new c a t e g o r y  on another  two a  paper. task  not belong  Y o u may d o o n e o f  y o u may where y o u three  with i t : i t i n another  b.  Start  a new c a t e g o r y  c.  P u t i t back  each  type  that piece  This  previously  Place  in  on a pink  the pink  what  f o r A i s .  few words  f o r each  t h e same  a.  Review  occurs  the statements  At any time  come  i n t h e deck.  on t h e statement  of the deck.  n o t , begin  phrase  Resorting:  things  process  as one y o u have If  that  of a  one t o four  involves  together.  7.  phrase  you in sorting  statement  too long  process  a t t h e back  steps  statement  dwelling  change  dominant  located  6.  the first  your  into  statements  t h e deck  categories  category bel ong  with  category  of unsorted  carefully. special  together  Review  concern  (i.e.,  statements the statements  f o r whether t h e  whether  they a r e  1 42  similar  with  process  for A).  combining, 8.  Check  respect  tentative  an  change dividing,  on t h e p i n k phrase  a deck  of paper f o r  on e a c h y o u h a v e w r i t t e n a describes  for A which  t h e type of  caused  you t o place  together.  piece  of paper  belonging  and t h e i r  by s t a c k i n g your  e l a s t i c , and place  to a  bearing the  describing the category.  the .statements  Form  piece  t h e numbers o f a l l t h e s t a t e m e n t s  category  10.  change p r o c e s s  statements  all  and that  which you think best  dominant  Write  Y o u may make a n y c h a n g e s b y  t o see t h a t y o u have a p i n k  phrase  9.  of dominant  or switching the statements.  each category,  the  t o the type  Do t h i s  with  respective categories. c a t e g o r i e s , secure  i ti n s i d e  t h e envelope.  i t with  143  Appendix  D  Example of a F u l l - L e n g t h C r i t i c a l  Incident and i t s  Corresponding Form as a S i m p l i f i e d The f u l l - l e n g t h I  was  telling  about  one  point  about  how  I  that  I  could  very  hurt.  d i d n ' t — I  F.  when  felt  incident how we  when  go  on.  And,  I  she  just of  on--physically  even  hung  her  at  was  I  have In  how  that  time,  didn't  say  blamed  other  her  I  and i t  person,  and  expressing  was  her.  I  talked it  a  seemed  me.  lot to  say  a  also  I  something  like  that,  at  her  for  me.  got  I the  way.  this  or  I  about  easier what  i t I  I  without  I  would that  doing  like  time.  that  just  really  she me  for in  to  hurt  wanted  that.  I  incident.  for  wanted  very  difference  at  was  was  feel  remember  the  the  was  her  I  exist  her--how it  And,  me  I  t e l l  hung  her  time that  with  how-hard  me  for  felt  and  Usually,  leaving  I  didn't  And,  anything  felt  I  crying.  But,  But  to  emotional  felt.  fault  much  how  could  her  I  and  I  for  how  trying  chair.  that I  and  l i t e r a l l y  me,  difference  giving  was  started  to  her,  really  on.  her,  how  realized  not  me  expressing  love  how  left  hurt  was  just  And,  angry  i t  I  blameful  that,  about make  a  about  up.  feel  hurting  namely  couldn't  on  how  in  that  another  hung  didn't  for  words,  I  about  sort  about  had  And,  (A-Male 42).  felt  broke  just  talking  I  Incident  felt to me our  And, about  say to  be  144  relationship. realized and an  how  how  hard  easy  it  impression  didn't just  Client:  one  i t  up  It  sort  of  blamed  her  to  get is  she  so  where or  get  it  that  really  own  and have  get to  what be  I I  A  I  was  could wanted  angry  or  sort  for  to  to  make She  i t .  And,  get  away,  she of  the  if  and  got  be  myself  or  her  to  me  give  loving  and  to  her  thing  own  and  reaction  I  withdrawing stayed ignore  for  I  i t  out  what  certain away.  just  feels  her  She and  was  she  her  saying  my  to  expressed  something  express  driving  I  opposite  by  have  a  toward  stonewall  myself,  be  just—she  didn't.  I  didn't  something  something  important  her  in  cold,  really  force  us  she  a  without  that  such.  about  I  times  other.  being  as  less.  want  gets  her  state,  seemed  her  express  of  She  didn't  or  her  that,  say  it  like  I  helpful?  could lot  because  me.  people  driving  by  blame  to  me  something  defensive  on  like  can  didn't  just  I  on  And,  wanted,  me.  I  And,  That  realize--that  from  something  wanted  be  most  away.  of  didn't  I  want.  So,  She  or  f e l t .  what  emotional  was.  angry I  on.  Instead  her  she  away  I  say  blame.  pick  anything  react.  to.  save  her or  driven  didn't  wanted to  blame  to  to  incident  what  I  me  just  this  almost  which  impression  difference  me  driving  and  a  was  relationship--what  or  me  would  made  an  for  made  another  anger  was  her--that  How  after  without  made  for  usually—she  opening  go  it  was  on  Interviewer:  to  And,  me  I to  things didn't  way.  of  145  Interviewer:  And,  what  changed  for  you  through  this  incident? Client:  I  think  needs—instead from  I  became  of  angry liked.  I  need  to  whatever.  I  need  this  didn't  get  as  and  her  for  to  make  anger me  my  giving  easier  needing to  the  more  open  be  nice  Interviewer: Client:  You  were  It  to  now,  mean In  the  the  be  for  being  what  I  us.  Because drive  And, of  about  change  occur  session,  incident—some  I  change  that  I  weak  the  and  angry  easier  it  can  I  seemed  often  away  this  after  or  just  very  best  in  this  so-called  less  the  the  need  loved  her  the  me,  I  my  accepted  wanted.  would  with.  the  to  myself  That's  during  really  but  that  right  away.  after  the  because  didn't  integrate  stuff  fight  did  need  I  accepting  her.  "Okay,  her".  between  and  both  from  me  along  I  of  make  she  got  was  for  put  i t .  incident?  the  session?  occurred  that  you  describing.  Client: while  to  at  saying,  something  get  How  Interviewer:  it  not  hard  to  thing  both  very  and me  at  be  angry  things  accepting  being  her.  at  more  I  the  realize  happened There  incident  the  against  it  in  incident. it  in was  has  the an  we'd  incident  occur  incident, back  it  was  didn't and  worse  us. a  I'm  place.  sessions  go  incident.  And,  taken  affected  because  the  And, bit  only A  lot  were  sometimes  too  of  times  we  hard  took  a  verbalizing  change  some  than  It  to  the things right before you'd  take.  146  But,  it  took  The  felt  Simplified A  very  hurt,  than  a  how  expressing than  by  B  how  he  just  by  expressing to  this what  that  blaming  A  he  he and  felt,  his  that  way  felt  but of  hurt  of  hurt  B did  wanted  he  42).  became  started  response  manner new  (A—Male  about  typical  defensive  get  integrate.  his  d i f f i c u l t could  to  Incident  and  difference  typically  he  t e l l s  responded  made  while  When  rather A  a  to  not  opened  his  responding  and  demanding.  B  really  his  wanting  to  in  for B  wanted  hurt,  her.  It  her  him.  was  driving  However, for  respond up  emotional,  cry.  blaming and  without  very  A  realized  him;  away her  that  by rather  147  Appendix E  Table  E-1  Phi M a t r i x of Four Latent C a t e g o r i e s Late Inci No.  de nt  J  3  1 37  8 52  1 32 121  36 49 23 33 37  121 1 20 1 18 1 08 1 05 1 02 1 02 83 82 82 77 77 69 67 66 63  30 21 1 45 1 4 25 28 34 10 18 40  nt  3  4  -10 -22 1 4 -1 1 -17  -1 1  -3 -2 12  -16 -17 -4 27 1 3 -16 28 3 1 27  63 40 - 5 7  -20 -10 1 1  46  68 63 60 54  9  34  44  1 6  -10 1 1  48  -9 -7  y Number  2  41 26 20 5 2 4 6 1 9 43 51 31 29  5 - 6 1 6 - 5 26 33  Categor  148 1 28 1 19 1 1 1 84 82 82 71  -18 -20  0 -28 2 1 9 21 -7  -24 2 "14 -10 -20 35 3 -3 -10 16 - 3 0 -8 -3 -2 32 -4 23 7 -27  -16 1 -14 36 125 1 23  -13 - 5  -6 2 -8 1 -12 7 -4 26 -8 -8 -2 8 7 5 -1 1 -1 1 -18 3 -10 5 -13 -8 1 4 36 35 9 -14 0  -16  1 48  24 50 1 7 27  -14  0  -24  3 40  -13  39  -5 6 -4 -5 7 1 1  35 32  -6 -6  42 46 38 47  7 13 44  15 1 1 12 22  -5 10 -6 -4 1 1 28 34  -4 36 27 12 22 1 4  -16 -7 -  65 13 10 15 13 30. 7  108 1 07  96 93 86 72 72 68 59  6 10 -20 18 -19 0 8 15 -9  -16 -7  1 29  -31 2  88  59 60 40 -20 13  1 28  88 63 61 60 53 48  Table Phi  E-2  Matrix  of  Six Latent  Categories  Latent I nci de ni No.  1  2  Category  Number  3  4  5  6 •  8 23 52 49 45 3 21 36 37 30 1 4 28 34 1 18 40 22 10  127 126 1 14 1 1 3 104 1 03 1 00 96 95 91 82 79 79 65 59 56 56 48  1 -21 -1 3 -48 55 -4 37 10 1 2 -10 -7 -25 31 10 8 -4 34  21 -14 10 -17 28 -14 8 -14 -4 23 -3 29 59 -14 -1 1 6 7 33  9 18 -5 4 6 -15 -16 -12 -1 -13 -12 13 -6 1 1 -14 4 51 -21  2 1 3 -13 3 1 7 -21 18 -5 -6 -14 2 2 -7 -5 22 -5 9 -8  1 -15 1 3 -7 -5 3 0 -6 -7 ' 7 31 -15 2 -1 1 6 2 18 19  4 29 33 5 47 25 9 31  -33 -1 59 -29 -27 42 1 -18  108 99 98 83 73 71 70 32  -3 -13 -15 -1 68 1 32 1  1 1 12 1 1 16 3 0 -18 1 7  1 5 -5 -32 48 -17 -2 1 4 30  -2 0 -8 -4 1 1 -9 -2 25  16 48 50 24 1 7 27 42 46 38 39  -19 -6 18 -3 1 8 -5 -1 -10 14  2 1 5 -29 -9 -8 -7 12 1 3 6  1 22 1 18 11 0 1 09 91 91 80 77 72 59  -1 -1 1 18 1 5 -1 1 4 -15 30 1 3 4  -7 -9 -19 -8 38 -9 42 6 8 2  1 -8 -2 -3 8 14 -5 -16 1 10  11 2  -10  -1  44  10  -5  7  15 1 1 43  1 5 -18 -13  - 5 24 44  41 26 20  7 -13 30  -13 5 2  2  -43  6 1 9  38 42 -1  21 -17 10 -4  - 6 -4 0 16 1 2  -4 -4 -6 3 19  51 35 32 7 13 1 2  1  102 62 47  -6 14 42  -2 22 -10  -5 -12 -14 27  3 4 -28  1 26 1 20  -2  20 5 -12  -4 - 3 35  100 53 43 38  -1 -2 8 0  -1 1 -21 52  6 10 -21  -15 19  -27  - 5 -20  19  1 10  0 6  - 6 -7 0  -6 -3 16 118 115 95  69 65  151  Table  Phi  E - 3  M a t r i x of  Seven L a t e n t  Categories Lai  Inci No. 23 45 8 49 28 1 37 21 52 40 3 34 • 30 18 14 43  de  nt  1  122 11 7 107 107 99 98 92 85 83 78 68 68 60 52 51 47  ent  2  3  2 -27 27  -15 26 -22  13 -22  -18 28 -15 - 5 7  -25 1 1 21 41' . -21 64 8 44 13 37 -7  9 6 -13 57 22 -1 1 -4 -20  Categor  y Number  4  5  - 9 -17  13 -1  - 5 7  6 -1  15 54 13 -7 -17.  4 -1  28 20 -20 - 9 6 -27 - 4  7  6  1 1 1 1 1  - 9 - 1 5 - 6 43  -10 -19 -8 -12 21 5 41  4 5 6 6 4 1 -6 0 14 3 4 3 7 1 7 32 -9  6 -27 1 20 -3 49  - 9 -8 -6 -3 19 -3  -6 -7 22 10 40 12 40 9 8 16 -3  - 6 -17 -1 -  3 6 2 7  0 -3 -1 -8 1 7 -1 1  -1 -1  25 33 36 9 10 19  -22 10 33 -39 7 -27  102 93 93 72 62 58  1 -15 -15 33 33 5 '  4 36 -15 17 - 6 0  13 18 -2 -8 -13 6  16 48 50 24 1 7 27 42 46 38 47  -1  -1 24 20 14 10 20 -3 19 -3 26 28  120 11 7 11 0 108 90 90 79 76 71  39  -4 -7 3 -15 12 16 -14 4 -28 35  68 59  -18 -20 26 5 - 8 20 -1 1 -15 -7 47 32  2 - 6 14 13 -8 0 -15 34 13 3 "4  29 4  10 27  -12 -1  90 79  4  -10  -26  9  14  -2  44  -1  - 3  6  5  -9  -1  17  -  -  1 1 2  -  -  1 -9 -2 -3 -8 15 -5 -17 1 1 1 -9 1  1 52  1 5 22 11  -1  1  0  2  23 53  29 -41  6  -59 1 2  106 64 53  41 26 20 2 5 6 51  -8 - 5 2 37  - 5 6 10 -33  7  2  -19 20 -17  7  -44 7  44 -17  31  28 -10  -39 -1  35 32 7 1 3 1 2  -2 -10 -1 6 - 5  -9 2 - 9 -1 33  - 6 -4 -1 2 -13 26 1 21 -12  .  42 45 24  -28 - 5 21 -1 1 26  2  26  15  -1 1 -21 52 -15 19  0 -7  1 1  6 .  14 -9  1  -24 18 -21  - 5  0  14  16  10  24  125 1 22 1 09  -1  96 51 50 34 29 0 6 -7  -8 3  -3 8 0 -4 - 5 18 26 1 22 1 19  99 71 67  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 29 62
Russia 9 0
United States 6 3
Germany 3 21
City Views Downloads
Beijing 19 0
Shenzhen 10 62
Saint Petersburg 9 0
Ashburn 5 0
Unknown 3 29
Portland 1 1

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items