UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The impact of emotionally focused couples therapy on marital interaction Vaughan, Peter Christopher 1986

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

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1986_A8 V38.pdf [ 4.54MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0054232.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054232-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054232-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054232-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054232-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054232-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054232-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE IMPACT OF EMOTIONALLY FOCUSED COUPLES THERAPY ON MARITAL INTERACTION by PETER CHRISTOPHER VAUGHAN B.S.W., University of British Columbia, 1978  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY)  We accept this thesis as conforming _to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1986  ©  Peter Christopher Vaughan, 1986  In  presenting  requirements of  British  it  freely  agree for  this  thesis  i np a r t i a l  f o ran advanced  Columbia, I agree available  that  that  f o rreference  permission  scholarly  degree  fulfilment of the a t the University  the Library  shall  and study.  I  f o rextensive  copying  o r by h i so r h e rrepresentatives.  understood  that  for  financial  copying o r publication  gain  shall  Of  Counselling  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main M a l l Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  of this  October 6, 1986  of this  Psychology  Columbia  thesis  o f my  I t i s thesis  n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department  further  p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d b y t h e h e a d  department  make  written  ii  ABSTRACT This  study  has  addressed  the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  It  provides  systemic" therapy the  Focused therapy  question  interaction experience couples  recordings  of  coding  22  7th  system,  and  interaction.  were  Two  measures  used  treatment. used  to the  And for  Kappa,  the  the a  couples. design  interaction the  from  used.  participating SASB,  an  analysis  coeffient  during of 2nd  episodes DAS,  level  a of  couples  observer-rated of  of  audio  the  The the  A was  presence  equivalent  were  of  experience?  22  determine  by  therapeutic  group  by  the  interaction  chosen to  in-  is  c o n s i s t e d of  marked  compared  was  Cohen's  data  were  experienced  was  of  couples'  patterns  the  therapeutic  The  Episodes  EFCT,  the  consisted  participating  measure,  after  the  design.  session.  distress and  study  sessions.  therapy  self-report  before  the  of  of  than  of  Specifically,  pretest-posttest control  interactional  the  marital  the  stages  of  "affective  changes  During  positive  stages  this  an  therapy.  latter  more  experimental of  negative  from  of  therapy  session  i n the  psychotherapy.  (EFCT),  was:  regarding  effectiveness  investigating  examination  for  the  Therapy  by  debate  marital  for  f u n c t i o n of  beginning  sample  the  marital  a  significantly  modification as  as  couples  i n the  The  used  model,  under  of  support  Couples  interaction  continued  "non-behavioral"  empirical  Emotionally  the  the  marital  agreement  for  i i i  nominal  scales,  reliability  between  This the  was  study  about  to  t h e SASB  Emotionally  positive  change  interaction  during  the therapy  hypotheses  were  supported  findings. about  EFCT  was  positive/affi1iative sequences, also  and  the occurrence  significant  positive  behaviors,  positive  reciprocal However about  sequences,  EFCT  negative  complimentary substantial  the  sequences. support  Therapy  nature  in  does  of t h e i r  in  the  of  change  in  of  EFCT  bringing  about  negative sequences.  effective  i n bringing  positive  controlling  In conclusion, this  study  that  couples  was  other-focused  and  interaction  negative  sequences.  behaviors,  help  of  autonomous  behaviors,  t o be  eleven  frequency  occurrence  in  and  i n bringing  complimentary  f o r the assertion indeed  the  in  significant  positive  negative  controlling  of  effective  self-focused  positive  Therapy  behavior  Eight  effective  not demonstrated  significant  behaviors,  Couples  was  couples'  the frequency the  change  regarding  Couples  of p o s i t i v e  be  and  interrater  statistically  change  behaviors,  to  in  t o be  behaviors,  demonstrated  the  hypotheses  Focused  by  positive  negative/disaffi1iative  eleven  session.  demonstrated  significant  determine  coders.  investigated  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  bringing  used  positive has  Emotionally to p o s i t i v e l y  i n therapy.  found  Focused change  iv  T A B L E OF  CONTENTS  Abstract  Page i i  List  Page  of Tables  v  Acknowledgement  Page v i  Chapter  1:  Page  1  Chapter  2: L i t e r a t u r e  Page  6  Chapter  3: M e t h o d o l o g y  Page  62  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  Page  81  Chapter  5: D i s c u s s i o n  Page  91  Bibliography  Page  119  Appendix  Page  123  Introduction Review and P r o c e d u r e s  V  LIST  OF  TABLES  Table I : t and t values behavior  test pretest means, for experimental  Table I I : t and t values Interaction  test pretest means, standard deviations, for experimental and control groups' P a g e 86  Table I I I : t test posttest means, and t values for experimental behavior Table IV: t and t values interaction  standard deviations, and control groups' P a g e 85  standard deviations, and control groups* P a g e 89  test p o s t t e s t means, standard deviations, for experimental and control groups' P a g e 90  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  This learning work his  thesis and  under  has  provided  discovery.  I t has  the supervision  modeling,  teaching,  contribution  both  to  several been  opportunities  a  genuine  of Dr. L e s l i e  and  guidance  this  thesis  and  pleasure  Greenberg.  he  made to  a  my  for to  Through  significant  growth  as  a  therapist.  And Boelle  thanks Kirby  to  f o r their  and  coding  this  demanding  such  good f r i e n d s .  of  However,  task  my  wife  through  each  Thank  you D r u .  Their  reminded  discovery.  i n a fresh  Stevenson,  thoughtful  data.  greatest  me,  David  step  me  her  of this  way, a b o u t  Plysiuk,  thorough  transcribing  considerable o f how  Drusilla By  and  Michele  has  throughout  fortunate  I am  provided  me  tangible study  efforts  and  the strength  t o have  with  practical  on m a r r i a g e  the  support  she has  o f o u r own  and  taught  marriage.  1  CHAPTER  Marriage,  or  possibilities by  other  found  f o r personal  be  today,  t h e most  with  satisfaction 1982). human and  Marriage need  When  high  (Feldman,  and  been  that  suggested distress  emotional  interpersonal death.  Divorce themselves which  claimed and  to  be  been  of  life  overall  and  Keller,  to f u l f i l l  the basic  touched,  comforted,  i s thwarted,  lack  of  intimacy  intense  personal  can r e s u l t .  I t has  and  c a u s a l l y to personal 1982.  culminating  Waring,  the  subsequent  depression 1981)  i n physical injury  and  and to  and  even  who  find  1979).  unable  i n one  Nagnur,  a  (Menaghan,  i s an  inevitably  have  features  Wilkerson,  interpersonal tension  conflict  (Feldman,  life  offer equaled  determining  an o p p o r t u n i t y t h e need  are not  family  satisfying  to  1979).  i s linked  illness  and  (Simon,  f o r intimacy  dissatisfaction  marital  degree  seems  which  satisfaction  provides  t h e need  fulfillment  personally  f o r intimacy,  nurished  cohabitation,  Marriage  marital to a  INTRODUCTION  committed  relationships.  to  1:  alternative or  occur  unwilling  t o work  i n marriage.  out of every  Statistics  available  three  Canada,  This  to couples through option  marriages  1981).  the  tensions  i s presently  i n Canada  (Adams  2  A to  second  bring  that  about  each  this  changes  partner  interaction is  alternative  which  Indeed,  i t has  problems  (Vincent,  the  of  form  and  has  (Hahlweg, However,  in  Johnson, of  a  "affective Emotionally  Johnson  attempt  been  recent  1984).  to  effectiveness  This  and  provide  claim  to  seek of  so  through  conflict.  50%  basis,  It  marital  the of  people marital  the  Revenstorf, (Johnson  Focused present  further  Emotionally  study (in  to  be  of  marital  empirical  support 1984).  in  press)  effectiveness  of  a  to  Therapy serves  as  couples  an  research  empirical  support Couples  non-  therapy  (Greenberg  press)  Focused  skill  Greenberg,  approach  Couples  of that  and  Brengelmann,  and  f o r the  systemic"  theory  demonstrated  and  65%  others claim  through  of  therapy,  is effective  effectiveness  demonstrated  provided  marital  behavioral  general  effectiveness  While  empirically  study  the  that  1978).  on  Greenberg's  of  than  because  regarding  theoretical  in  s u p p o r t was  behavioral as  that  rarely  attempt  relationship  couples  primarily  Some  been  Schindler,  empirical  known  so  based  have  effective,  rather  some  to  satisfaction  estimated that  Kniskern,  therapies  development  therapy  or  (Gurman and  the  the  is  1981).  psychotherapy.  time  only  do  of  greater  leads  been  couples  nature  i s continued debate  regardless  to  intimacy  which  psychotherapy  marital  the  promotes  seeking  There  in  experiences  alternative  therapy.  available  and  elaboration and for Therapy  will the by  3 investigating of  is  changes  The  question  of  best  measured  is  Barry,  "studying for  the  how  interaction  as  change therapy beliefs  basis  the  report  one's  oneself,  with  the  measures but  may  used  a measure  Swain about  behave"  i n which  changes  belief, as  say  judging  manner  interaction  relevant  practice  for  about  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  and  they  the  the  highly  people  question sole  how  Hertel,  what  studying  into  a  function  the  5).  is  people  well  change  change  or  one's  ways  1984).  significant  i n behavior  other,  in  to  marital  customary  address  as  effort  the  adequately  of  any  towards one's  calls  measures  Successful  (Johnson,  to  substitute  relate.  as  that  comment  self-report  partner  vulnerable  simply no  This  other  be  study.  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  attitude as  present  state  themselves  using  therapy  this  (1974)  (page  of  to  marital  of  Self-  attitude  distortion  interaction.  and when  (Raush  a l . , 1974) .  An therapy  alternative  measure  is  by  provided  interaction the  in-therapy  therapy.  Raush,  et  in  by  an of  "observational"  as  considered  The to  use be  a  opposed of  a  coding  the  direct  independent  application  1981).  the  of  direct  observation  party.  system to  effectiveness  Such  i n an  a  observation strategy  marital  the  marital  measure  attempt  "experiential"  complementary  of  of  to  measure  reality  measures  involves an  (Pinsof, are  for measuring  best change  4  in  a  marriage  replacing  self-report  This  study  Emotionally 1984)  proposes  a  Therapy  through  measures levels,  and  significant  the  couples  who  changes  in  positive  of  because its  ability  The following  this  this  in  Focused  ( G r e e n b e r g and  of  differences  t o be  this  which  study  they  study  made  behaved  investigates bring  of  this  Couples model  change  in  Johnson,  this in  in  present  which  the  about  marital that  the  significant interacted.  about the  Does actual process  i n d e t e r m i n i n g the  Therapy,  claim a  of  i s :  during  important question Focused  or  as  intimacy  in bringing about  of  press)  such  a l l  of  Couples  demonstrated  interaction  affect  hypotheses  yet  (in  Focused  reduction;  couple's  i s an  observation  methods  belief  than  Johnson,  adjustment,  Therapy  developers to  Greenberg  Couples  i n the  This  and  and  in  present  direct  t h e r a p y model  i t has  and  the  marital  in attitude  Emotionally  the  sequences  of  manner  change  therapy?  power  (Greenburg  self-report  complaint  rather  effectiveness  Emotionally  of  participated  question  Emotionally  of  use  However,  the  on  attainment,  changes  relationship.  the  Johnson  target  demonstrated  investigate  based  the  goal  1981).  Therapy  effectiveness  of  supplementing (Pinsof,  Couples  interaction. the  value  to  measure  studied  of  measures  Focused  using  couples'  The  relationship,  especially  i t s value  couple's  lies  in  interactional  press).  study  couples'  will  predict  Interaction,  the when  5  interaction to  during  interaction  during  expected  that  positive  behaviors  stage  therapy  of  the  the  beginning the  finishing  couples' and  than  stage  during  stage  interaction  positive the  of  therapy of  will  sequences beginning  is  compared  therapy. demonstrate  during stage  the of  It  is  more  finishing therapy.  6 CHAPTER  The  following  material review Marital vs.  be  several  hypotheses  into The  of  couple  as  a  will  this  the f o l l o w i n g  couples  study.  five  This  sections:  system;  interaction;  present  3)  4)  1)  Distressed Patterns  5) R e l a t i n g t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e r e v i e w  section key  marital  conflict.  the  distinct  way  the  goal  MARITAL  response  issues;  the issue  or  and power  are thought patterns 1984).  the  of  and  Is to provide  of  to the  of t h i s  will  explore  continuation  a broad  context  of from  study.  CONFLICT  to,  and  concerning issue  (Benjamin  t o be  review  formation  the hypotheses  couples'  submission,  Johnson,  in  literature  of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g m a r i t a l  intimacy,  negative  the  The  CORE I S S U E S OF  One  of  factors  to consider  issues  literature  CONFLICT  This  which  the  REVIEW  study.  1) M A R I T A L  or  2)  and  of  the  divided  nondistressed  present  as  to  conflict;  interaction;  THE  review  relevant  will  2: L I T E R A T U R E  central  couples'  Interestingly,  conflict  attempt  a l . ,  factors  in  resolve and  two  distance,  dominance press).  and These  i n the formation  interaction the  to  closeness  concerning et  i s to view i t  issues  (Greenberg of  intimacy  of and and  7  power have  are  equally  been  the  (Gottman, al. is  most  subject  1979).  (1974)  suggest  to  the  raise  core  high  interpersonal  successful  and  1)  -  therapy  Raush  et  r e l a t i o n s h i p s , marriage issues  likely  to  Thus  deal  and  such i n t e r a c t i o n  of  autonomy  a l . (1974) a l s o  with  surface  i t is the  and  point  at  out  times  imperative  issues  of  of that  intimacy  and  -  play  the  the  together -  the  and  5)  resolution  conflict are  autonomy  family  and  identity  esteem.  degree  f e e l i n g s are  sexuality  opinion  to  as  a  which  composite feelings  of  :  of  emotional  expressed  compatibility and  intimacy  degree  communicated  7)  more  defensiveness.  the  expressiveness  work  6)  childhood  (1981) d e f i n e s  are  attitudes,  4)  the  are  couples'  affection  closeness  3)  a l l human  et  of  s u r p r i z i n g that  of  Raush  interaction  power.  Waring  2)  issues  studies  i t i s not  forefront.  these  parent/child  numerous  that,  to  that  a  of  to  Therefore  likely  intimacy  relevant  to  which  communicated  degree  to  which  thoughts, within the  beliefs,  the  couple  and  marriage is  able  to  comfortably degree  to  which  sexual  needs  are  fulfilled -  the  ease  with  which  differences  of  to  resolved -  the  couple's  degree  of  p o s i t i v e connectedness  member's l e v e l  of  self-confidence  friends -  each  and  self-  8 As  noted  failure  to  formation  develop  of  illness.  The Is  striving  for  in  intimacy human  centrality  family. its  organism  nurished."  to  be  of  losing  need  and  (1979)  held,  in  emotional  suggests  that  touched,  that  is  "the  fundamental  a the  intimacy  nurturance  states  most  of  for  who  that  factor  development  (1978)  interpersonal struggle,  couples,  the  the one's  the  suggests  necessary  intimacy  in  and  (Gottman,  support  a  Napier  roots  closeness/distance  struggle  (1981)  a  in the  major  wish  for  of  the  need  comforted,  and  70)  issue  distressed  of  Feldman  -  (page  The  by  affirmative  has  is  d i s t r e s s and  supported  the  Waring  intimacy  marital  marriage  goal  previously,  idea  that  said  to  be  synonymous  Napier,  this  Individuality is  is  is  1979;  "territorality",  with  1978).  problem  central  of  in  basic the  Raush  forming the  et  a  the  to  a l l  intimacy al.  union  formation  or  (1974) without  of  marital  to  marital  conf1let.  The conflict Gottman has  second  issue  of  is  issue  of  the  (1979) notes  played  in  interaction, suggests insight conf1let.  the  that in  the  the  significance power,  that,  despite  research results  or  of  concept  distinguishing  and  of  the  and  central  submission.  role  development  research  dominance  between  regards  dominance  theory  this  in  are has  healthy  this on  issue  marital  ambiguous. provided  and  He  little  dysfunctional  9  However  Gray-little  relations  are  an  happiness,  but  that  thought.  One  (1983)  is  family.  potential  or  exchange)  that  this  raise (as or  as  an  context.  They actual  intended  to  into  two  FEAR A  whether  over  is as  available  important  but  Burks  power  in  i s best  for distribution They  the  measurement  an  be of  Interpersonal  d e f i n i t i o n of  (or the  capacity  prominent.  interpersonal  note  can  latter  as  the  viewed  "potential"  requires  the  and  outcome.  because  outcome  emerging an  over  quality  outcome"  power  marital  originally  Gray-Little  d e f i n i t i o n of  control  that  than  power  to It  feature  power produce  is  which  this  is  used  Intimacy  and  study.  the  interaction  THE  actual  note  power  present  dominance  these  also  of  that  determining  complex  by  resources  over  control  of  Given  study  issue  the  the  effects)  definition the  standard  individual  control  in  a  suggest  in  i s more  confronted  the  in  as  "actual  the  of  (1983)  factor  issue  distinction is  measured  as  the  lack  They  Burks  important  problem  the  as  and  centrality  couples' the  the  interaction,  possible  include  of  issues i t  effects  hypotheses  is  of  which  of  important therapy  account  on  for  that  any  marital change  on  dimensions.  OF  brief  INTIMACY expansion  on  the  theme  of  intimacy  is  necessary  10  in  order  have  to  on  couple's  intimacy which  is  a  this  need  five  fear  impact  As  that  noted  couples'  this  above,  to  conflict  the  fear  of  intimacy  suggests  that  the  fear  each  of  can  need  for  the  conflict.  leads  issue  The  manner  can  be  in  better  which  balances  Intimacy.  (1979)  of  conflicts,  intimacy.  of  intimacy  in  need  unconscious  avoidance 1)  issue  examining  for  the  interaction.  core  by  Feldman from  appreciate  legitimate  understood the  fully  merger  becomes  These  -  a  which  threat  to  of  intimacy  which  conflicts  are  leads  intense  to  one's  as  sense  leads  stems to  an  follows:  of  anxiety  where  self  one's  or  identity 2)  fear  of  disclosure  exposure  i t  is  acceptance  or  3)  attack  fear  arising 4) get  fear too  of  because  threatening  to  Intimacy those  involves  who  have  self-  low  self-  self-esteem  from of  -  - which  i s based  developmental abandonment  close  I  will  be  -  on  a  sense  by  the  of  vulnerability  impairment capsulized  hurt  again,  as  statement,  I have  been  when  "If  I  others  left." 5)  fear  raises  of the  one's fear  Whenever experiencing  own  that  one them  of  destructive  you  will  these  strongly  harm  fears resists  impulses your  are the  loved  -  where one.  experienced, other  intimacy  the  partner  partner's  attempt  11  to  establish intimacy.  responding  to  responding  to  Simon, couple  a  enough  be  night  stick  the  of  which that  lead  to  there  of  view  two  is  other  is  result.  suggest  that  the  closeness/distance sleeping  porcupines apart  together  to  get  close  so  that  they  127)  i t is which  limits  the  balancing  eventually regarding  limits,  efforts,  or  and  lead  of  the  to  the  the  display  rules,  are  must  be  of the  modified  i f  IMPULSES  intrapersonal  basic  considers  an  the  may  f a r enough  intimacy  the  effort.  that  conflict  the  the  that  change  the  porcupines of  (page  INFANTIAL  belief,  is  task  while  partner  succeed.  "traditional"  conflict  two  interpersonal  are  therapeutic  to  i f one  (1982)  with  interactional  NEEDS VS.  one  deals  interactional  i s to  should  Keller  suggests  needs  that  intense  warm a n d  other."  therapeutic  therapy  How  stay  These  of  DEPRIVED  to  (1979)  intimacy. subject  and  "the  sense  for, intimacy  intimacy  compared  each  and  of  where  together  establishment  the  fear  need  successfully  Feldman fears  felt  Wilkerson,  could  cold  don't  a  which  dilemma on  a  I t makes  conflict?  belief  One  view  based  Individual's desire  to  on  Wile  systems he  or  motivation  (1981)  which refers  "depth  primary  gratify  forces  suggests  can  guide  to  as  analysis", concern  infantial  in  the which  times  impulses.  a  of The  12  therapeutic should  implication  be  infuenced  egocentric Wile  and  (1981)  holds  an  interpersonal  on  this  It  this  unentitlement  is  feelings  feelings  1981).  whining,  The  expression one's  which  therapy  of  And  lead  based and  to these  needs,  more  following  specific  expected  in  therapeutic before  examination  effort.  therapy  of  will  be  therapy  this  same  the  interaction  distressed  conflict  problems.  reluctance of  or  anger  to  these  expressions"  such  (Wile,  encourages  the r e c e p t i v e  provides  In general,  a  to  the  response  CONFLICT  comparision  couples'  their  p r o p o s i t i o n of  a  premises  and  of  expressions.  DYSFUNCTIONAL VS. FUNCTIONAL  The  to  complaining, these  helpful,  of unentitlement  to " d e r i v a t i v e  on  which  i s based  to r e l a t i o n s h i p  leads  less  but from  i t i s the suppression  nagging,  feelings  partner  leads  which  or needs.  and needs  tantrums,  which  more  system  central  sense  are  situations  belief  The  i t i s peoples'  and needs  in  people  system,  and  immaturity  "ego a n a l y s i s " .  i s that  belief  motivation  This  that  which  accurate  n o t from  is  ways  other  more  needs.  feelings  express  of  i s both  stem  in  The  individual's  terms  viewpoint  behave  legitimate  analysis  their  as  he  this  mature.  conflict  t o meet  what  to  suggests  that  desire  more  of  the background  change  following  i t could  couple's  will  engage  a  could  of  following in  be  successful  be h y p o t h e s i z e d  style  d y s f u n c t i o n a l , whereas couple  which  for a  that  engaging  in  successful  conflict  in  a  13 functional  manner.  assumption  that  This  conflictual  neither  negative  1969).  I t i s not that  that  nor  conflict which  (1982)  which  does  not  a l l feel  escalate  et  by  the  itself,  a l . , 1974;  but r a t h e r  forms. could  of  how  intensity  to  defined  is  Deutsch,  they  fight  Deutsch or  the s i z e  in  defense  Competition,  interrelated where  one  wins  processes at  the  outcomes  to  independent  of  In h i s discussion  of  a  suggests  could  take  a  could  of motives,  one's  Deutsch  couple's  destructive the  t o be a t s t a k e , of  and  10)  by  of the c o n f l i c t  of negative a t t i t u d e s .  three  with  becoming  t h e number  the  as  tendency  (1969)  expansion  in trust,  as  (page  et a l . , 1974).  conflict  in  conflict  proportion,  are perceived  bear  change  as a r e s u l t . "  of i s s u e s ,  that  decrease  i s characterized  of  escalation  precedents willing  lost  conflict,  t h e number  a  marital  i n i t are d i s s a t i s f i e d  (Raush  F o r example,  and/or  (1969)  out  issues  destructive  constructive  conflict  blow  dysfunctional process  to  they have  and  initial  that  (Raush  fight,  injury  Deutsch  "the participants  is  they  defines  lead  Destructive  of  i n t e r a c t i o n , o f and by  positive  causes  interaction.  the  premised  CONFLICT  Feldman  and  is  matters.  DESTRUCTIVE  if  hypothesis  that number  of  expand,  as  t h e number  the costs  position, (1969)  lead expense  the  also  to of  and  one the  suggests  escalation: the  other;  14 misperceptlon, behavior  toward  legitimate 14);  involving  than  and  through  the  difference  between  her  postion  consistancy  justified (1974)  to  always", evolves  that  the  frequent al.,  of  interaction a  Burks  the  (1969)  destructive  formation  of  note the  that  there  presence  of m a r i t a l  as  "you  and  and  Further is of  one  be  et a l .  or  "you  but  conflict  rather  from  "a  the  more, in  is  the  (Raush  in  involves  dissatisfaction.  to  autonomy.  that,  coercive  and  "temporal"  deception  evidence  self-  in  have  never"  and  the  to h i s  Raush  ostensible  conflict  by  for  involves  notes  persuasion 11)  14)  dysfunctional  Deutsch  (page  that  of  created  actions  of intimacy  coercion,  strategy  ( 1983)  hypothesis  issue  the  threats,  during  conciliation."  such  (page  intensifies  pressure  (page  more  self."  involvement  one's  own  and  committment  this  conflict  i s not  characteristic use  as  of words  issue  of  unwitting  the  one which  one's  to others."  when  the core  1974).  from  and  i s use  real  around  Also  conflict  toward  dissonance and  one's  benevolent  position,  result an  perceiving  more  behavior  actions  to  that  being  one's  "the  oneself  toward  cognitive  one's  of  suggest  expansion,  of  lead  intensification  as  to  where  may  bias  other's  committment process  or  other  the  a  "a  et  general, shift  away  tactics  Gray-Little support  control  of  i s causal  of and the in  15  CONSTRUCTIVE  CONFLICT  Deutsch  (1969)  constructive outcome  and  suggests  i f  the  participants  feel  that  they  have  critereon  f o r cons t r u e t i v e n e s s  with  motto  the  number." the of  have  the j o i n t  regards  conflict of  persuasion  which  the  above  the hypotheses  pre-therapy techiques,  emphasize  between  control  for  Thus,  one  good  satisfaction,  for  process  the  greatest  necessitates and a  Deutsch  that  recognition  also  notes  that  i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s and change.  of the i n t e r a c t i o n , friendly  or  the use  of  constructive  cooperative reward  efforts  rather  than  (1983).  initial  a positive  those  post-therapy  techniques.  something.  interpersonal  interaction as  the  stagnation  descriptions, state  is  with  participant  i t .  and B u r k s  which  well  of  conflict  satisfied  of the problem  of p o s i t i v e  couples* as  relationship positive  prevents  (Gray-little  Given  this  of s o l v i n g  the use  are  gained Is  that  to the f l a v o r  involves  punishment  for  conflict  marital  greatest  a common v i e w  the s t a r t i n g point  In  "the  suggests  benefit  constructive is  being  He a l s o  couple  that  and  support  is  relationship adversive  which couples'  state  a  found  between control positive  interaction  and  16  2)  THE  COUPLE AS A S Y S T E M  Many by  aspects  examining  relates, the  opposed  individual  Paul  necessary  to  as  the  According  Watzlawick or  and  with  the couple  by  experience  (1981) Don  interaction.  to  some  are  relevant  to this  family  study  John  of the or  concepts  of  and " c i r c u l a r  present  of  understand  The  "feedback",  the  Jackson,  provides  which  "rules",  further  i n which  internal  others,  "communication", particularly  understood  to Wile  upon  tools  couples'  are best  o r t h e manner  expounded  concepts  categorize  conflict  examining  spouse.  theory  Weakland,  couple's  the interaction  as  systems  of a  causality"  and m e r i t  some  explanation.  COMMUNICATION  Gottman set  up  by  responses"  the  uncertainty concept  study. observer the  defines communication  transmission  (page  communicative  This  (1979)  19) t h e r e f o r e value  i s relevant  understands  enhanced. communciation  in  a  i n the behavior  As i s q u i c k l y  ability  of  to  are  and  "a b e h a v i o r social of  from  of  the  likely of In  i f  i t  organism."  t h e above  concepts  related.  o f one o r g a n i s m  reduces 31)  of  this  definiton,  value  of  response  a is  i f an  statement greatly  predictability regards  to  has  (page  the hypotheses  the communicative the  the evocation of  sense  another  many  realized  predict  Thus  to  stimuli  as " t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  and  couple's  17  Interaction, upon  an  many  assessment  interactional example, acts  sequences  the  be  in  the  act  evoke  "communication"  can  of  be  the  of  setting  at  the  act.  Indeed,  predictable  response  i n Gottman's  (1979)  predicted  stage  consecutive  a  predictable  for  allows  that  i t to  of  for  two  fact  sense  An  relationship,  least  the  based  relationship.  dysfunctional  consist  act  second a  a  to  behavior  health  in  said  first  response does  the  sequence  could  with  of  of  the  the be  first  termed  a  term.  RULES  Watzlawick, statement rule,  of  Beavin,  the  constraint,  the  by  example,  calibration as  a  of  "a  of  needs, range  interactional Feldman between  and of  couple  the and  fears;  fears  role  of  covert the  and  wishes  in  a of  which  is  deviation  for  a  As  to the  a A  terms  of  refers  to  process  of  relationship expectations,  of  rules of  in  the  intimacy  70)  as  rules.  communiction  (page  rule  Calibration  describes  result  a  relationship.  relationship  (1979)  considers  a  establishes  acceptable  behavior."  in  patterns.  Feldman  overt  (1979) the  a  regarding  process  desires,  which  a  and  (1967) d e f i n e  observed  describes  repetition,  For  Jackson  redundancies  therefore,  process  and  the  variety  noted  represent  interacting  defining of  previously, a  compromise  individuals.  18 Negative behaviors  which  established This  1967).  quoted the  as  a  The  294)  negative  helps which of  of  process in  the  of  this  CIRCULAR  One that  i t  Focused  of  One  "like  in  unhealthy  ways  healthy  ways.  in  is  tackle  tantamount  relationship, which  to  in effect inhibits  study  is  Therapy  is  the  at  present  process  et not is  reciting  (Bernal,  be  t h e r a p y must  which  Couples  this  is  ending  tomorrow."  the  and  husband  record  to  behave  couples  stability  cycle,  of  1979).  (Watzlawick  broken a  behaviors  homeostasis  distressed  a  again  seen  this  of  relationship  the hypotheses  couples  hypotheses  concept  of  (Feldman,  relationships  behaving  couple's  rules  completed  negative feedback  Emotionally to  in a  felt  be  interaction  the  of  the  occurs  could  which c o u n t e r a c t s  a c c e p t a b l e range  with  only  to  successful  changing  rules  had  couples  functional every  he  problem  feedback  process  experience.  that  In regards  dysfuctional  the  stability  We  the  calibration  positive  song.  beginning.  the  to  dysfunctional  saying  same  page  of  In  necessarily  from  is associated  maintenance  al.,  refers  deviate  through  process  the  feedback  the 1982,  study,  which  keeps  and  which  The i s the  task task  changing  the  challanging  the  change.  Implicit  assumption  successful  in  that  regards  task.  CAUSALITY  of is  the  basic  the  psychopathology  tenents  couple's of  one  of  the  family  interaction,  member,  which  is  as  systems opposed  responsible  theory i s to  the  for  the  19  relationship theory  problems  subscribes  causality" spouse  by  person  both  other  person  et  affects  Margolin  several  functions:  was  a  and  that  I t reveals  action  d i r e c t e d towards  behavior,  This  , can e a s i l y  I t i s this  second  to the hypotheses  Hahlweg,  S c h i n d l e r and V o g e l  a couple  member. "response" mutually  i s a crucial  part  the other  influencing  each  and  o f one  the other  of  "continuing of  the behavior  one  of the  behavior  about  serves  action;  i t i s an  a  response  of behaviors  of a behavior study.  a  spouse  versa.  which i s  each  member  of the  which  They  or  Revenstorf,  out that  of the environment  vise  that  intrapsychic information  present  one  this  the actor; i t  a n d i t commands  aspect  each  In describing  of a sequence  of  as  the relationship  behavior  previous  (1984) p o i n t  other.  "linear  a t t e n t i o n to the fact  of this  I t i s the " s t i m u l i " of  pays  as a p a r t  relevant  of  any  providing relevant  be v i e w e d  interaction.  the other;  description  although  by  something  as a r e a c t i o n t o t h e o t h e r ' s  return.  the  et a l . , 1967).  serves  in  into"  where  notes  to  process  i s affected  (1983)  than  1979).  a  a l . , 1974)  systems  behavior  response  "carried  involves  (Watzlawick  concept,  be  family  rather  the problematic  (Gottman,  causality  (Raush  Therefore,  causality"  to  which  of the other  Circular feedback"  that  understood  to something  independent  1981).  to " c i r c u l a r  suggesting  i s best  opposed  (Wile,  evokes  are, in  other the fact,  20 Related that is  to  the  communication  viewed  as  (Watzlawick,  concept sequences  "annonymous 1967,  page  interrelationships  which  cannot  120)  interaction  examine  a  both  in  but  reveal  Therefore  of b e h a v i o r s .  circular  units  communication. must  of  the  be a  understood frequency  rather  or  study  frequency  i s the  idea  i f behavior distribution"  i t is  meaning  thorough the  causality  the  order  significance of  and  a the  and of  couples' sequence  21  3) DISTRESSED  The  following  provide  a  between  the  and a  VS. NONDISTRESSED  detailed  description  i t  that  manner to  can  A  pre-therapy  the  In a  therapy  these  therapy  crucial  step  the  hypotheses and  methods in  this  behavior, of  the  post-therapy  study  between for  expected  prior  then  which  this  of  study.  to  under therapy,  behave  there  were  in  is  a  i s basis  employed the  are  specific  distressed  and  description  will  difference  behavior  Such  couples  couples  couples,  difference  couples'  the  same  couples  couples.  of t h i s  manner  will  differences  dysfunctional  that  distressed  review  expected  or  determined  the  of  nondistressed the  of  distressed  of nondistressed  that  description  yield  be  behave  typical  effective.  literature  of n o n d i s t r e s s e d or f u n c t i o n a l  following  conclude  of  this  INTERACTION  i s r e l e v a n t to the hypotheses  investigation and  of  description  behavior  the behavior  If  section  COUPLES  the  between  couples  the under  inves tigation.  This following  portion divisions  of  the to  review  facilitate  will the  be  broken  presentation  material: A) B) C) D) E) F) G)  into  THE D E F I N I T I O N OF D I S T R E S S E D V S . N O N D I S T R E S S E D V E R B A L V S . NONVERBAL FACTORS D I F F E R E N C E S I N THE FREQUENCY OF B E H A V I O R SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS DIFFERENCES IN RECIPROCITY OTHER S E Q U E N T I A L D I F F E R E N C E S INTRAPERSONAL DIFFERENCES  of  the the  22 A ) THE D E F I N I T I O N  Margolin dimension the  (1983)  of  distressed report of  for  to  report  used  is  couples  with  of  i n deciding  of  sample  will  i n this  couples.  provide  present  ( D e s c r i p t i v e words  dissatisfied/satisfied ,  such  and  couples,  assist  brief  as  the  into  two  descriptions have  f o r evaluating sample  or the  make u s e o f  which  investigators  a  self-  decisions  the couples  Some  to obtain  either  a l l studies  couples  to separate  a context  study  Almost  description  previous  as  independent  of  shared  to the use of  o f unhappy  d i s t r e s s e d and n o n d i s t r e s s e d . i n which  commonly  couples  satisfied  some how  made  use of the  i n the study  no  scores.  e i t h e r the treatment  t h e manner  their  cut-off  measures  t h e common  In regards  i n v e s t i g a t o r s have  of such  investigator  of  there  classification  establish  with  comparision  groups,  the  despite  vs. nondistressed"  or nondistressed.  concerned  self  that  relationship,  measures,  how  claims  "distressed  marital  methodology  OF D I S T R E S S E D V S . N O N D I S T R E S S E D  defined  t h e methods  of distressed  distressed/nondistressed,  unhappy/happy  will  be  used  interchangeably.)  Gottman, Markman, into  satisfied  critereon: at the is  least  and  1)  seeking  dissatisfied  self-report,  o n e member  Lock-Wallace  and N o t a r i u s  with  a  inventory;  counselling  couples  with  and  divide  on  below  having  point  or not the  are presenting  sample o f two  couples  the cut-off  2) w h e t h e r  they  their  the basis  dissatisfied  score  (I.e.,  (1977)  on  couple  themselves  23 as  dissatisfied)  advertisement presenting  seeking  who:  couples*  4  and  1)  satisfaction; scale  by  Nondistressed  on  therapy; and  self-report  Koren, distressed their cut-off  have  point  a  are  on  they  couples  are  couples  3)  a  score  mean  4  total  of  less  marital  4 on a 8 p o i n t adjustment.  who  score  of  as  Marital  of  marital  those  a total  have  than  regarding  a  score  rating  of less  as  have  modified  self-report  defined  2)  a  mean  a rating  1)  are not  o f 136  o r more  o r more  on  the 7  MAS.  and  Shaw  and n o n d i s t r e s s e d on  t o an  d i s t r e s s e d couples  2) have  Carlton  score  responded (i.e.,  therapy;  136  therapist  couples  t h e MAS;  point  3)  7  the  they  couples  define  marital than  and 4) h a v e  rated  seeking  MAS  married  (1981)  less  (MAS);  the  whether  satisfied).  seeking  of  Scale  on  as  Wampold  are  score  Adjustment than  happily  themselves  Margolin those  or a l t e r n a t i v e l y  the M a r i t a l  score.  A l l  (1980) groups  divide  of couples  Adjustment couples  their  Test,  were  sample  on  into  the basis  with  100  recruited  of  as t h e through  advertisement.  Jacobson, differentiate Adjustment not have  the  Follette their  Scale  couple  sample  (DAS) seeks  significantly  and  Waggoner  on  scores  and  therapy. lower  DAS  the on That  McDonald  basis  of  the basis  the  than  Dyadic  of whether  i s , distressed  scores  (1982)  or  couples  nondistressed  24  couples,  and  whereas  nondistressed  newspaper  distresssed  satisfied  couples  (1979)  couples  advertisement  self-report  on  seen  the  a  or  from  measures  obtaining satisfied  between  basis  of  sample two  couples  refer  of  expression, of  et  manifestaion  an  analogic  for  to  an  common  method  couples  groups  of  the use of  used  for either  f o r treatment  dissatisfied  or  verses  FACTORS  a l l  voice  provide  nonverbal  includes inflection,  words  of which  communicational  apply  respond  discriptions,  dissatisfied  a l . (1967)  which  the  and  f o r study.  to  communication  which  a  couples.  some  the a p p r e c i a t i o n of the importance  codence  through  they  they  the above  comparision  Watzlawick  They  therapy  dissatisfied  whether  whether  i s t h e most  B ) V E R B A L V S . NONVERBAL  for  marital  recruited  seeking happily married  c a n be  obtaining  request  are  distinquishes  (distressed)  As  also  advertisement.  Gottman  therapy  couples  clues  interaction communication  "posture, the  the organism unfailingly place."  as  and  any  i s capable, present (page  behavior. "analogic"  gesture,  sequence,  i s t o complement  guidelines  of nonverbal  behavior  themselves,  takes  useful  rhythm,  other  The  the content  and  nonverbal  as w e l l  i n any 62)  facial  as t h e  context  in  purpose  of  aspects  of  25  a  communication  by  between  the  analogic  behavior  wishes  behavior,  discriminator 1977;  page  than  is  aspects  upon  almost  relationship  couples  on  nonverbal  1983).  thus of  of  suggest  message  that  by  nonverbal when  or one  issues.  the basis  of p o s i t i v e v s . is  (Gottman,  a  better  1979; Gottman  "greater  teasing  exchange."  relationship  exclusively  Therefore,  obtained  the  behavior  verbal behavior  Schaap,  information verbal  about  nature  They  i s depended  distinguishing  negative  the  communicants.  to communicate  When  al.,  defining  out  (Gottman  et  descriptive  nonverbal et  from  a l . , 1977,  469)  For  example,  differences  noted  below  of the frequency  indicators  that  distressed  and  where  as  verbal  lead  in  the  of behaviors,  discussion  indicators  couples  alone  of the behavior  in  were  the  i t i s the nonverbal  to the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  nondistressed  of  several  unable  of  instances  to  make  a  differentiation.  Because  of  differentiation essential  that  interaction to  code  Is  the c e n t r a l i t y of  satisfied  the tools distressed  nonverbal  aspects  used or  of nonverbal and  indicators  dissatisfied  to determine nondistressed  of couples'  couples  whether be  i n the  a  couples'  complex  communication.  i tis  enough  26  C)  DIFFERENCES  Gottman will  be  IN  THE  (1979)  more  Margolin  research,  as  do  (1983)  empirical  have  than  distressed  a  report  positive  and  However,  in  events they  distressed is  indicates  that  intensity  and  occurrence."  Gottman dimension marital  their  of  the  for  this  (1984). support  couples  distressed claim  in  her  Gray-Little  both  hypothesis  a l .  daily  the  than ratio  a  in  that  and  theory  and  nondistressed  positive  find as  behaviors  negative  couples,  events  are  necessarily  distressed  nondistressed  positive,  low.  that  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the  They  suggest  of  for  between  distressed  this  because  their  total events)  difference  destructive  because  to  neutral  ratio  less  couples.  events  and  significant  relatively  finding of  their  frequency  of  709)  (1979)  concludes  fundamental  interaction.  do of  negative,  despite  (page  (1982)  interaction  negative  "these not  than  noncontingent  et  nondistressed  s t i l l  negative  a l . is  of  nondistresssed  support  et  there  rate  includes  and  finds  Jacobson  that,  that  less  for  examining  find  BEHAVIOR  couples.  more  (which  couples  that  higher  Similarly, couples  (1983)  investigation  couples do  and  Revenstorf  note  OF  hypothesized  positive  couples.  Burks  FREQUENCY  value  is  that  "posItiveness"  a s s i s t i n g  the  is  a  examination  of  27  The direct  above  relationship  interaction right  and  tree."  hypotheses in  findings  almost  in  can  be  Balswick between  hypotheses  positiveness  satisfaction seen  the  from  above  which of  are  an  state  a  a  couple's  "barking  examination  relationship  of  and  Waring  self-disclosure  determining  the  They  into  expression  the  expression  of  satisfaction  As is  in  hypothesize  the that  and a  (1983) in  a  is  up  the  of  the  inferred  Chelune  (1983)  intimacy  is  the  beliefs,  noted  attitudes  to  Therefore, couples  between  the  that  there  factor by  the  need;  the  fantasy;  and  and  personal  the  intimacy  is  reasonable  i t  to  the  classified  of  therapy  spouses  and  that  be  marital  relationship.  self-disclosure  linear  major  and  related  successful  a  can  substantially  a  find  expression  previously,  a  experienced  self-disclosure  emotion;  note  relationship  relationship  of  that  thoughts,  self-awareness.  experienced  in  degree  suggest  of  Halverson  self-disclosure  satisfaction.  increase  the  of  study,  couple.  to  level  that  a l l cases.  relationship  level  the  this  Davidson,  marital  between  As  of  suggest  a  effort  will  significant  degree.  Gottman that  suggests  effective and  (1979) the  ratio  discriminator  nondistressed  higher  states  ratio.  He  of  notes  agreement  between  couples,  with the  is  the  considerable to  disagreement  interaction  nondistressed  findings  from  evidence  of  an  distressed  couples Riskin  is  and  having  a  Faunce  28 (1972)  in  support  investigation,  Gottman  discriminate basis  frequency  accompanying  affective  in  that  fact  claim.  (1979)  notes  of  disgagree  with  Therefore  i t  negative  affect  of  the  are  than  that  before  are  is  his  own  unable  to  couples he  on  concidered  successful  the  which  Gottman  finds  (1979)  more  likely  nondistressed  couples  the  communication,  significantly  affect  in  he  until  successfully.  likely  more  that  distressed  component  couples  is  from  However  disagreement  discriminate  distressed  negative  this  nondistressed  the  did  of  of  will  to  couples.  disagree  therapy  than  with  after  the  therapy.  Gottman examine  the  regards  to  the  of  use  consists  (1979,  difference  the  of  Couple  the  person  difference  is  a  in  present,  or  the  statements  tend  to  are  mindread as  neutral  frequency  the  delivered.  with  (a  they  behavior  find  through  Mindreading attitudes,  statements solely  that  in  which to  there  the  is  no  mindreading  statements  interaction,  but  that  there  affect  with  which  Whereas  satisfied  code  feelings, also  also  couples  System.  manner  negative  criticism) affect  of  couples' to  which  behaviors  They  (1977)  unhappy  and  future  a l .  and  attribute  1979).  i n regards  et  Scoring  spouse;  or  dissatisfied  these  with  to  (Gottman,  difference  functions  Interaction  motives  past,  happy  behavior  which  attribute  Gottman  between  statements  or  satisfied  and  "mindreading" , a  opinions,  other  1982)  of  dissatisfied  affect couples  which  (a  couples  behavior  tend  f u n c t i o n s as  to a  in  which mindread  sensitve  29  feeling prior  probe). to  negative  Therefore,  therapy  unhappy  affect,  same c o u p l e s  but  will  Gottman  (1979)  and  distressed  couples.  literature, for  less  as  does  Gottman's  hypothesize supportive couples'  that  to  successful  with neutral  suggest  that  mindread  with  therapy  these  affect.  nondistressed couples  a r e more  i n their  than  are  review  the  and  (1984),  interaction  Burks  with  effective  couples  decrease  (1983)  both  Therefore  and the  and  two  variables  the  matter  (or  the  finding  support  i t i s reasonable  therapy  defensive  they  of  for  power  a  spouse  will  to  increase  behavior  the  couple) in  married  that  review  i n the  supports  They  been  the  to  that the note  married  and B u r k s the  hypothesis  power  to  be  satisfied  happily  that  control"  total  hypothesized  in "relative  of  marital  in "relative  Gray-Little test  to  also  statements  Accordingly,  literature  acknowledgement  differentiating  15  the  related  related.  power has  couples. of  as  general  t o be w i f e - d o m i n a n t  unhappily  review  i s dominant  successful  couples.  likely  relationship  of  note  factor  dissatisfied  (1983)  are s i g n i f i c a n t l y  ratio  important  Burks  use  of which  statements  a  tend  finding.  and  to  interaction.  with  less  Schaap  behavior  satisfaction  are  that  Gray-Little  an  Gray-Little dealing  to mindread  defensive  (1979)  will  following  states  supportive  i s reason  couples  that  tend  there  an from  couples  control" (1983)  than state  power/satisfaction that  wife-dominant  30  couples  are less  egalitarian  satisfied  Gray-Little  couple's  use  powerful  discriminating  of  as  adversive  notes  the  other  which  power  in  claimed  of that  these  formation  (1983)  is  the  (page  that  the  be  these  couple their  they  define  of  of  positive  Vincent  voluntary  of  more  In  legitimate  (1981)  power,  or  compliance,  and  of c o n t r o l  to note  over  that  these  control  techniques  making  the  methods  are  interactions, whether  use  the exertion  the use  a  manipulation  529)  I t i s Important  notes  that  have  often  distress  nondistressed of  are  is  relevant based  on  reward.  marital use  of  than  or not the  through  between  means  that  marital  matter  Margolin  the  reward  consent.  inevitable  or  may  techniques,  behavior  informed,  which  presuppose  coercion  whether  control  behavior."  implies  definitions  the  suggest  techniques  than  distinction  without  concern  of  whereas  to control  non-legitimate  for  factor  (1983)  e g a l i t a r i a n , or husband-dominant.  stimuli  "authority",  the  Burks  control  "the control  reinforcement  relationships  couples.  of the use of a d v e r s i v e  coercion  also  and  adversive  wife-dominant,  review  their  or husband-dominant  However  is  with  focused  learning the and  control  strategies,  distressed  spouses  use such  spouses.  She  also  notes  has been h y p o t h e s i z e d  patterns  of  negative  explanations  on  adversive  strategies of  social  frequency that  strategies that  i t is  more  the frequent  t o be  central  reciprocity.  of  than use  i n the  Deutsch's  31  writings  (1969)  distressed strategy and  support  interaction  of  power  deception  persuasion  and  differences,  and  will."  11)  (page  Koren couples  et  distressed dealing behavior and  confict  criticism  more in  to  is  attempts  i n f l u e n c e the  to  Gray-Little (Markman, use  1979)  of  but  examines  study  techniques such  dissatisfaction.  the  strategy  verbal  in  behavior  their  indicate  behavior  that  relationship  on  position. one  spouse  major  not  of role  study  between  and  that  symptomatic a  rely  longitudinal  techniques  has  to  disparagement.)  a  concludes  verbal  distressed  which  or  of  "inquiry",  other's  in  review  between  the  couples  the  of  manner  categorizes  blame  the  of  good-  differentiate  statement  (1983)  coercion,  and  influence  by  a  understanding  nondistressed  a  upon  minimizing  to  results  control  This  control  relationships the  which  a  in  conciliation,  study  other  Burks  negative  dissatisfaction. negative  and  as  that  threat,  "influence activity",  than  (Criticism  notes  from  couples  Their  attempting  of  order  This  likely  of  away  examine  groups:  defined  tactics  mutual  in  He  increasing reliance  shift  nondistressed  three  "an  tactics  conflict.  into  are  a  (1980)  "responsiveness".  couples  the  enhancing  and  with  upon  the  a l .  during  is  ...  from  position.  there  and  (and)  this  the  marital only  are  dissatisfied in  causing  32  In use  light  of  of  t h e above  adversive  findings  verses  on  positive  the relevance  control  determining  the h e a l t h of a r e l a t i o h s h i p ,  hypothesize  that  couple's  to  more  on  techniques  in their  above  and  following relevance  will  rely  will  Impact  Specificly, therapy  techniques  concentrate  couples  certain  interactional  therapy  to  in  more  a  i t is  couple  whereas  a  will  following  on p o s i t i v e  control  interaction.  findings  of  prior  techniques  i t i s appropriate to  regard.  control  a couple  unhappy  frequency  couples  this that  adversive  therapy  happy  in  hypothesize  successful  The  effective  interaction  possible rely  an  of the  sequence  sections  on t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n  based  on  an  behaviors,  which  to the hypotheses  regardless  surrounds  address  the  these  issue  of this  analysis  of  present  of  the  of  the  behaviors.  The  sequence  and i t s  study.  D) S E Q U E N T I A L A N A L Y S I S  of  Margolin  and  Wampold  studies  of  family  frequencies  or  researchers  have  agrees  Gottman's  with  frequency other  of  used  behavior  i s , by  identifying  rates  itself,  the  of  (1981)  note  interaction behavior  sequential (1979) of  that  one  claim  have that  that In  majority  reported  only  analysis.  spouse  inadequate  relationship  and  the vast  a  only  handful  of  Margolin  (1983)  an e x a m i n a t i o n  of the  the  i f  one  patterns  of  presence  is  of the  interested  interaction.  in She  33 claims  that  sequential analysis  Sequential  analysis  "permits  which  partner's  response  one  events 109)  emitted  by  I t i s this  reciprocity distressed  An  as  the  a  relation  analysis to  are  more  saying,  the  as  happens  codes  et  are  as a  fuction  behavior  code  of  interest  distribution values."  (page  sequential behavior  of  distinguish interaction.  and  analysis  The and  is  transition with  1983,  page of  between  findings thereby  distressed  made  using  about  lagged  considered back  in  et a l . , lagged  a behavior  of behavior  code  probabilities respect  the  below the  of  to  the Each  criterion.  unconditional  examine  in  time,  describe  statisitics  presented  and  called  the c r i t e r i o n .  then  computed  as t h e f r e q u e n c y  between  preceding  (Revenstorf  analysis,  o f l a g from  proportions  469)  as w e l l  are  step  a l . (1977)  calculated  code  intervals  one  "In this  criterion  Confidence  than  i n between."  the c r i t e r i o n  other  to  couples.  "responses  analysis  the  feature  which  Gottman  all  distinguishing  in  antededents  task.  the i n v e s t i g a t i o n  Is  15)  selected  permits  a  extent  (Margolin,  technique  1984,  is  by  this  o f what  sequential  the  to  irrespective page  of  affected  person."  which  and n o n d i s t r e s s e d  sequential  is  possible  adaptation  f o r such  exploration  other  analysis  i s the tool  make  on  expected use of  sequence  i n the e f f o r t  nondistressed  the  of to  couples  34  E)  RECIPROCITY  In  DIFFERENCES  social  interaction  learning  which of  is  This  idea  term  reciprocity, He  reciprocity  is  consequent  behavior effect to  leads  attack,  response that  to  as  that  problem positive  of  "the  a  be  in  et  with  the  contingency  on  et  response.  that  the  where basis et  present  code."  (page  218)  by  and  frequency  a l . ,  1977)  the  on  the  that in  this  response  withdrawal (1984) to  in  suggests another's  "reciprocity"  contingent  in  which  influence  term  of  term  the  high  exchange base  the  without  an  of  This  examination have  is and  rates  reciprocity.  several investigators of  the  than  response  of  of  greater  is attack  confusion presence  of  process  the to  notion  the  Schaap  lagged  the  of  empathy,  Immediate  by  probability  that  an  reference  the  behavior,  to  means  use  direct  cetera.  particularly  (Gottman  a  response  the  my  the  person's  supposed  the  to  in kind;  l e d to  reciprocity,  for  describes  reinforcement.  describe  consequent  has  a l . (1977) note  been  presence  the  refers  involves  without  to  of  (1979)  significantly of  withdrawal,  to a  Gottman  test  behavior  empathy  rate  conditional  response  u s a g e has  has  the  reciprocity  the  uses  subsequent  to  used  this  behavior  its  the  opposed  Gottman commonly  says,  properly  reciprocity  action  he  probability  in  what  which  person's of  not  must  reciprocity  preceeding  is  that  code  unconditional Thus  equitable  equity  contingency.  theory,  of  assumed  examination  35  Margolin that  i f  and  spouse  greater  X  has  probability  behavior  A  occurred."  Raush  (page  554)  al.  potentially  acts,  be  they  conclusion  is  Gottman reciprocity  having their in  in  likewise  analysis.  couples  reciprocity. of  positive  some  the  given  more  the  that  Y,  a l l  prior  there  is  of  option  to  a  give  had  not  a  quality  communicative  reconcilitory, is  is  time  event  types  reciprocity  implies  later  reciprocation  almost  et  never  break  that  couples,  incidents  a a  cetera. foregone  cycle  presence  reciprocity  the  of  of  (1979) not  a  negative  distinguish  distressed  of  also  higher  couples  reciprocity this  investigates reciprocity  of  in  hypothesis  nondistressed  interaction a  of  will  negative  positive from  display  is  of  with  (1979)  distressed  Gottman  presence  confirmation  Gottman  that  the  interaction  claims  logically But  if  couples'  He  distinguish  would  at  Y  "reciprocity  possible.  However  that  interaction,  will  nondistressed  interaction.  possibility  spouse  hypothesizes  significantly  his  to  the  the  from  A  coercive,  always  (1979)  behavior  note  that  that  say,  than  effects  and  reciprocation  X  (1974)  note  (1981)  spouse  cognitive,  also  distressed  that  spouse  et  they  given  to  which  But  Wampold  the will  couples'  nondistressed  level  of  positive  concludes  that  the  presence  unique  feature  of  happily  36  married  couples  but  that  a l l couples  demonstrate  positive  reciprocity.  Margolin (1982),  support  reciprocity satisfied (1981)  (1981),  these  couples  also  note of  t o any that  as w e l l  findings  i s demonstrated  interaction Burks  and Wampold  by  noting  by d i s s a t i s f i e d significance.  positive  both  types  et  a l .  as J a c o b s o n  of  that  couples  Margolin  reciprocity couples,  as  eta l . negative  b u t n o t by and  Wampold  i s evident do  i n the  Gray-Little  and  (1983).  Revenstorf differences  of  interaction  also.  "distancing" positive  couples  or  They the  than  distressed  "attraction"  and  refer  to of  responses.  nondistressed and  negative  responses,  or patterns find  often  couples.  although  couples  reciprocity  nondistressed  sequences,  reciprocation  negative  They more  the  nondistressed  "attraction"  i n "distancing" do  examine  alternation as  positive  engage  sequences both  distressed  reciprocity  alternating  (1984)  of  that  and  nondistressed  distressed  also  couples  and  repeating  i n much  They  as  longer  find  that  engage couples  in do I t  longer.  In  regards  Revenstorf the  to the e f f e c t s  et a l . (1984) note  treated  couples'  tendency  of s u c c e s s f u l m a r i t a l that to  following engage  effective  in  therapy, therapy  "distancing"  or  37  negative  reciprocity  nondistressed  The  is  will  f i n d i n g s support impact  demonstrated  could  be  more  negative  they  will  the  that  parts  noting  of  that  i t  demonstrate therapy  lack  of  predict  than  evidence  reciprocity  which must  reciprocity  will  the  positive  successful  Specifically,  successful  Given  in  happy  sequences  be  considered  any  marital  to  be  nature.  suggests  three  simply  provides  that  separate  dividing  the  interaction  part.  some  something  discussions  frequency  each  stages;  of  into  interesting  which  three  different  This  discussion  equal  sequences  structure  for  contrasts  between  he  of  examining happy  couples.  Gottman  (1979,  discussion  the  is  partners  the  therapy.  1982)  within  for  of  DIFFERENCES  interaction  unhapppy  direction  negative  couples  to  reciprocity  into  by  which  hypotheses  (1979,  divided  to  prior  e x p l o r a t o r y In  discovered  and  the  Interaction.  presence  any  SEQUENTIAL  and  in  hypothesis  distressed  the  unique  and  Gottman be  couple's  positive  tentative  can  a  following  involving  OTHER  in  the  degree  reciprocity  relationships,  F)  the  expected  regarding  changes  behavior.  above  therapy  also  1982)  "agenda to  calls  building" express  the  stage, their  first the  stage  of  o b j e c t i v e of  p o s i t i o n s on  the  a  which  subject  38 of  discussion.  feelings is  and  to  commonly  expressions sequence commonly  of  notes  that  sequences  have  been  the  have  the  of  d e s c r i p t i o n s and  nondistressed  couples'  comparable typical  of  and to  being  in  by  to  the  the  positive and  (defined negative  as  responses  "cross-complaining"  distressed couples'  a  and  "validation" however  Gottman's  unhappy  (defined  A  (1984)  he  studies.  responses  interaction.  Schaap  (1979,  d i f f e r e n c e s between  and  i s noted  an  "cross-complaining"  the  happy  by  spouse  the  support  of  to  of  other  studies,  subsequent  "acceptance"  (this  expressions  to  other  a l . (1984)  of  neutral  couples  responded  regards  by  satisfied  agreement  by  i t  unhappy  involving  with  problem  regard  "validation"  "problem-escalation" descriptions  as  Whereas  involving  examination  problem  to  in  interaction to  and  "cross-complaining").  et  referred  happy  that  dissatisfied  spouse a  challanged  pattern  comparable  one  replicated  findings in their patterns  by  expressing  notes  sequence  sequence  by  1982)  stage.  a  findings  However R e v e n s t o r f 1982)  in  about  findings been  this  a  dubbed  Gottman's  that  sequence  in  is  between  "validation"),  feeling  sequence  (1979,  interspersed  a problem  (this  notes  feeling  interact  expression  during  dubbed  about  characterized  Gottman  interact  of is  is  differentiate  interaction  couples  feeling  stage  mindreading.  possible  couples'  This  to  as  a  be  more  interaction.  sequence  typical  referred  sequence  is  A of  in alternation) is  pattern  in  couples.  of  to  to  as  problem  alternation) noted  of  be  is more  39  Gottman  (1982)  gives  examples  of  these  two  types  of  sequences . Cross-complaining: Wife:  I'm  You're  not  Husband: tired,  tired  of  spending  doing  your  share,  (a  your  time  If  (a  you  used  a l l my  time  on  the  housework.  complaint) efficiently  you  wouldn't  be  counter-complaint)  Validation: Wife:  I'm  tired  of  spending  a l l my  time  on  the  housework.  You're not  doing  Husband:  your I  suppose  efficiently validity point.)  you  of  their  behavior  of  Gottman  is  exchange,  goal of  happy  and  1982) the  characterized agreement,  position  refers of  which  no  and  (a  used  your  recogniton  before  refers goal  to  the  Is  making  of  the  time  of  a  the  counter  couples  to  the  which  talk  stage  couple  understand  problem  communication  second  for  sequential  unhappy  by  you  111)  view are  If  tired.  page  There  stage,  right. be  1982)  the  (1979,  "negotiation" stage  1982,  points  disagreement. the  you're  (1979,  stage,  complaint)  other's  (Gottman,  "arguing"  (a  wouldn't  the  Gottman  for  share,  the  as to  the argue  areas  of  differences  noted  during  stage.  third is  this  stage  as  compromise.  solving, , and  in  the This  information  summarizing  the  40 other's this  or  both  stage,  reciprocate that  points  the  proposal"  couples  by  a  satisfied  couples  sequences  (where  some  acceptance  Gottman's  tend a  (1979,  treatment  a  "counter-proposals". same  incidents  couples  This between their  couples higher  section distressed  In  support  other  one  partner  by  partner  notes  "counter-  partner)  characterized  i s met whereas  "contracting"  i s met  incidents and  first  by  stages  of  prior  to  will  contain  "cross-complaining"  following  interact and  that  interaction of  that  will  of the three  f o r the hypothesis  couple's  will  with  effective relatively  and  therapy frequent  "contracting".  and  examine  than  the  nondistressed  experience  particular,  experience degree  one  by  to  DIFFERENCES  intrapersonal  spouses.  by  1982) e x a m i n a t i o n  of " v a l i d a t i o n "  G) I N T R A P E R S O N A L  (1982)  characterized  the  by  couples  of  proposal).  distressed frequent  be  proposal  of t h i s  provide  these  to  by  interaction  Gottman  proposal  proposal  discussion  relatively  t o be a  the  dissatisfied  surfaced.  tend  (where  During  for  affect  sequences  immediately  view.  tendency  negative  distressed  of  of their  the  perceptual  possible couples  in  interaction  hypothesis  distortion  nondistressed  differences  couples  that  to  a  will  regards with  to  their  distressed  significantly be  explored.  41  And  i t  will  specific  be  to  (1982)  the  significant  conflict  others.  by  distorted  as  the  (page  conflict.  people  are  others,  perceiving benevolent one  perceptual  to  one's  this  to  denial  as  with  "narcissistic  dysfunctional overly  marital  sensitive  spouses  to  and  other.  of  which  relationships  state  be  self  state  the  and  experience This  of  the  spouse's  one's  own  negative  that  which he  perceptual  leads  normalizes  to  distortion  the  is  one  escalation  of  perceptual  distortion,  most  are  i t is one's and self."  Watzlawick  of  promotes  the  suggests  motivated but  to  intrapsychic  leading  to  leads  418)  However,  "since  difference  "overgenera1ization  processes  saying,  themselves  as  and  (1969)  several  an  spouses  of  to  behavior  Deutsch  which  well  leads  behavior."  toward  state  perceptions  distortion negative  a  refers  a  interaction.  distortion  He  causing  overreactive,  of  such  describes  perceptual  vulnerability",  of  that  differences in couples'  Feldman leads  suggested  to  less not own  surprising behavior  a l .  that  toward  legitimate  (page  distortion  a  favorable  strongly motivated  more  et  maintain  that  to h o l d  there the  is  other  the  view  such  a  a  bias  as  view toward  being  other's  of  more  behavior  14)  (1967)  through  the  introduce  the  discussion  of  problem  of  "punctuation"  42  difficulties (1982)  says  chunking effect the he  which that  of  are  behavior,  i s only  view  that  a  one  holds  a way  289)  to,  on  but  world  mine  as  must  I  be  cause  one  member  not  see  a  way  and of  that the  conviction  that  to  et  a  provoking  i t , and  due  (Watzlawick  implies  such  "unquestioned  Bernal  that  When  situation  the  will."  conflict.  interaction  (page  the  from  i l l  of  reacting  reality,  or  couples'  i n such  conflict as  he  differs  irrationality  units  introduced."  himself  there  in  punctuation  puctuates  conceives  other's  "a  arise  communicational  labels  couple  often  that  the  any  other's  a l . , 1967,  page  95)  Bernal  (1982)  interaction  is  related  relationship.  He  responsiblity  for  whereas of  is a  marriages  is  found  their  perceptual  (1979)  communication  particular  of  The  on  study  a  to  spouses to  prevalent  light  couples'  task  and and  on  the  by  perceptual  Gottman  (1979)  consistantly  direction.  expected  interaction. dissatisfied discovers  partners  in distressed  i n d i s t r e s s e d marriages  some  a  acknowledgement that  i n a negative  in  attribute  their  the  quoted  punctuate  distress  possibilty  by  satisfied  experimental  toward  i s more  sheds  of  distressed  tend  messages  distortion  level  which  husbands wives'  tendency  interaction  couples  supported  that  Gottman  the  troublesome  dynamic  the  the  that  responsibility.  distortion  distorted  that to  states  nondistressed  shared  which  claims  that  He  Impact  of  examines  couples there  on is  a no  43 difference  in  the  communicaton. couples  found only  in  the  the  by the  often  that  subsequent  it  the  of  is  to  than  messages,  in  one  This  and  findings  a  difference finds  leads  that to  Gottman  relationships which  received Schaap  have  received  perceived  distortion  being  (1984)  is  are  distressed  spouse  be  f o r Gottman  couples  perceptual  dissatisfied  would there  spouses.  that  (1979)  above  perceptual  dissatisfied  manner  However  satisfied  Markman  possible  tendency  that  and  their  been  to  there  leads  to  negatively  (1984)  be  both  by  note  replicated  by  prevalence  and  studies.  Given impact  the  of  by  spouse.  Gottman's  messages  receiving  process  messages  other  of  regarding  satisfied  these  suggestion  a  positive  of  desire  both  spouses.  impact  the  i s ,  send  their  messages  support  the  to  by  positive  is  That  want  positively  couples'  respond will  regarding  distortion  to  spouses  they  suggestions  in  hypothesize will to  distressed that  demonstrate  positive  following  the  a  prior  to  significantly  communication  effective  relationships,  in  therapy.  a  therapy higher negative  44  4 ) P A T T E R N S OF  A) OPENING  The all  COMMENTS  search  scientific  always  has  patterns  have  patterns  which,  marital press)  therapy warrent  In  way  et  of  is  relationship. through  a  of  special  suggest which  of i n t e r e s t  that  very  mutual  recurrent  early  of  distressed  section  will  couples'  t o the model  of  and J o h n s o n ,  in  in  sequences  a  and  the  style over  over  couple  of time  of  a  time,  engages  are  in  observable  suggest  pattern  sequence,  points.  history  that  which  a l . (1974)  style,  a  consistant  influence,  et  following  develop  suggests  constraint,  I t Is this  the  couples  (1983)  Watzlawick  here.  consider  is relatively  established  and  Numerous  distinct  (Greenberg  pattern  discussion  following  significance  of  consideration.  introduction,  of  the  three  investigation  of  differentiate  The  of t h e i r  redundancy,  interchangably. is  under  process  countable.  concepts  because  the basis  a l . , 1967). in  which  examining  Margolin  characteristic and  by  t o be  discovery  et  above  couples.  in conflict  which  (Watzlawick  sequences  theme  said  f o r the  described  a l . ( 1974)  engaging and  been  nondistressed this  has been  investigation,  and o t h e r  continue  Raush  f o r pattern  significance  reciprocity from  INTERACTION  can  that  the  be  used  or pattern  which  45  Gottman patterning  (1979, in  a  functioning,  and  high  of  degree  "There  couples" reduction  that  in  Wile a  Wile,  Gottman's  saying (1979)  "Bernal (1981)  by  both  roles  (1982)  He  a  states,  not  nondistressed  (page  the  by 290)  presence  necessarily  patterns and  expected  (1983)  tentative  of  indicate  a r e t o be Burks  the  concur  support  for  both  although  Gottman patterning  nondistressed  more  (1979)  flexibility  i s evident  couples, and  and  Wile in  nondistressed  ability  to  exchange  different issues.  Wile  (1981)  suggests  for participating  unexpressed be  of  determined  that  i s only  with  that  and  demonstrate  motivation  there  agrees  suggesting  over  these  level  the  of  patterns."  does  of  i n the i n t e r a c t i o n of  "constraint  suggests  degree  r e l a t i o n s h i p s have  interaction  Gray-Little  that  to  interaction.  i n temporal  rather  the  hypothesis.  distressed  couples  the  being  a l lrelationships.  with  will  in  (1981)  but  related  structure  relationship  psychopathology,  that  functioning  and  than  is  i n their  patterning  of uncertainty  patterns  and  poorly  structure  However,  in  relationship  couples with  hypothesizes  patterning  i s more  distressed  1982)  needs  explored  (1981) notes  that  and  further  that  behind  i n these  feelings. in  a l l of these  the  each  patterns These  patterns  are  needs  descriptions almost  partner's underlying  and  feelings  below.  Wile  i n e v i t a b l y lead  46  to  alienation.  Whereas  Feldman  (1979)  interaction  involving  major  of p h y s i c a l violence i n marriage,  cause  central  concern  B)  MUTUAL  i)  BEHAVIORAL  of couples  (1981) of  the pattern  of a couple  watching  T.V.  certainly and  feel  Conflictual  equally  as  a  because  narrow  a  are of  (Wile,  the  of  responding  "a  type  i n kind  of  of  Wile,  to hints  or  pattern  negative  each  This  reciprocity,  to the other's  withdrawal.  1981).  profoundly  (Watzlawick  of withdrawal.  1981).  (Wile,  This  behavior,  will  allusions  and  interaction  almost  which  lonely,  150)  be  instead  1974;  the other  dull,  mirroring  might  will  interaction  a l . ,  by  1 9 8 1 , page  the state  one  of  et  bypassed as  a pattern  and  our  Typical  communication,  may b e l i m i t e d  "symmetrical" of  range  to  withdrawal.  conflict,  (Raush  t o be  supporting  example  spouse  a  described  state."  verbal  outstanding  communication  been  described 1967)  and o f t e n  significantly  of mutual  without  boring  are likely  deprived  an  an  involve  has  c a n be  therapy.  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by such  together,  resolving  This  marital  contributes  behavior  which  desiring  of c o n f l i c t  marital  DESCRIPTION  understanding  look  cycles  that  WITHDRAWAL  Wile  of  repetitive  notes  could  be  et a l . , partner  pattern i s with  each  47  ii)  EXPLANATIONS  Wile this  untenable  couple is  (1981)  to  be  a  safer as  unmanageable.  to  either  the  Raush  even  based  on  each  partners'  describes  (1974)  avoidance  experience  actual  fantasied  which the  links  denial  mutually  are  accusing  attempting  their  fears  mutual  of  to  manner  avoid  open  at  active  this  conflict  leads  to  considered  by  the  communication and  state  as  a  is  a  "paired  bind"  withdrawal  relationship  likely  (defined  with  more  lead  partners.  that  which  which  certainly  i n t e r a c t i o n or  as  to  "a  Influence  interpersonal  of  is  punishing  conflict  ...  distortion  Interestingly, a  of  of  which  suggest  confrontation or  fear  for both  "schemata"  organizing and  more  a l t e r n a t i v e of  a l .  the  state  consequences  et  a  a l t e r n a t i v e to  Wile  undesirable  that  couples'  experienced  where  suggests  be  pattern  related  structure the  anxiety  for  individual's  i n t e r a c t i o n s . " page  extreme  to  and  42,43)  leads  to  conflictual situations.  withdrawers of  relating,  a l l costs,  expression  can  of  sometimes something  which  feelings  simply  (Wile,  flip  into  which  they  reinforces  1981).  48 C) MUTUAL i)  ACCUSATION  BEHAVIORAL DESCRIPTION  The  mutual  accusation  attack/attack, (Bernal,  it  This  strategies,  difficulty (Deutsch,  of  and  r e f e r r e d t o as t h e  blame/defend pattern  escalating  when  Mutual  also  aligns  conflict,  a couple  accusation  pattern  closely  cross-complaining,  experienced 1969).  has been  or  couples'  descriptions  control the  blame/blame,  1982).  previous  pattern  with  adversive  and  i s noted  for  attempts  to exit  from  also  involves  negative  reciprocity.  This because In  al.,  also  be  described  of the m i r r o r i n g of behavior  accusation  leads  a  easily  "symmetrical"  and t h e e q u a l trait  to  as  which  escalation  partnership  In the case  of  (Watzlawick  et  1967).  EXPLANATIONS  In "These  considering  this  are disputes  developed the  could  the c o n t i n u a t i o n of c o n f l i c t ,  mutual  ii)  pattern  a  individuals  that,  dynamic  attacks  of  of  the  get very  their  However,  are  unable  their  own.  by  little  provoked,  p a t t e r n , Wile  whatever  other  increasingly they  couples*  Each  partner in  stop.  feel  have  responds  return.  and They  states,  cause,  the i n t e r a c t i o n .  frustrated, to  original  attacking  from  (1981)  to  These  They  feel  misunderstood. too  stung  or  49  outraged than  by  what  defend  feeling  or  to  exiting  from  by  sensitive  and  hostility, empathy  toward  to  by  the  Feldman  which  to  leads a  tool  suggests  for  the  or  the not  the  other  sense  of  having  a  partners  understanding  as  an  in  from  turn  mutual  state to  leads  and  of  "narcissistic  tendency  revenge,  be  to  which overly  "intense  extreme  lack  of  419)  escalting  larger  cycles  context  between that  of internal  one's  that a  anything  Thus  prevents  (page  balance  mutual  168)  the  This for  f i t into a  do  concept  increasing  suggests  establish  to  describes  need  (1972)  to  1981)  the  offender."  Accordingly,  as  he  strong  counterattack  effort  (Wile,  overreactive.  a  Feldman  point,  discussing  conflict  (page  contributes  which  saying  unacknowledged,  one's  pattern  (1982)  vulnerability" promotes  and  make  this  accusation  is  counterattack."  really  Feldman  acts  partner  misunderstood  chance  and  their  of  autonomy  i t is  the  accusation,  a  pattern  homeostatic  tendencies  of  the and  fear  couples' intimacy.  of  which of  attack  the  intimacy in  effect couples'  system.  D)  PURSUE  i)  BEHAVIORAL  In that  the  a  / WITHDRAW DESCRIPTION  discussion  of  pursue/withdraw  reciprocity, pattern  is  Raush one  et  a l . (1974)  noteworthy  note  exception  50  to  a  general  cognitive but  not  elicit al.,  rule.  acts, for  1974)  of  and  such  response  notes to  abandoned security, The  to  Watzlawick  which for,  in  captures  the  then  al.  attacking are  tactics  responses  for acts,  said  to  (Raush  et  typifies  to  One the  plays  in  each  efforts  the  the  his  or  other  two  worse.  The  her  mate  partner's which  Inducing  further  clasping."  classify  "complementary" of  the  other, while  does but at  the  f i t . " (page c i r c u l a r nature  but not  the  69) of  each  same  other;  5)  type  of  which  is  say,  "It  nature  of  is the  behaviors a  the  (page  this  evoke  complementary  behaves  time  their This  the  fitted impose  rather  increases  They  interlocking  for  anxiety.  Interaction,  difference.  dissimilar  partners' the  further  would  Napier  of  make m a t t e r s at  by  retreats  partner  of  provided  "The  anxieties  (1967)  on  which  behavior  relationship  applies  rejection  is  says,  a maximizing  presupposes, the  of  tightly  emphasize  on  or  coercive  anxiety  He  their  based  by  other.  relationship  that  panic,  et  as  relationship, each  role  mate  to  of  pattern  contributing  spouse's  important  this  clasps  thereby  characterized  or  combination  other.  partner  relationship  coercive Acts  appeals  of  reduce  imprisoned  abandoned  a  the  the  individuals  acts,  reciprocity  pattern.  description  ( 1 9 7 8 ) who  that  rejection.  emotional  pursue/withdraw  A  suggest  conciltory  acts  either  They  in  providing  definitions  description  pursue/withdraw  a  manner reasons of  the  perfectly pattern.  51 11)  EXPLANATIONS  Wile either the  (1981)  anger  or d e s i r e  effects  of  regardless  of  expressed. suppress  them  to  a  may  dependency  extention  of these  pursuer  the  pursuer's  Wile describe in  very  couple  untenable  that  Wile  that  uses  such  the term  In  A  position;  of  supressed  although  by  his feelings.  sensitivities"  reinforcing  roles  that,  "the sore  notes o f one (page  do t h e i r  effect  increased  Wile  i f they  of  ironic,  the negative  i s greatly  with  whining,  demands f o r  Napier  bond",  anger  feelings  with  of the o t h e r . "  "paired  or the form  agreement  vulnerabilty  always to  insistant  "interacting  mutually  that,  effort  tantrums,  i s that  by  examines  are  i n an  that  logical,  (1981) p o i n t s out that  in a  or  as  as  to suppress  and  feelings  suppressed  the withdrawer  et a l . (1967),  or s p e c i a l  patterns,  and  also  suggests  indirectly  such  pleading.  effort  pattern.  intensifies  the  upon  He  suggests  two s u g g e s t i o n s  the c i r c u l a r  Watzlawick nerve,  has  (1981)  this  them  to expressions  or nonverbal  (1981)  directly  expressions  affection  the  them  He  complaining;  lead  Wile  feelings.  express  expressions".  or  c a n be m o t i v a t e d  intentions,  express  one w i l l  the pursuer  for contact.  person's  derivative  nagging,  that  suppressing  One  "derivative leads  suggests  involved  (1978)  and  spot,  raw  inflames, stimulates, 124)  As  with  the  this  circumstance  each  partner  thing  (that  to  being  or  other places in a  i s , pursue  or  52  withdraw) they  end  things up  of  (1978) each  pattern.  worse,  He  examines  partners'  suggests  closeness  and  loss  emphasizes  "we"  or  sense  interpersonal  suggests  the  individual  freedom.  boundaries,  any  are  extremely  comments most  on  the  to  seems  be  to  one the  With  is  secure  the  each  or  for  pursuer by  these  sense  chief  is closest  to -  personal contact  Napier  (1978)  saying,  postures  of  and  for  position  source  Napier  of  demands  anxious  any  autonomy  withdrawer.  partner's  that  the  threatened  striving  a  the  each  another; person  is  sense  anxiety  Alternatively,  infringements to  is  for a  little  identity, and  which  pursue/withdraw  "oneness".  distance.  of  the  is striving  Without  fact  in  impulse  elements  pursuer  withdrawer  irony  their  emotions.  intrapsychic  experiences,  threatening  resist  exaggerated  individual  perceived  distressing  response  of  of  "us"  or  the  the  support,  the  (1978)  i f they  behavior  that  regarding  of  and  expressing distorted  Napier influence  get  are  danger  their  "The  in  mate."  in life  (page  6)  of  Napier  (1978),  each  partner's  pursue/withdraw intensity. annoyed  to  The  perhaps  pattern  response  position, can  partners  suicidal.  in  be can  to  points  experienced feel  the  extreme  out  that  along  anywhere  nature  a  from  range  the of  slightly  53 CONCLUSION  These  three  withdrawal, present  mutual  Greenberg  of  these  patterns  Given  the  hypothesize demonstrate  above  that  prior  patterns  and  pursue/withdraw  they  will  following  and  a  although 1981), are  relationships.  to these  three  suggest  that  patterns effective  i n the observable  descriptions to  (Wile,  (mutual  presence  interaction.  therapy  of mutual to  refer  change  i n couples'  degree  distressed  cycles"  promote  interaction  pursue/withdraw),  of  ( i npress)  interaction will  and  t o some  characteristic  therapy  couples'  accusation,  and J o h n s o n  "negative  marital  of  i n a l l relationships  particularly  as  patterns  i t  reasonable  distressed  accusation,  significantly  successful  is  therapy.  couples  mutual  greater  to will  withdrawal, degree  than  54  5)  RELATING  The  THE  L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W TO  purpose  of  this  effectiveness  of  bringing  positive  the  about  course  of  the  changes  question  interaction  couples  more  couples  the  stages  In it  was  which of  the  necessary  to  is different  this  the  generation  study.  However which  there  rely  from  A  interaction  of  are  therapy.  Therefore  experience  suggest  this that  successful  be  There  latter  during  inference. positive  no  changes  in  of  and  a  question  the  question in  couples.  this  author  interaction  of  experience  of  in  interaction  is  known  about  nondistressed studies  which  be  interaction in  the  the  couples  attempt  i t is logistically  will  study  successful therapeutic  in couples'  therapeutic experience  of  experience?  to  the  the  difference  actual  what  previous However  the  differences  from  Is  nondistressed  the  stages  therapy.  present  to  known  during  therapeutic  examine  examine  in  Interaction  this  related  change  distressed are  of  studies  expected  inferred  between  interaction. validate  verses  must  difference  the  the  therapeutic  verses  the  In i s :  the  which  closely  available  couples  than  the  studies  of  the  Therapy  interaction  stages  findings  of  examine  distressed  earlier  on  examine  Couples  hypotheses  distressed no  specificly  the  , but  number  originally  during  of  to  experience  positive of  STUDY  examination  latter  significantly beginning  is  in couples'  under  experience In  study  actual  i n the  PRESENT  Focused  couples'  Specifically, of  present  Emotionally  these  THE  same  valid  to to  during  a  vein  as  55  the  d i f f e r e n c e s between  distressed  interaction,  especially  themselves  significantly  as  as  compared  to  prior  press,  found  report  themselves  therapy  that  as  Nonetheless,  provide  the  strength  of  studies  and  summary  will  empirical is  a  a  reader  in  hypotheses  categorize  which  study.  to  (Johnson  a  to  report  following and  therapy  Greenberg,  study  do  in  Indeed  distressed  following  of  empirical  therapy.)  summary the  couples'  couples  present  less  above  information  the r e l a t i o n s h i p the  same  i n this  brief  with  investigation  interaction  therapy.  to prior  nondistressed  distressed  significantly  reported  reference  present  to  these  less  the couples  as compared  investigations  If  and  of  involved. corresponding  i s investigated  which  present  according  may  judge  the  of  previous  study. to  Accompanying category  review to  the findings  this  findings  literature  from  between  the  of  the each  This type  finding  behavior  i n the hypotheses  of  of  or this  56 SUMMARY OF E M P I R I C A L F I N D I N G S AND  CORRESPONDING  HYPOTHESES  A) F i n d i n g s b a s e d o n t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s o f c o u p l e s i n t e r a c t i o n during the d i s c u s s i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p issues which were generated by the couple, as opposed to by the experimenter.  Investigators (1977)  Gottman  (1979);  Gottman,  Findings:  Markman,  and  Focus  Hypothesis  of  Notarius  - Nonverbal behavior is a better discriminator than verbal behavior when distinguishing couples on t h e basis of positive vs. negative behavior. - D i s t r e s s e d couples are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y t o d i s a g r e e w i t h n e g a t i v e a f f e c t than a r e n o n d i s t r e s s e d couples.  -  - Distressed couples tend to mindread with negative affect whereas nondistressed couples tend to mindread with neutral affect.  •Negative controlling behaviors  Nondistressed couples a r e more supportive and less defensive In their interaction than a r e d i s t r e s s e d couples .  • P o s i t i v e s e l f and other focused behaviors  Distressed couples have more incidents of negative r e c i p r o c i t y i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n b u t t h a t t h e r e i s no significant difference regarding the incidents of p o s i t i v e r e c i p r o c i t y .  -Negative escalating s e q u e n c e s and negative reciprocal sequences  - Distressed couples a r e more l i k e l y to engage i n cross-complaining and counter-proposal sequences whereas nondistressed c o u p l e s a r e more l i k e l y to engage in validation and c o n t r a c t i n g sequences.  •Negative escalating sequences and negative reciprocal sequences  Negative disaffillative behaviors  57  Investigators:  Margolin  and  Wampold  (1981)  Find ings:  Focus  - Negative r e c i p r o c i t y i s demonstrated by dissatisfied couples but not by s a t i s f i e d c o u p l e s t o any significance.  -Negative escalating sequences and negative reciprocal sequences  - Positive reciprocity is evident the interaction of both types couples.  of  Hypothesis:  in of  B) F i n d i n g s b a s e d on the o b s e r v a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of couples interaction during the discussion of relationship issues g e n e r a t e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r , as o p p o s e d t o by t h e c o u p l e . Investigators:  Waring  and  Chelune  (1983)  Findings:  Focus  - The level of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e in a relationship is a major factor in determining the degree of i n t i m a c y e x p e r i e n c e d by t h e c o u p l e .  -Positive self-focused behaviors  Investigators:  Raush, Barry,  Hertel,  and S w a i n  Find ings :  Focus  of  Hypothesis:  (1974) of  Hypothesis:  -Destructive conflict is characterized by a t e n d e n c y t o e s c a l a t e and b l o w o u t of p r o p o r t i o n , becoming i n d e p e n d e n t of the i n i t i a l issues.  -Negative behaviors; negative escalating sequences  - The use of threats, coercion, and deception is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of dysfunctional conflict .  -Negative c o n t r o l l i n g behaviors  - Reciprocity is never a foregone conclusion and that the option to break a cycle of reciprocation Is always possible. - The i n t e r a c t i o n a l p a t t e r n of mutual withdrawal as involving a narrow range of i n t e r a c t i o n which w i l l look and f e e l boring.  •Change  is  possible  -Negative reciprocal sequences  58  for cognitive - Reciprocity applies acts, coercive or acts, conciltory but not f o r acts of attacking acts, of r e j e c t i o n e l i c i t rejection. Acts appeals or coercive either emotional a combination of tactics and such pursue/withdraw responses t y p i f i e s the pat t e r n .  C) F i n d i n g s  based  Investigator:  on a c o m b i n a t i o n  Bernal  -Negative escalating sequences; negative complimentary sequences  o f A a n d B:  (1982)  Findings:  Focus  of  Hypothesis:  The tendency to punctuate interaction i s related to the l e v e l of distress in a relationship. Distressed spouses attribute responsibility for troublesome interaction to their partners whereas nondistressed couples tend toward the acknowledgement of shared responsibility.  -Negative controlling behaviors; positive self-focused behaviors  - Although patterning i s evident i n both distressed and nondistressed couples, nondistressed couples demonstrate more flexibility and ability to exchange roles over different issues. I n v e s t i g a t o r s : R e v e n s t o r f , H a h l w e g , S c h i n d l e r , and V o g a l ( 1 9 8 4 ) and H a h l w e g , S c h i n d l e r , R e v e n s t o r f , and B r e n g e l m a n n ( 1 9 8 4 ) Findings  Focus  of  Hypothesis  Nondistressed c o u p l e s w i l l be more positive and less negative than distressed couples.  •Positive affilliative behaviors  Distressed couples engage negative reciprocity more often in much longer sequences than nondistressed couples.  -Negative escalating s e q u e n c e s and negative reciprocal sequences  in and do  - Both distressed and nondistressed c o u p l e s engage i n p o s i t i v e r e c i p r o c i t y although nondistressed c o u p l e s do i t longer.  -Positive  sequences  59  - Gottman's (1979) f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g validation and c r o s s - c o m p l a i n i n g a r e supported. Investigators:  Koren,  Carlton,  a n d Shaw  Findings:  (1980) Focus  - D i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s a r e more l i k e l y t h a n n o n d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s t o r e l y on c r i t i c i s m i n attempting to influence the o t h e r ' s p o s i t i o n .  D) F i n d i n g s b a s e d on q u e s t i o n a i r e o r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the the natural setting:  Investigators:  -Positive sequences; negative reciprocal sequences  Davidson,  of  Hypothesis  •Negative c o n t r o l l i n g behaviors  self-report  B a l s w i c k and H a l v e r s o n  (1983)  Find ings:  Focus  - There is a positive and a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between self-disclosure in a relationship and marital satisfaction.  -Pos i t i v e self-focused behaviors  Investigators: (1982)  Jacobson,  Follette,  and  regarding  of  Hypothesis  Waggoner of  McDonald  Findings:  Focus  Hypothesis  Distressed couples report their daily interaction as s i g n i f i c a n t l y less p o s i t i v e and more n e g a t i v e t h a n do n o n d i s t r e s s e d c o u p l e s .  -Negative disaffillative behaviors  -Negative r e c i p r o c i t y i s demonstrated by dissatisfied couples b u t n o t by s a t i s f i e d c o u p l e s t o any signifcance.  -Negative reciprocal sequences  60 E) F i n d i n g s b a s e d on q u e s t i o n a i r e o r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g : Investigator:  Gottman  self-report  (1979)  Findings:  Focus  In distressed couples there is often a process of perceptual distortion which leads to p o s i t i v e m e s s a g e s by one s p o u s e b e i n g r e c e i v e d n e g a t i v e l y by t h e o t h e r s p o u s e .  -Positive  Investigator:  regarding  Markman  of  Hypothesis sequences  (1979)  Findings:  Focus  Not only are negative control techniques symptomatic of dissatisfied relationships but such behavior has a major r o l e i n c a u s i n g the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .  -Negative controlling behaviors  SUMMARY OF  The  THE  L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW  above  review  hypotheses  regarding  interaction  which  therapy  of  the  literature  changes  would  in  result  supports  couples'  from  an  several  behavior  effective  and  couples  experience.  Specifically, Emotionally contrasts couples  of hypothesis:  i t  Focused  Couples  between at  behavior  the  in  negative, controlling  the  more than  could  couples  end  of  defensive, couples'  hypothesized  Therapy  i s effective  at  beginning  therapy  beginning  be  the will  stages and  be of  more  behavior  the  of  blaming the  end  and  Couples'  will and  i f  following  therapy  observed.  therapy  at  that  be  more  negatively of  therapy.  61  Also,  couples'  friendly, more  more  positive  behavior  more  or  the in  more  couples'  couples  followed sequences  than If  these  interaction  can  be  that  Emotionally  effective  way  relationships.  to  at  of  mutual  the of  end  contrasts  verified, Focused bring  in  there Couples  about  Likewise,  couples'  will  (e.g.,  of  will  sequences Also,  involve  more  self-disclosure more  the  be  Therapy  friendly  beginning  couples'  positive  mutual  therapy.  and at  will  involve  blame/defend  unfriendly  (e.g.,  interaction  involving  withdrawal,  acceptance)  more  couples'  therapy  sequences  be  than  therapy  and more  t h e end  and  will  other  complimentarity  couple's  therapy.  the  stages  (e.g.,  interaction  support  therapy  therapy.  interaction),  at  of  s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g , and  of  negative  complimentary by  end  influence  beginning  interaction  positive  to  reciprocity  pursue/withdraw  than  the  beginning  the  negative  accusation),  at  s u p p o r t i v e , more efforts  at  interaction  behavior  behavior  grounds  to  is  indeed  changes  in  of and  claim an  couples'  62  CHAPTER  This design,  chapter consists  and t h e measures  A) A D E S C R I P T I O N  The  sample  press,  a  Greenberg's by and  who  &  b).  the approach  were  couples and  developed  group  from  assigned  group.  1976 ) . chosen  and  remaining consisted  11 4 of  unsystematic the needed  by G r e e n b e r g  a  newspaper  one  of  couples 15 loss  chosen from  of data  Couples  were  (i.e.,  Therapy.  (which  invited  group not  consist  Couples group.  group  available  the unavailability  or a  distressed  Adjustment  study  (each  project)  groups  the  the control  or audio recordings  ( i n press)  couples  within  Focused  and  involved  treatment  i n this  from  each  couples)  and Johnson  the Dyadic  the Emotionally  couples  video  100) on  and Greenberg  therapy research  fell  of  and i s t y p i f i e d  article  two  a l l  i n Johnson  ( i n press) study  T h e 22 c o u p l e s from  used  Focused  i n a marital to  than  o f 22 c o u p l e s ,  i n nature,  A l lt h e couples  ( i . e . less  couples  study.  intervention  t o as E m o t i o n a l l y  to participate  (Spanier,  of the sample, the  s t u d y by J o h n s o n  was e x p e r i e n t i a l  recruited  control range  One  and Greenberg's  randomly  to this  study consisted  i n an e a r l i e r  study  Johnson  of a description  relevant  f o rthis  Is referred  PROCEDURES  OF THE S A M P L E  whom p a r t i c i p a t e d (in  3: METHODOLOGY AND  Scale o f 11 Therapy The  originally due  to the  o f some o f  of the sessions).  In h i s  63  review  of  studies  nondistressed number the of  of  couples,  of  couples  other  Johnson Emotionally group  together, age a  of  Couples  Therapy  s t u d y were eight  tested  these  B)  A D E S C R I P T I O N OF  to  the  15.  and  average  Therefore the  note  group  and the  variables occupation  level  of  education  and  the  press)  of  style,  intimacy.  between  that  level  emotional  and  distressed  is within  regarding  demographic  income,  on  range  and  treatment  the  (number of of  found  group  and  the  control  possibility of  both both  pre-measures  They  that  no the  of  years  spouses, spouses),  of  marital  significant control  group  variables.  This  study  modification (Campbell Group  study  Focused  of  differences  in this  of  studies.  spouses,  adjustment  i s 10  (in  family  measure  t r e a t m e n t group  Greenberg  on  both  notes  and  in their  differences  interaction (1984)  used  similar  the  Schaap  couples per  number most  comparing  and  design  represented  of  THE  DESIGN  uses the  an  Pretest-posttest  Stanley,  1963).  a d v o c a t e d by as  experimental  follows:  The  Campbell  and  design Control  which Group  Pretest-posttest Stanley  (1963)  is  a  design Control could  be  64  R  0  X  0  1 R  2  0  0 1  2  where R = Randomly a s s i g n e d 0 = Observation X = Treatment The  design  of  this  study  could  R  be  0  represented X  Thus  the  design on  in  the  control  purposes. to  groups  this  determine  the  prior  to  is  determined  2.  Johnson  according there  was  change  times  1  posttest  and  can  the  and  be  of  the  Greenberg  has  control  data  (in  in  ( i n press)  tests  and  study  distinct  pretest  this  this of  were of  can  and  that  there  times  1  reported  and  group  serves  as  a  regarding  control  gathered  is  1976),  control  measure  audio  a  that,  (Spanier,  the  as  tentatively  between  the  be  control  measure  significance  and  consists  and  been  have  in  treatment  this  two  for  Scale  difference  the  for  group  press)  Secondly,  measure  ( i n press)  Adjustment  used  d i f f e r e n c e s between  All  i t  Group  single  treatment  because  i n the  2.  the  Greenberg  the  a  of  Dyadic  and  of  as  use  and  2  2)  The  significant  between  time  serves  equivalency  Greenberg  the  no  at  treatment.  and  to  involves using  measure  Johnson  significant  0  Pretest-posttest Control  (taken  justifiable by  the  study  group  First  pretest  no  present  2 "  1  m o d i f i c a t i o n of  the  used  0  follows:  0  1 R  as  by  groups.  Johnson  recordings  of  65 the  22  participating  therapy group of  sessions. were  In  measures  eight  treatment  group  during  seventh  is  based  eight  on  period  sessions  are  the  the  and  to  and  of  marital  sample  C)  A  issues.  the  report  study  measure  marital  and  used  coding  of  interaction  after the  the  as  best  the in  on  and  a  seventh  as  opposed during  discussion  sessions for  interaction  of  introduction  the  seventh  sessions  group  following  the to  the  second  interaction  opposed and  control  posttest  because  on  interaction  second  and  second  were  obtaining  a  patterns.  MEASURES  two for  measures, the  treatment;  and  the  during  focuses  second  experienced  marital  before  often  conflictual  THE  uses  distress  before  as  couples'  D E S C R I P T I O N OF  This  sessions  The  posttest  participated  pretest  treatment the  couples'  The  marital  the  during  a n a l y s i s of  sessions,  considered  of  the  session the  the  weeks.  for  eighth  of  of  they  on  The  interaction  eight  last  summary  therefore  couples'  and  interaction  The  during  pretest  sessions.  session.  of  the  measures  preferred  first  first  couples'  sessions  waiting  to  were  interaction  study,  therapy  the  therapy  this  of  marital  the  couples'  of  determination by the  interaction after  one  the second for  therapy.  which of  is  the  a  level  participating measure the  self-  couples  involves  comparison  of  of  the the  66  THE  DYADIC ADJUSTMENT The  report  dyadic  SCALE  adjustment  measure  designed  Scale  to  assess  cohesion,  affection  and  scale  developed  because  and  was  reliability,  applicability previous  to  marital  Accordingly,  testing  shows  Spanier of  the  score  of  114.8  cutoff  distressed; score  for  number  of  distressed Burger when  is  and one  Filsinger  0  (s.d.  of  below likewise  they  couples  partner (1983)  (1979) has  a  comment  through  for  the  This  and  the  the  that  a  cutoff  to  an  DAS  the  for a l l  provide to  the  a be  mean  insufficient on  currently  1983).  However,  couple  under  that  mean  provide to  the  theoretical  considered  to  due  of  relationships  suggest  be  Filsinger,  score the  is  continued  assessment  unprepared  used  suggest  on  also  unprepared  have  DAS  that  can  has  1983).  represents are  of  1976).  (DAS)  and  note  couples  (Spanier  Jacobson  Scale  Filsinger,  they  which  (Spanier,  common-law  They  17.8)  distressed couples. studies  of  and  are  validity  which  inadequate  151.  which  of  rendered  (1983)  However  lack  This  relationships  that  to  satisfaction,  lack  appropriate  Spanier  self-  c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , and  reliability, be  a  relationship.  Adjustment  Filsinger  DAS  the  is  of  reported  scales  including  couples. point  to  1982;  and  range  married  and  1976)  level  in  the  clear  Dyadic  itself  1976,  of  adjustment  adjustment,  (Spanier,  of  validity  the  consensus  common-law  the  demonstrated  dyadic  lack  (Spanier,  is distressed  100.  point  Spanier of  100,  and  noting  67 that  this  criterion  must  be  considered arbitrary until  further  conf irmat i o n .  The the  DAS  level  before used  will  of  be  marital  therapy  and  to determine  control  used  group's  i n this  distress  following that  of  the  was  no  adjustment  study  to  determine  participating  therapy.  there  marital  present  The  DAS  couples  will  also  s i g n i f i c a n t change  over  the eight  be  i n the  week  waiting  period.  THE  STRUCTURAL A N A L Y S I S  The  Structural  (Benjamin,  Foster,  observational  tool  interpersonal  aspects  upon  possession in  Roberto,  and  which  is  the  Social  Behavior  Estroff,  specifically  and  and  or  1984)  designed  SASB  is  to  an  analyse  their  relationship  of m a r i t a l  interaction  by of  dependence  or  subject  control,  interdependence.  of  which  compliance. of  and  concept  interaction  concepts  influenced  of  affiliation  of  of  influence  Analysis  f o r the a n a l y s i s  dimensions, use  BEHAVIOR  to  sequences.  SASB a l l o w s  (1984)  SOCIAL  behaviors  interactional  two  OF  interdependence involve  Benjamin ("the to  varying  (1984) quality  another")  authority,  her a p p l i c a t i o n of the dimension  or of  also or  influence  Benjamin's focuses  on  degrees  of  draws  state  and  along  heavily of  power over  being ("the  others")  interdependence.  68  SASB be  consists  of three  d i s t i n g u i s h e d by  their  1979.)  The f i r s t  towards  another  person,  second  surface  codes  another  person,  codes  without  The  which  of  and  focuses  concern  are relevant with  study  and w i l l  n o t be d e s c r i b e d  whereas  the  reaction. should  However,  not  responsible a  be  the  center  surface,  which  adheres  contains  represents  describe  on  as  third  action  to  surface  toward  the  that  study  behavior.  The  two a x e s .  with  Points  left  varying  of u n f r i e n d l i n e s s .  SELF,  to  this  action;  represents  "one t y p e  primary,  of  focus  important,  or  e t a l . , 1984, page 1 0 ) ,  to c i r c u l a r  the  present  represents  on  (Benjamin  behaviors  to this  OTHER  more  friendliness. degrees  reaction  i s not relevant  focus  affiliation.  to  The  further.  I t i s suggested  the other"  surface  surface  focus  regarded  than  perspective  Each  second  action  t h e OTHER.  Interpersonal  intrapsychic i n nature,  surface,  Benjamin,  involves  The  introjected  surface,  first  1.  involves  on SELF.  third  The  on  which can  involvement.  two s u r f a c e s  their  which  which  focuses  surfaces  (See appendix  thus  involves  shaped  behavior  behavior  the other's  first  because  FOCUS. codes  and thus  behavior  self,  surface  diamond  causality.  The h o r i z o n t a l axes Points  to the right  varying describe  degrees behaviors  The v e r t i c a l  axes  of of of  with of the  69  surface  represents  degrees  of  influence  describe  behaviors  focused)  or  points  encouraging  pure  or  of both  a l . , 1974; of to  was  present  Greenberg  and  independence. with  varying  and  which  (other Whereas,  degrees  axes  of  reflecting  the points  consists  power  are  of  in  varying  power of  in  are  this  As  of  be  The  of  central  can  be  suited  intimacy  and  of  (Raush  affiliation  well  appropriate  to  press).  also  study.  is particularly  said  relationship  Johnson,  and  t o be v e r y  the  a marital  interactions involving  judged  of encouraging  of  descriptions  SASB  center  interdependence.  i n assessing  above  analysing  and  the hypotheses  the  above  interdependence,  intimacy  Intimacy  interdependence,  SASB  of  poles  behavior  affiliation  importance  importance  of  represent  concepts  varying  dependence.  of a f f i l i a t i o n  degrees  dimensions  behaviors  the  the poles  from  describe  involves  Points  degrees  focused)  at  between  et  (self  behavior  (which  compliance).  varying  or expressing  degrees  central  with  center  the  The  and  expressing  below  With  interdependence  and  to the power.  to the purpose  seen  task Thus  of  this  SASB  can  study.  There  are three  code  marital  each  surface  distinctions  levels  interaction. into to  be  36 made  of complexity The  parts  full and  regarding  with  version therefore the  coding  which of  SASB  divides  permits  subtle  of  behaviors.  70 The  cluster  divides points core  each  dimensions  as  a  too  fine  coding a  allows  the  version  of  hypotheses  of  in  behaviors  as  too  is  the  each  fine  plus well  or  to  the  of  an  minus  points  coding the  for  degrees  intermediate  an  needs  which without  examination  reveals  of  having  coding,  the  out  category.  interaction  study  four  degrees  between  However,  the  The  into  (1979)  a  5  allowing for  or  balance  allows  minus  suited  plus  interactional  present  (which  axes,  recommend  gist  or  regarding  surface  large  details.  the  SASB  being  for  1984.)  interdependence.  Gottman  a l . (1984)  of  nature  being  and  minute  of  interdependence)  as  Benjamin, containing 4  intersecting  a  SASB  each  and  strike  capture  the  version  et of  to  lost  quadrant  must  2.  similar  interdependence.  getting the  the  behaviors  Benjamin  coder  of  divides  discrimination  cluster  sections,  SASB  of  and  appendix  affiliation  system  Accordingly, or  8  d e l i n e a t e d by  affiliation  (see  behaviors  of  discrimination  that  SASB  into  of  version  sections  of  surface  representing  quadrant  the  v e r s i o n of  that  the  discrimination affiliation of  the  and  present  study.  Benjamin reliability the  findings  between (1983) mean o f  .45 who .69  et  a l .  (1984)  using  Cohen  (1968)  of and  three .85.  separate They  measure weighted  reliability  using  Cohen's  Kappa.  studies  a l s o note  found  SASB's  ranging  the from  (1968) weighted  with  They Kappas  findings .61 Kappa.  interrater  to  of .79  report ranging  Humphrey with  a  71  T R A I N I N G OF  Benjamin  SASB  et  considered 1)  The  CODERS  a l . (1984)  recommend  i n the s e l e c t i o n coders  should  undergraduate  students  social  or  work,  a  of  be  the  following  criteria  be  coders: graduate  in clinical  related  students  or  or  counselling  discipline,  advanced  psychology,  i f not  experienced  clinicians. 2)  Coders  course 3)  should  work  Coders  should  sensitive All this  should  study.  coders  received  application  CODING  of  experience,  therapy. being  interpersonally  complex. were  met  direction  by  the three  coders  used i n  have  utilized  t h e SASB  coding  therapy  research  project.  A l l3  from  a  senior  f o r the present  clinician  regarding  study.  PROCEDURE  Benjamin utilize  evidence  couples  o f SASB  or, minimally,  interviewing  and f a m i l y  of the coders  a previous  experience  clinical  some  criteria  Two  on  SASB  some  Individual show  of the above  research  methods.  and c o g n i t i v e l y  scheme  the  have  i n both  Coders  had  i n research  preferably 4)  have  audio  investigated,  et or  a l . (1984) video  recommend  recordings  accompanied  by  of  verbatim  that the  the  SASB  interaction  transcripts.  coders being This  72  procedure  is  requires Both  necessitated  discriminations  of these  study.  aids  by  the  coding  was  are u t i l i z e d  based  on  verbatim  transcripts  of the couples'  The  transcripts  were  purpose unit a  of determining  consists  new  into  unit  with  Benjamin  part  speech,  communicate  without (An  will  to  subsequent  first  code  coders.  important  Also  the coders  any  coded  treatment  coders  an  episode  dimensions are blind  whether  that  long  be  may and  the before  of  of  t h e same  speech  may  party.  coders.  i s that  the  the focus  for  concentrate  on t h e  interdependence.) of  the study  the s e s s i o n  control or  broken  independently,  determine  coders  with  purpose  to the other  of the coding  will  A  separate  d e c i s i o n s of other  the status  i t is  of  interaction  from  and  f o r the  and  the  units  to the hypotheses  i t is  may  a r e f o c u s i n g on  of a f f i l i a t i o n  regarding  whether  group;  way,  Units  a complete  note  of the coding  In this  information (I.e.,  being  the  recordings  the p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  o r messages  analyse  present  of the i n t e r a c t i o n .  switch.  that  time."  to the coding  by  to the "independence"  more  to  given  the knowledge  exception  coder  that  s e v e r a l thoughts  Coders  prior  a l . ( 1984)  i s to ensure  a  floor  element  elementizing of  coding  interaction.  speeches  a  each et  SASB  i n this  audio  the u n i t i z a t i o n  representing  thought.  reviewed  of separated  elements,  that  that are not p o s s i b l e i n " r e a l  to the coders  A l l SASB  fact  group  after  or  and being the  treatment).  73 The  following  1)  First,  in  order  coders  and then  to  be  on  the tape.  2)  sure  i s  which  track  by  the preceding  THE D E F I N I T I O N  Benjamin  be  chosen  essential  the tape  units  OF AN  et  task  plus  by  or  a)  falls  of voice  decide  first  by  who i s  coder);  d) d e c i d e e)  of  of the  affiliation  t o ; and  a r e t o be t a k e n  interaction  t h e FOCUS  into;  the communication as tone  again  the transcribing  minus  belongs  decide  c) and  which which  represents.  and t h e c o n t e x t  into  known  account.  EPISODE  suggest  nature  of i n t e r a c t i o n  facing  code t h e  the  i s :  during  made  a l . (1984)  relevant  they  i s recommended  the  such  analysed  (1979).  making  made  decision  for analysis. a  of  reflects  (a  and m i c r o s c o p i c  segment  choosing  cues  t o be  to the tape  what  the cluster  Contextual  brief  really  the communication  3)  consuming  listen  t o c o d i n g . ) ; b) d e c i d e  communication  within  they  of decision  QUADRANT,  interdependence, the  coding  (a d e c i s i o n  prior  practiced:  of the s e s s i o n , then  previewing  order  communication  CLUSTER  were  e t a l . (1984) and Gottman  t o whom  episode  decide  their  coding  t o the p o r t i o n o f tape  i f necessary  The  actual  speaking the  that  Benjamin  The  listen  to get the " f e e l "  transcript  both  g u i d e l i n e s f o r SASB  o f SASB  (i.e., They  segment the users  that,  or  due  to  coding,  a  approximately note  episode  o f SASB.  that  time  relatively  20 m i n u t e s  the  is a  the  process  difficult  ) of  but  74  This episodes  present  study  of  each  experimental  group  episode  from  each  the  the  of 2nd  1)  The  of  of  the  7th  couples  the  first  the  (one  session).  choosing  interactional  20  minutes  of  nature  The  episode  be  will  2)  The  episode  by  the  therapist,  one  are  in  the  and  one  episode  control  immediately  needs  be  of  for following  core  relevant  session  relevant  the  portion  or  therapeutic  group  of  (from  applied  in  the  bypassed  due  to  a  therapy  this  period.  proceeded  she  by  a  is pursuing i n regards  issues.  (This  intervention  of  session.  to  statement  one  or  the  both  couple's  intervention  Emotionally  is  a  Focused  Therapy.)  The  beginning  presence  of  a  of  MARKER  performance  interacting negative 4)  this  feelings or  2nd  session will  or  central  a  be  the  guidelines  he  interaction  is  of  two  participating  in  whereby  negative  3)  and  of  episodes:  the  searched  will  primary  from  following  introductory  Couples  episode  participating  The  choosing  couples  session),  the  partners'  i n v o l v e s the  Each  in  each (Rice  interventions  and  pattern  a  negative  complimentary episode  episode  will  among  the  will  be  Greenberg, during  determined 1984).  which  interactional  the  reciprocal  contain  interspersion  couple's  interaction.  the  marker  couple  pattern  or n e g a t i v e an  The  by  (either  is a  sequence). of  therapist  75  The were 1)  following  dealt with I f  a  problems  as d e s c r i b e d  marker  following during  potential  the  was  20  not  minute  t h e 20 m i n u t e  i n defining  an  episode  below: present  in  the  introduction,  introduction  the  section  of  tape  section  of  tape  was r e v i e w e d  fora  beginning  MARKER. 2)  I f a negative  present  in  negative sequence 3)  the  couple's  controlling  the  was  more  couple's  4)  were  marked  The manner. the  finished episode marker  of  each  prior  were  consisted  t h e 20 of that  or  of  replaced  a  the  i n the session,  strongest  negative  of the episode.  of equal  the longest  level  of  negative  hostility,  interactional  of the episode.  episode  was  20 m i n u t e s  of the marker. to  was n o t  occurrence  spouse  present  the beginning  contains  A l l episodes  beginning  hostile,  the beginning  length  one  one m a r k e r  s e v e r a l markers  t h e one w h i c h  pattern  by  the  sequence  f e a t u r e o f t h e MARKER.  most  p a t t e r n marked  then  interaction,  than  performance I f there  or reciprocal  behavior  as t h e n e c e s s a r y  I f there  then  complimentary  determined  i n length, starting  I n t h e event  minute  point  from  that  same from  the session  the marker,  portion of the session  and t h e end o f t h e s e s s i o n .  i n the  the  between t h e  76 PROCEDURES FOR  DETERMINING  INTERRATER  The  following  procedures  adequate  interrater  reliability:  1) C o h e n ' s scales,  (1960)  was  used  Kappa,  a  were  implemented  coeffient  to determine  2) As n e c e s s a r y  RELIABILITY  to  of agreement  interrater  f o r t h e use o f Cohen's  ensure  f o r nominal  reliability. Kappa,  the judges  coded  Independently. 3)  The  interrater  agreement  between  method.  Initially,  coders  and  of  on the  This  69%, coder  B overlapped 17%  of  coder  C.  was  B coded on  B,  was  trial  excluded  coders  (1960) on  coded  checks from  by  level  coders  B  and  Kappa  was  C  a l l three interrater  the reported  C coded  28%.  overlapped to  verses  coder  41% of the data  was  C,  and  A  Coders  A  on  10% o f  determine  coder  tested  coder  overlapped  a l l overlapping material;  A  results  data,  A and C  used  of  following  in  the remaining  4 5 % , and c o d e r  and  coder  In t o t a l ,  data  Of  the  according to the  14% o f t h e d a t a ;  reliability coder  the  reliability.  Cohen's  interrater  of  determined  coders  for  data  the data;  data.  A verses  12% used  the i n t e r r a t e r  coded and  the three  was  reliability.  reliability  for  the  f o r coder B  verses  interrater  reliability.  4) r e t r a i n i n g to  maintain  tendency  s e s s i o n s i n SASB the  level  of the coders  of to  coding  techniques  reliability  "drift".  and  to  were  provided  counter  any  77 STATISTICS  As this  FOR  can  THE  be  study,  ANALYSIS  seen  from  i t was  sequences  rather  sequences  which  differences  correlated  means  the  of  proportions  experimental  group.  The  used  compare  2nd  to and  i t  difference the  2nd  that be  sessions  equivalent  significant  groups  and  and  used  2nd  2nd  the  then  be  means the  sessions  of  experimental  i t  assumed  sessions  or  regards  be  the  test  be  t h e 2nd  of  the  methods  of  t  t  test  for  test  for  for correlated sessions  of the  experimental  of p r o p o r t i o n s control  is the  group  group  no  of  were  to  the  significant  control i t can  sessions  the experimental to  the  the  t h e 2nd  appropriate  t h e 2nd  to  sessions  I f the groups  will  of  behaviors  group.  there  d i f f e r e n c e between  t h e 2nd  t  that  are equivalent.  of  the  The  of the experimental  the  of  and  of  or  were  to compare  sessions  behaviors  therapy  study  of  of  in  to the 7th sessions  the 7th sessions  significant group  were  d i f f e r e n c e between  cannot  this  proportions.  determined  between  the groups  group  the  is  in  for uncorrelated  7th sessions  If  7th  proportions  group  t test  here  Accordingly,  used  of  the hypotheses  number  interest and  of  proportion  absolute  2nd  of  means  DIFFERENCES  examination  couples.  analysis  means  of the  statistical  uncorrelated  INTERACTION  relative the  was  between  participating  an  the  than  OF  of the experimental  be  to  and  assumed  a r e assumed test  to for  of the c o n t r o l group.  equivalent, sessions  group  due  I f the to  a  of the c o n t r o l group,  then i t  78  will  only  between sessions  be  possible  2nd  sessions  of  the  experimental  that  the  experience, and  that  the  variable  the  population  examination  data  the  in this  from  performed  use  of  difference  group  and  the  7th  theory  and  group.  are  t  which  based  on  test  from  both  of  significance  of  population It will  (Ferguson,  to  involves  this  is  from  1981).  necessary  transformed  The  are  drawn. variables  i n d i c a t e s an  which  degrees  using  the to  transform Arc t  in An may  abnormal  samples  the  subsequent  data.  assumption  distributed  study's  which  be  the  is normally samples  normality  occurs,  the  test  the  distribution  the  using  the  examination  proportions  transformation be  significant  experimental  one-tailed  under  departure  If  a  from  of  distribution drawn.  the  for  desirable.  appropriate  a  of  test  hypotheses  The  reveal  to  the  Given clinical  appropriate  tests  are the Sine will  79  HYPOTHESES The  following  hypotheses  were  tested  by t h i s  study:  H Y P O T H E S I S 1: T h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f n e g a t i v e / d i s a f f i 1 i a t i v e behaviors i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l group and t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f the e x p e r i m e n t a l group. (SASB: q u a d r a n t 2 o r 3, e i t h e r focus) Related hypothesis: There w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f n e g a t i v e controlling behaviors i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p a n d t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p . ( S A S B : q u a d r a n t 3, o t h e r focused) H Y P O T H E S I S 2: There will be a greater proportion of autonomous positive/affi1iative behaviors i n the 7th sessions of the e x p e r i m e n t a l group t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 2 n d sessions of the c o n t r o l group and t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p . (SASB: q u a d r a n t 1 , either focus) Related hypotheses: a) There will be a g r e a t e r proportion of p o s i t i v e otherfocused behaviors i n the 7th sessions of the experimental group t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 2 n d sessions of the c o n t r o l group and t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group. ( S A S B : q u a d r a n t 1, o t h e r focused) b ) T h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e s e l f - f o c u s e d behaviors i n the 7 t h s e s s i o n s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l group than there w i l l be i n t h e 2 n d s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l group and the e x p e r i m e n t a l group. ( S A S B : q u a d r a n t 1, s e l f focused) c ) T h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e c o n t r o l l i n g behaviors i n the 7 t h s e s s i o n s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l group than there w i l l be i n t h e 2 n d s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l group and the e x p e r i m e n t a l group. ( S A S B : q u a d r a n t 4, o t h e r focused) H Y P O T H E S I S 3: There will be a g r e a t e r proportion of n e g a t i v e / e s c a l a t o r y sequences i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p and t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f the experimental group. (SASB: two c o n s e c u t i v e interactions f r o m q u a d r a n t 2 o r 3, e i t h e r focus) Related hypotheses: a) there will be a greater proportion of negative complimentary sequences i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p a n d t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h sessions of the experimental group. ( S A S B : two c o n s e c u t i v e  80 i n t e r a c t i o n s f r o m t h e same different focuses)  quadrant,  either  2  or  3,  but  with  b) T h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f n e g a t i v e reciprocal sequences i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p a n d t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f the e x p e r i m e n t a l group. (SASB: two c o n s e c u t i v e interactions f r o m t h e same q u a d r a n t , e i t h e r 2 o r 3, w i t h t h e same f o c u s ) H Y P O T H E S I S 4: T h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e s e q u e n c e s in the 7 t h s e s s i o n s of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l group and t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group. (SASB: two consecutive interactions from either q u a d r a n t 1 o r 4, e i t h e r focus) Related hypothesis: There w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e complimentary sequences i n the 7th sessions of the experimental group t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 2 n d sessions of the control group and the experimental group. (SASB: two consecutive i n t e r a c t i o n s f r o m t h e same q u a d r a n t , e i t h e r 1 o r 4, b u t w i t h different focus)  81 CHAPTER  The  following  collection test  the  results  and  chapter the  hypotheses of  the  detailed. scores  of  tests put  INTERRATER  of  in  e x a m i n a t i o n of of  the  interrater  reliability:  Cohen's  (1960)  was  used  is a  2 ) As  which  previous  of  were  used  chapter.  reliability  distribution  data  of  The  are  the  to  also  original  RELIABILITY  adequate  removes  results  clarified.  procedures  kappa  the  interrater  following  scales,  the  significance  The  1)  RESULTS  details  forth  Implications  i s also  4:  Kappa, to  implemented  coeffient  determine  stringent  the e f f e c t  a  were  measure  n e c e s s a r y f o r the use  interrater of  of agreement  of  agreement  ensure  f o r nominal  reliability.  interrater  by  to  (Cohen's  reliability  which  chance.)  of Cohen's  Kappa,  the  judges  coded  independently. 3) and  Initially, was  Coders  used were  checks. of  the  This  12% for  all  three  was  .57,  the  to  d a t a has  between  a  been  was  coded  by  a l l three  coders  checks  in  interrater  reliability.  kappa  of  .50  these  e x c l u d e d from  during the  reported  trial results  reliability.  Kappa  coders  data  trial  trained  interrater  The  of  was  (Cohen, .52;  coders  A  1960)  f o r the  ( t h e kappa and  C was  combined  between  .48,  and  ratings  coders between  A  of  and  B  coders  B  82  and  C  was  .48).  sources.  First,  .60  as  fair,  And  second,  the  range  reports Benjamin  makes The  .60 the  of  which  weighted  because  even  THE  the  SASB by  A S S U M P T I O N OF  the  t  noted test  in  the  is  which  samples  were of in  the  five  distribution from  the  of  revealed  who  to  1968)  of  .85.  in  her  i n that i t credit.  present  study  calculated  for  therefore  significant.  drawn.  a  normality  in  the  deduced  to  chapter,  the  in An  eleven five  variables  in  an the  population  the  (six variables frequencies  from  The  variables  abnormal  from  of  normality  relatively  variables.  of  under  population  examination  and  use  variable  the  departure  "interaction"  reflect  the  v a r i a b l e s were  variables,  "behavior"  appropriate  variables  systematic  "interaction"  these  was  .45  complexity,  distributed  behavior,  six  to  of  that  study's  the  regards  was  assumption  are  in  logically  level  side  partial the  to  (1984)  kappa  or for  low  from  original  .40  excellent.  a l .  (Cohen,  appropriate  previous  this  frequencies  interaction)  ranging  reliability  normally  of  et  two  of  as  the  to  NORMALITY  examination  distribution  on  Benjamin  kappa  category  .75  are  disagreement  quadrant  one  involves  the  by  Cohen's  not  interrater  over  study  weighted  was  and  studies  scaled  according  c h a r a c t e r i z e s kappa  this  separate  kappa  at  for  reported  for  acceptable  good,  contrasts with  disagreement  As  as  .75  Cohen's  the  agreement  to  kappas  provision  are  (1981)  for 3  used  kappas  Fleiss  kappas  kappas  studies  These  normal  departure could  be  distribution  in  from  which  the  83  samples the  a r e drawn.  "interaction"  using  used  t  the  tests  Tests behavior  from  on  data. used  proportions  (Ferguson,  transform  t o degrees  1981).  the " i n t e r a c t i o n "  The  data  to  t  tests  i n the form  The  variables  performed  on t h e  of proportions.  SIGNIFICANCE  of and  significance five  corresponding  types  t o one  study.  proceeded  data  performed  variables  T E S T S OF  i t was n e c e s s a r y  transformation  transformed  "behavior"  this  variables'  the Arc Sine  subsequent  THE  Therefore,  of  of  As d i c t a t e d  were  performed  interaction,  the eleven  with  s i x types each  hypotheses  by t h e p r e v i o u s  i n the following  on  chapter,  of  category  put f o r t h  by  the analysis  manner.  COMPARISON OF THE 2ND S E S S I O N S OF THE CONTROL GROUP TO THE 2ND S E S S I O N S OF THE E X P E R I M E N T A L GROUP The group  scores  were  control tailed  compared  group test).  2nd  sessions  the  control  forward that at  by  from  2nd  to the scores test  from  of  the  experimental  t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s  of the  the t  f o r uncorrelated  means ( t w o -  There  was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  between t h e  of the experimental group this  the pretest  sessions  using  i n regards study.  the treatment  negative  the  group  Therefore  other-focused  behaviors,  positive  i t i s possible  and t h e c o n t r o l  behaviors,  positive  and t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f  t o a n y o f t h e 11 h y p o t h e s e s p u t  i n the following  controlling  group  controlling  assume  were  equivilant  variables:  negative  behaviors,  autonomous  positive  behaviors,  behaivors,  group  to  positive  behaviors,  negative  self-focused sequences,  84  negative  complimentary  sequences,  positive  sequences.  Means,  pretest  summarized  are  sequences,  sequences,  standard  negative  and  positive  deviations,  in table  I and  and  reciprocal complimentary  t values  table I I .  from  the  T A B L E I : t T E S T P R E T E S T MEANS, STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S , AND t V A L U E S FOR E X P E R I M E N T A L AND CONTROL GROUPS' B E H A V I O R , ( t w o - t a i l e d , a l p h a = .05)  BEHAVIOR NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.44 0.34  0.23 0.15  1.24  ".20  NEGATIVE CONTROLLING BEHAVIORS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.22 0.20  0.14 0.09  0.44  ".20  AUTONOMOUS P O S I T I V E BEHAVIORS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.41 0.59  0.19 0.22  1.19  ".20  P O S I T I V E BEHAVIORS FOCUSED ON OTHERS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.03 0.03  0.03 0.02  0.22  ".20  P O S I T I V E BEHAVIORS FOCUSED ON S E L F C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.38 0.47  0.17 0.14  1.35  ".10  P O S I T I V E CONTROLLING BEHAVIORS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.10 0.10  0.06 0.06  0.16  ".20  Where  X S t P  = = = =  Mean Standard deviation t value observed Level of significance  T A B L E I I : t T E S T P R E T E S T MEANS, STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S , AND t V A L U E S FOR E X P E R I M E N T A L AND CONTROL GROUPS' I N T E R A C T I O N ( t w o - t a i l e d , a l p h a = .05) SEQUENCE N E G A T I V E SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  33.3 24.3  16.0 14.3  1.39  ".10  NEGATIVE COMPLIMENTARY SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  12.0 10.8  9.2 11.2  0.28  ".20  NEGATIVE RECIPROCAL SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  15.3 10.8  7.9 9.7  1.20  ".20  P O S I T I V E SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  36.0 41.4  16.8 12.6  0.85  ".20  P O S I T I V E COMPLIMENTARY SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  15.9 13.3  12.1 9.8  0.56  ".20  Where  X S t P  = = = =  Mean Standard deviation t value observed Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e  87  COMPARISON OF THE 2ND S E S S I O N S OF THE CONTROL GROUP TO THE 7TH S E S S I O N S OF THE E X P E R I M E N T A L GROUP  As  demonstrated  difference the  2nd  between  control was  of  justified.  uncorrelated analysis in  in  group  that  expected =  .05),  7th  sessions  direction  1.88 p c  .05),  positive  positive sequences  ( t = 2.15 p c  and p o s i t i v e  The from  were  the t  This  of the  t h e 2nd  group  test f o r  statistical  significant  difference  sessions  of the  of the experimental  put forward  t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s positive  i n this  .05),  sequences  7th sessions  (t =  negative reciprocal  behaviors (t =  1.88  group  study  ,  on n e g a t i v e  not  pc  i n the behaviors  ( t = 2.03 pc 1.77  pc . 0 5 ) ,  .05), negative  complimentary sequences  ( t = 2.26 p c  were  different  on n e g a t i v e  behaviors  behaviors  negative  t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s  using  significantly  autonomous  self-focused  sessions  the  hypotheses.  other-focused  = 2.85 p c . 0 5 ) ,  .05),  from  group and  of the experimental  between  hypotheses  i n 4 of the 7 related  t h e 2nd  was a  and t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s  significant  Therefore,  test).  there  direction  no  group.  was made  (one-tailed  demonstrated  The  (t  means  a l l of the 4 major  and  (t  The c o m p a r i s o n  the expected  control  between  and t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s  was  of the control  of the experimental  differences  group  there  t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s  sessions  comparison  above,  sequences  ( t = 1.91 p c  .05).  significantly  controlling  different  behaviors  (t =  88  1.69  pc.05),  and  positive  Means, posttest  are  positive c o n t r o l l i n g behaviors complimentary  standard summarized  sequences  deviations, in table  (t =  and  I I I and  (t =  .93  t  1.17  pc  IV.  .05),  .05)  values  table  pc  from  the  89 T A B L E I I I : t T E S T P O S T T E S T MEANS, STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S , AND t V A L U E S FOR E X P E R I M E N T A L AND CONTROL GROUPS' B E H A V I O R ( t w o - t a i l e d , a l p h a = .05)  BEHAVIOR NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.44 0.25  0 .22 0.25  1 .88  .05  NEGATIVE CONTROLLING BEHAVIORS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.22 0.12  0.14 0.13  1. 69  .10  AUTONOMOUS P O S I T I V E BEHAVIORS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.41 0.59  0.19 0.22  2.03  ".05  P O S I T I V E BEHAVIORS FOCUSED ON OTHER Control Group E x p e r i m e n t a l Group  0.03 0.07  0.03 0.07  1 .77  .05  P O S I T I V E BEHAVIORS FOCUSED ON S E L F C o n t r o l Group E x p e r i m e n t a l Group  0.38 0.51  0.17 0.17  1 .88  .05  P O S I T I V E CONTROLLING BEHAVIORS C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  0.10 0.14  0.06 0.08  1.17  . 10  Where  X S t P  = = = =  Mean Standard deviation t value observed Level of significance  90 T A B L E I V : t T E S T P O S T T E S T MEANS, STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S , AND t V A L U E S FOR E X P E R I M E N T A L AND CONTROL GROUPS' I N T E R A C T I O N ( t w o - t a i l e d , a l p h a = .05)  SEQUENCE N E G A T I V E SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  33.3 16.1  16.0 21.0  2.15  ".025  NEGATIVE COMPLIMENTARY SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  12.0 2.9  9.2 5.3  2.85  ".005  NEGATIVE RECIPROCAL SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  15.3 6.6  7.9 12.9  1.91  ".05  P O S I T I V E SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  36.0 54.8  16.8 21.9  2.26  ".025  P O S I T I V E COMPLIMENTARY SEQUENCES C o n t r o l Group: E x p e r i m e n t a l Group:  15.9 21.6  12.1 16.4  0.93  ".10  Where  X S t P  = = = =  Mean Standard deviation t value observed Level of significance  91  CHAPTER  The study  following  chapters  of  the findings  This the  1 and  has  theory  demonstrated (Johnson  This  be  study  are also  skill  Greenberg,  Couples  Greenberg's  to  that  only  serves  ( i n press)  empirical  investigating  changes  an  debate  regarding  psychotherapy.  been  in  a  recent  and  as  and  f o r the  has  of  attempted  Emotionally  interaction  1984).  Johnson to  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  i n in-therapy  was  "affective  Johnson,  elaboration  on  study  support  non-behavioral known  based  empirically  empirical  Greenberg  research  support  have  therapy  as  described  the therapies  press)  (EFCT,  as  this  generalizability  marital  However,  couples  of  discussed.  development  in  Therapy  study  to the  "non-behavioral" claim  findings  the continued  effective.  approach  present  further  related  f o r the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a  systemic" Focused  to  and  provided  and  the  of the study  Issues  addressed  et a l . (1984)  behavioral  as  and  provide EFCT  by  a function  therapy.  This using  a  study  measure  interaction and  2.  of this  study  discusses  of the purpose  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  Hahlweg  of  chapter  i n the context  in  5: D I S C U S S I O N  based  (i.e.,  Greenberg  investigated  SASB  on by  ( i n press)  the  the  direct  Benjamin studied  effectiveness  observation  of  e t . a l . , 1984). the  of  EFCT  couples' Johnson  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  EFCT  92  through goal  the  use  attainment,  target  of  changes  this  i t had  participated  this  bringing  course  Specifically,  experience couples  its  question  especially  value  lies  If  i t  investigation stages couples  of  there  were  employed  (Greenberg  can  determined  in a  i s basis  specific  in  sequences  and  a  that  manner  description  of  purpose  o f EFCT i n  in  change  the manner  i n the l a t t e r  A  that  of  therapy. Is  the  value  model in a  step  of  of  claim  couple's  i n press).  couples in  under  the  early  these  nondistressed  the d i f f e r e n c e  the  experience?  therapy  the therapy  crucial  during  was:  this  and J o h n s o n ,  typical  of  the i n t e r a c t i o n  of  that  who  i n the  interaction  determining  distressed  to conclude  are e f f e c t i v e .  changes  of the t h e r a p e u t i c  to affect  in  couples  of the t h e r a p e u t i c  than  in i t sability  therapy,  then  stages  developers  be  the  examination  the  behave  behave  that  relationship.  experience  positive  question  because  significant  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  i n the l a t t e r  important  the  the m a r i t a l  actual  stages  demonstrated about  i n couples'  of and  I n t e r a c t e d . The  under  more  measures levels,  significant  or  changes  i n the beginning an  bringing  made  as  intimacy  demonstrated  couples'  of couples  interactional  the  these  such  which  about  to examine  significantly  was  EFCT,  was  the  in  behaved  positive  of  interaction  be  study  they  study  about  model  to  this  i n which  a l l of  and b e l i e f  yet  in  present  This  therapy  methods  adjustment,  reduction;  in attitude  However,  manner  self-report  marital  complaint  power  the  of  couples,  methods  i n this between  same  study  which was  distressed  93  and  nondistressed  yielded  couples'  the hypotheses  pre-therapy  and  behavior,  for  of the expected  post-therapy  this  description  difference  behavior  of  the  between  couples  the  under  inves tiga tion.  A listing useful  structure  provided this  of the hypotheses  by  of this  study  will  f o r the d i s c u s s i o n of results  previous  findings  as  related  to  provide  i n the the  a  context  purpose  of  study.  HYPOTHESIS  1:  T h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f n e g a t I v e / d i s a f f i 1 i a t i v e b e h a v i o r s i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p . /  This  major  literature. couples positive Gottman  et  their  daily  and  more  (1979),  would  (1983),  an  hypothesis  disaffi1iative  therapy  than  will  than i t  the  could  result  be  be  in a  as  do  a l l report  expected similar  of  i n the  distressed  significantly  findings  states  which  that  more  contrast  and  add t o  distressed negative  nondistressed that  less  couples.  et a l . (1984),  significantly  behavior  that  nondistressed  Revenstorf  which  support  report  interaction  (1983)  of  substantial  a l . (1982)  Burks  behavior  Accordingly,  has  negative  Margolin  and  validity  couples'  Jacobson  report  Gray-Little the  hypothesis  or  couples.  effective  couples  between  couples'  94  behavior during  during  the beginning  the l a s t  The  stages  findings  behavior  of  of  more  behavior  couples  of in  present  during  the  negative  and  during  regards  to  study 2nd  the  the  general  by t h e f r e q u e n c y  is  to conclude  that  positive  HYPOTHESIS  EFCT  session  7th  as r e v e a l e d  and  behavior  reveal  does  of negative  indeed  result  the  EFCT than  session flavor  that  of  disaffillative  behavior valid  and c o u p l e s '  therapy.  the  couples  significantly  Therefore,  of  of therapy  of of  i s the  EFCT.  couples'  behavior, i t in desirable  changes.  IA:  There w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f n e g a t i v e controlling behaviors i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p .  Negative involving adverse  the c o n t r o l  stimuli  control reliance (Deutsch, blame  over upon  behavior  of behavior  (Gray-Little the  other  the t a c t i c s  1969),  and  or disparagement  Several with  controlling  an  nondistressed  couples  through  and B u r k s ,  without of  to  et a l ,  have  described  the manipulation  as of  the e x e r t i o n of  (Vincent,  1981),  a  coercion,  and  deception  influence  the  other  by  1980).  contrasted  i n regards  been  1983),  consent  threat,  attempt  (Koren  investigators  has  distressed  to their  use of  couples negative  95  controlling the  behaviors.  literature  dealing  marital  satisfaction.  adverse  control  distressed  than  Markman  They  the  Burks  of  power  that  i s a powerful couples,  significantly  more  couples.  (1979)  and  use  conclude  nondistressed  nondistressed  and  with  techniques  and  demonstrating  Gray-Little  distressed  adverse  control  (1983),  review  related  the couple's  with  with  as  discriminator  Margolin  a l l concur  (1983)  to  use of between couples  techniques  Koren  Gray-Little  and  of  of  (1980), Burks'  conclus ion.  These  findings  on  control  techniques  support  the hypothesis  impact it  a  couple's  i s possible  demonstrate 7th  the  relevance  i n determining that  an  interaction  to  significantly  more  use  the h e a l t h of a  effective i n this  hypothesize  the  that  2nd  adverse  relationship  couples  regard.  therapy  will  Specifically,  session  control  adverse  couples  will  techniques  than  session couples.  The  findings  difference  of this  regarding  the  present  study  occurrence  of  reveal  no  adverse  significant controlling  behaviors  i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n as c o n t r a s t e d t o t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n  of  This  EFCT.  Hypothesis of  1,  negative  which  does  lack  which  of s i g n i f i c a n c e explores  behavior  reveal  (not  contrasts the findings  the occurrence just  a significant  of a l l categories  controlling  difference.  of  behaviors)  and  96  Two  comments  may  assist  in  the  interpretation  of  this  find ing.  First, The  The  t value  required  Approximate  at  significance.  at a  less  .05  level  indicate  than  (Precise  for this  or  of  that  equal  calculations  variable  was  significance a  t  to  a  would  value  i s 1.72.  of  .054  yeild  a  1.69.  1.69  is  level  of  lower  level  significance.)  Second, the of  observed  calculations  significant  of  t value  2nd  a  t  session  test  for correlated  of the experimental  the experimental  difference  (t  significantly session  than  Given as that  the  1.  more  96  did  pc  .05)  negative  the contradictory solid  controlling  group  performed  and  the 7th  demonstrate with  a  couples  controlling  i n the 7th session  effective  specific  =  group  means  demonstrating  behaviors  i n t h e 2nd  .  nature  this  literature  finding,  therapy  will  significantly  diminish  further  exploration  i n regards  would  the  of  in  hypothesis  session  significant  support  behaviors,  between  be w a r r a n t e d  and  f o r the  valuable.  as  well  likelihood negative to  this  97 HYPOTHESIS  2:  There will be positive/affi1iatIve e x p e r i m e n t a l group the c o n t r o l group.  This  major  frequency couples in  of  greater proportion of autonomous behaviors In the 7th sessions of the t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 2 n d sessions of  hypothesis  autonomous  i n the l a t t e r  the beginning  defines  which  disclosures,  or  encouragement,  Numerous Revenstorf  of therapy  of  characterized  expressions  as  well  behaviors  when  to  Benjamin  a l . (1984)  as  et  behaviors  by  (Gottman,  e t a l . , 1984; Gottman,  the  behavior  i n the  friendly friendly  couples  as  those  assertions, affirmations,  support.  investigators  for  differences  a r e compared  therapy.  e t a l . , 1984; G r a y - L i t t l e  support  the  positIve/affi1iative  are  or  examines  positive/affillative  stage  stages  autonomous  behaviors  Hahweg  a  hypothesis  has  1979;  Markman  positIve/affi1iative  behaviors  1983)  have  non-distressed  significantly  more  than  1983;  and N o t a r i u s , 1977;  and B u r k s , that  Margolin,  found  couples' autonomous  distressed  couples'  behavior.  This elicit  finding therapy.  supports  significantly  behaviors compared  study  from to  again  more  couples  couples  the a s s e r t i o n  in  suggests  in  that  autonomous the  the that  latter  early EFCT  i s able  to  positive/affi1iative stages  stage is  EFCT  an  of  of  therapy  therapy.  effective  as This  couples  98  HYPOTHESIS  2A:  There w i l l behaviors there w i l l  be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e other-focused i n the 7 t h s e s s i o n s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l group than be I n t h e 2 n d sessions of the c o n t r o l group.  This  hypothesis  autonomous 2,  namely  that  Gray-Little  report  findings  distressed  couples  that  supportive  of  of  conclusion and  therapy. that  positive  EFCT  change  the  couples  i n the couples'  that was  Once  i n couples'  Schaap  is  (1984) a l l that  non-  interaction  reasonable will  behavior  couples'  is effective  Gottman  to  increase  interaction.  significantly  again  the other.  therapy  couples'  than  empathic  i n their i t  in  and  hypothesis  Therefore  effective  empathic  and  of the  examined  affirming,  supportive  couples.  therapy and  more  category  behavior  (1983),  support  found  specific  d i s p l a y s towards Burks  are  an  study  affirming, session  and  behavior  This session  a  supportive,  which  distressed  suggest  the  one s p o u s e  (1979),  than  i n on  positive/affi1iative  hypothesis behaviors  narrows  this  more  behavior study  in  7th  supportive, in  the  supports  i n b r i n g i n g about  behavior.  the  2nd the  desirable  99 HYPOTHESIS  2B:  There w i l l behaviors there w i l l  be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e s e l f - f o c u s e d i n the 7 t h s e s s i o n s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l group than be i n t h e 2 n d sessions of the c o n t r o l group.  This of  the  hypothesis  autonomous  hypothesis  2,  expressions  that  n,  Balswick  between  the  Halverson  Waring  spouses  assertions,  a  disclosures,  session  behavior  support  is  found  demonstrated  to  linear  find  is  a  relationship and  by  marital the  major  that  and  Davidso  that  experienced  in  factor the  a  level in  couple.  successful  self-disclosure  between  degree.  significant or  2nd  for  a  to hypothesize  to a s i g n i f i c a n t  examined  the other.  (1983)  increase  category  disclosures,  relationship  intimacy  will  found  note  relationship  of  effort  study  HYPOTHESIS  in a  a  Chelune  i t i s reasonable  therapy  This  in  distinct  behavior  towards  (1983)  and  the degree  Therefore,  another  assertion,  one s p o u s e makes  self-disclosure  couples  positive  self-disclosure  determining  i n on  positive/affi1iative  namely  and  satisfaction. of  narrows  the  increase  expressions  session  behaviors.  conclusion  t o be a n e f f e c t i v e  in  that  mode o f c o u p l e s  in  positive  comparing Once EFCT  has  7th  again, been  therapy.  2C:  There w i l l be a g r e a t e r proportion of p o s i t i v e controlling behaviors i n the 7 t h s e s s i o n s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l group than t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 2nd sessions of the c o n t r o l group.  100  As  with  relationship of  the  hypothesis between  controlling  early  as  positive therapy  i t  near  Positive involving  control  compliance  the  differences, (Deutsch,  with  that  of  1981),  tactics  the  the  couple  nature in  experiences.  there  will  near  be  the  has  been  more  end  of  described  reinforcement  the and  and  the  therapy.  Burks,  with  by  demonstrated  positive and  therapy  therapy  behavior  enhancing  1983), other's  a of  to  the  upon  a  control of  voluntary  strategy  conciliation, understanding  as  exertion  informed,  reliance  mutual  investigators distressed  controlling  marital  control  behaviors. dealing with  control  They  couples  and  contrasted  of  minimizing and  goodwill  to  their  Gray-Little  and  Burks  the use  is  a  o f power  that  than  the  powerful  nondistressed  demonstrating  techniques  nondistressed  i n regards  conclude  techniques  distressed  nondistressed  have  couples  satisfaction.  positive  positive  of  other  the l i t e r a t u r e  between  behaviors  explores  1969).  couples  of  hypothesized  the  and  Several  to  use  and  latter  the beginning  (Vincent,  persuasion  review  is  (Gray-Little over  hypothesis  demonstrated  to  controlling  the  behavior  positive  behaviors  controlling than  this  s u c c e s s f u l couples  compared  Specifically,  IA,  as  use  of  (1983) related  couple's  use  discriminator  couples,  with  significantly  more  distressed  couples.  Margolin  101  (1983), Little  Koren  and B u r k s '  These control the  (1980),  on  i n determining  couple's  to  demonstrate  the relevance the h e a l t h  t h a t an e f f e c t i v e  interaction  possible  (1979)  a l l concur  with  Gray-  conclusion.  findings  hypothesis  than  and Markman  in  this  of  of  a  couples  that  significantly  more  of  positive  relationship therapy  regard.  hypothesize  the use  support  will  Impact  Specifically,  7th  session  positive  i t is  couples  control  a  will  techniques  2nd s e s s i o n c o u p l e s .  The  findings  difference  of this  regarding  the  present  study  occurrence  of  reveal  no  significant  positive  controlling  behaviors  i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n as c o n t r a s t e d t o t h e 2nd s e s s i o n  of  Therefore  an e x a m i n a t i o n  evidence  in  EFCT.  yields  no  effectively control  impacts  the behavior  HYPOTHESIS  support  the  of  manner  o f one's  of this the  in  present  assertion  which  one  hypothesis that  attempts  EFCT to  spouse.  3:  There will be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of n e g a t i v e / e s c a l a t o r y sequences i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l group than t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p .  This not  the  suggested  major  hypothesis  frequency that  of  examines  individual  communication  sequential  behaviors,  sequences  cannot  interaction, It  has  been  be u n d e r s t o o d i f  102 behavior  is  viewed  as  "anonymous  distribution"  (Watzlawick,  the  interrelationships  order  and  significance  of  interaction  sequence  of  must  and  Wampold  studies  of  family  frequencies  or  researchers  have  agrees  Gottman's  other  with of  i s ,  but  which  reveal  Therefore  examine  rates  both  a  the  behavior  (1979) of  itself,  claim  one  frequency  rather the  i t is  meaning  or  thorough  study  of  frequency  and  the  "permits  which  partner's  response  one  emitted  by  the  other  an  in  patterns  of  is  the  only  a  only  handful  of  the  of  the  interested  in  presence is  interaction. for of  affected  such  the  by  of  (1983)  examination  tool  person."  majority  Margolin  exploration is  vast  reported  the  one  sequential analysis analysis  that  i f  claims  Sequential  have  that  inadequate  relationship  the  analysis.  spouse  the  that  that  and  sequential  behavior  by  note  interaction  of  used  (1981)  identifying  events  120)  a  behaviors.  Margolin  frequency  in  page  communication.  couples*  of  1967,  units  task.  extent  the  (Margolin,  a  She  to  preceding 1983,  page  109) .  Several analysis will  of  be  reciprocity effective  authors couples'  more or therapy  report  findings  interaction.  negative  sequences  complimentarity) than  in  The  the  in  latter  on  the  hypothesis (without the stages  sequential that  there  attention  early of  stages therapy  to of has  103  been  supported  by  non-distressed  couples  Gottman (1977) they  (1979,  discover  label  several  1982) and  significantly  of  Hahlweg  a l . (1984),  Gottman's  during is  distressed  study's  more  verses  and  Markman,  negative  and  Notarius  sequences  "counter-proposals"  couples.  Revenstorf  Jacobson  interaction.  sequential analysis  demonstrates  significantly  provided  distressed  et  et  which i n the  a l . (1984),  a l . (1982)  support  findings.  therapy  bringing  Gottman,  " c r o s s - c o m p l a i n i n g " and  et  of  interaction.  interaction  This  examinations  more  Therefore  about by t h i s  a  the  negative support  positive study.  that  interaction  2nd  interaction  session  than  for  change  of couples'  EFCT's  the  7th  session  effectiveness  i n couples'  interaction  in is  104 HYPOTHESIS  3A  T h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f n e g a t i v e complimentary sequences i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s of the c o n t r o l group than t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group.  This  hypothesis  interaction Hypothesis  which 3.  (1967)  important  can  by  a  discuss to  emphasize  each  (page  describes  interaction combined and  a  and  avoiding". pattern  or  with  i n nature. such  assert  EFCT p r o m o t e s  Greenberg the  and  effectiveness  and as  interaction  et  " i t of  evoke  et  interaction  is  the  behaviors  (Benjamin  a l . , as  an  behaviors  or " a t t a c k i n g  withdrawing", "walling  or  off  and  as t h e B l a m e - d e f e n d  (Wile,  as w e l l  change  saying,  behaviors,  pattern  which i s  Watzlawick  blaming"  such  Greenberg  1981) a r e  Johnson those  (in  press)  described  cycles"  i n the observable  also  and presence  in they of  interaction.  Johnson's o f EFCT  and  patterns  "negative  i n couples'  SASB  with  as t h i s ,  3B,  patterns  as  fitted  combined  negative  Hypothesis  these  but  of  encompassing  nature  " p r o t e s t i n g and  the Pursue-withdraw  to patterns  that  interlocking  complimentary  neglecting"  Global  conplimentary refer  interaction  "belittling  combined  t h e more  type  i s a sequence  Benjamin's  negative  specific  difference.  " s u l k i n g and a p p e a s i n g "  rejecting"  "ignoring  of  dissimilar  involving  with  sequence  the  69)  more  within  complimentary  i n which  other."  a  found  maximizing  relationship,  1984)  be  A complimentary  characterized al.  explores  ( i n press)  in significantly  assertion  regarding  reducing  "negative  105  interaction negative more  cycles"  i s supported  complimentary  negative  interaction interaction. effective  sequences.  complimentary than  were  finding  mode o f c o u p l e s  HYPOTHESIS  this  study's  There  were  sequences  there  This  by  analysis  significantly  i n couples'  In  couples'  suggests  that  of  2nd  session  7th  EFCT  is  session indeed  an  therapy.  3B:  There w i l l be a g r e a t e r proportion of negative reciprocal sequences i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p t h a n t h e r e w i l l be i n t h e 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p .  This  hypothesis  interaction. mirroring  of  "symmetrical"  and  been  referred  et  a l . , 1967).  interaction  (e.g.,  autonomy  (e.g.,  Many Gottman et  sequences  or mutual  accusation  (Blame-blame  et  According would  (e.g.,  belittling  autonomy  (Watzlawick reciprocal  sequences  compliance  have  walling  to  sulking and  two  and  et  as Wile  involving or a t t a c k -  a l . ,  consecutive  or  the  to  as  appeasing),  blaming),  negative acts  or  of  hostile  invoking  hostile  n e g l e c t i n g ) , or assuming  hostile  o f f and a v o i d i n g ) .  (Raush  a l . , 1977; M a r g o l i n Jacobson  Benjamin  involve  i g n o r i n g and  Investigators  a l . , 1984;  involve  negative  patterns).  (e.g.,  negative  behavior  withdrawal  power  of  sequences  mutual  hostile  category  reciprocal  describes  reciprocal  another  Negative  (1981)  attack  explores  et  et  a l , 1974;  and  Wampold,  a l . , 1982.)  have  Gottman, 1981;  1979;  Revenstorf  concluded  that  106  distressed  couples'  reciprocity the  effects  (1984)  of  find  couples' the  than  that  tendency  This  following t o engage  revealed  a  significant  interaction  and  findings  support  changing  couples'  7th  negative  In regards  Revenstorf  therapy  eta l .  the  reciprocity  treated  changes i n  of  negative  difference  reciprocal between  interaction.  claim  sequences  2nd  session  Again,  to effectiveness i n  these  positively  interaction.  H Y P O T H E S I S 4: T h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e s e q u e n c e s the 7 t h s e s s i o n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group than there w i l l i n t h e 2nd s e s s i o n s of the c o n t r o l group  This  major  hypothesis  from  hypothesis  independent share  a theoretical  As the this  with  identify  "validation" sequences  and  support  interaction  3,  3,  sequence  although  these  positive  (1979,1982) sequences  "contracting". the conclusion  which  two  in be  is  hypotheses  foundation.  u n i t s of behavior,  Gottman  demonstrates  a  sequential analysis  of i n d i v i d u a l  exploration.  al.(1977)  explores  and l o g i s t i c a l  hypothesis  frequency  to  behavior.  session  EFCT's  therapy,  i n negative  analysis  more  couples.  effective  of nondistressed  study's  contains  of nondistressed  successful marital  that  direction  interaction  Their that  significantly  as  opposed  to  i s paramount  to  and  which  Gottman  et  label  as  they  investigation  of  these  nondistressed  couples's  more  sequences  positive  107 than al.  the i n t e r a c t i o n (1982),  support  had  distressed  et a l . (1984),  couples.  Revenstorf  and J a c o b s o n  et a l .  et  (1982)  Gottman's f i n d i n g s .  This during  Hahlweg  of  study's  therapy  sequential  analysis  demonstrated  significantly  interaction  the 7th session  interaction  more p o s i t i v e s e q u e n c e s  interaction.  These  effective  bringing  in  that  of couples'  results  support  about  than  the  positive  t h e 2nd  claim  that  change  in  session EFCT  is  couples'  i n t e r a c t Ion.  HYPOTHESIS There w i l l sequences than there  This  4A be  a greater proportion of p o s i t i v e complimentary i n the 7th sessions of the experimental group w i l l be i n t h e 2 n d sessions of the c o n t r o l group.  hypothesis  interaction  which  Hypothesis  4.  Interaction  1984)  behaviors.  describes  interaction combined and  and  combined  more  within  (1967) which  together  t h e more  involves of  SASB  and  relying"  with  understanding"  a  maximizing but  (Benjamin  behaviors,  with  and  or  of  mutually et  interaction  "approaching  of  encompassing  protecting"  combined  type  complimentary  dissimilar  complimentary  "helping and  specific  describes  Benjamin's  positive  "trusting  comforting"  expressing".  a  involving  with  "affirming  fitting  a  found  interaction  the  reinforcing  be  Watzlawick  as  differences,  can  explores  a l . , as  an  behaviors "nurturing  enjoying",  "disclosing  or and  108  The  findings  difference  between  sequences  more  of  This  or  is  couples'  indication  in  a  sequences.  complimentary  session  of  some  of  couples  hypothesis  without  4  of (an  attention  questions  difference  yields  of  which  could  between  sequences t h e more  significant  lack  that  that  of  in  to  be  couples'  general  specific  and  positive  (Although  and  may  effective  change  there  (Gottman, is  well  1979; no  nondistressed  effective  positive  Margolin significant couples'  i t  an and  addresses of  i s unable  to  complimentary of  positive  literature, and  of  mode  discussion  the  the  distressed  i n general in  is  question  an  is little in  or  between  be  in  indicative  EFCT  This  therapy  sequences  there  of  difference  EFCT  difference  sequences  interaction?  significant  that  positive  effectiveness  couples'  investigators  distressed  which  the  the  complimentary  conclude  significant  c o n t r a d i c t s the results  positive  lack  in  possibility and  t h e 2nd  sequences  complimentary  of  nondistressed  positive  examination  yields  the  of  of  no  sequences?  limitation  result  result  recognizable  interaction  occurrence  reveal  research.  a  which  is  study  complimentarity).  there  complimentary  therapy,  This  positive  by f u t u r e  interaction  the  and  contradiction raises  addressed  a  session  encompassing  reciprocity  Second,  present  occurrence  I n EFCT.  examination  First,  the  i n the 7th  participating the  of this  several  Wampold,  difference interaction  1981) between in  the  109  occurrence category Third,  of  and  positive  positive  why  distressed positive  of  is and  a  of  complimentarity?  Is  significant  nondistressed  complimentarity)  which  another  specific  interaction.)  there  interaction  occurrence  reciprocity,  couples  in general but  not  positive  a  (without  difference in  the  regard  significant reciprocity  between  occurrence to  reciprocity  difference and  of  in  the  positive  110  CONCLUSION  This and  study  7 minor  Therapy change  investigated  hypotheses)  and  11 h y p o t h e s e s  regarding  i t s effectiveness  i n couples'  behavior  and  (4 m a j o r  Emotionally in  Focused  bringing  interaction  hypotheses Couples  about  during  positive  the  therapy  ses s i o n .  The  four  supported  by  demonstrated positive  primary  significant to  be  change  behaviors,  to of  reciprocity  or  Of  the 7  significant  occurrence  positive  secondary  effective  in  positive  other-focused  3  bringing  negative  complimentary  by  EFCT  has  been  about  significant  positive/affiliative  negative  or  been  n e g a t i v e / d i s a f f i 1 i a t i ve  autonomous of  have  sequences  (without  complementarity),  sequences  (without  and  the  attention  to  hypotheses, EFCT about  4  has  have  been  significant  behaviors, reciprocal  been  supported  demonstrated positive  positive  sequences,  by  to  be  change  in  self-focused and  negative  sequences.  secondary  supported  of  study  complementarity).  findings.  behaviors,  of  reciprocity  occurrence  this  i n bringing  frequency  frequency  the  attention  the  of  findings.  effective  In  the  behaviors,  hypotheses  hypotheses  significant  of  findings.  this In  study  have  these  cases,  not EFCT  been has  Ill  not  been  demonstrated  significant negative  positive  to  be  change  controlling  effective  in positive  behaviors,  and  in  bringing  controlling positive  about  behaviors,  complimentary  sequences.  It  has  session  however  of  been  therapy  demonstrated  defensive,  and  interaction  involving  and  the  7th  session  as  of  well  as  In  towards  Focused  and  Couples the  previously positive  1984).  evidence  that  positively  it  can  yielded be  their  In  a  a  in  the  tendency behaviors,  mutual  sense  that  substantial  assertion  through  to  of  actual of  This  this  following  was  support  Emotionally  to  positively  assertion  couples' self-reports  this  behaved It  that  couples  relationships  prior  therapy.  results  found  relationships.  actually  couples'  asserted  has  indeed help  their  couples  the  Whereas  self-disclosing  (1984)  does  However,  of  towards  withdrawal,  demonstrated  involving  study  demonstrated  following  analysis  which  of  changes  Johnson,  and  this  Therapy  been  negative,  as  mutual  2nd  other.  Johnson's  nature  and  interaction  conclusion,  Greenberg  change  supportive,  the  well  conflict.  couples  i n the  towards  as  accusation,  the  couples  tendency  destructive  therapy,  towards  a  that  behaviors,  mutual  of  positive,  goodwill  for  blaming  escalation  towards  demonstrated  (Greenberg  study and  the  of and no more  observation  during  study.  Emotionally  was  interacted  direct  interaction present  there  had  therapy  Therefore,  Focused  Couples  112  Therapy and  couples  beliefs  Interact  not only  about  their  Emotionally be g e n e r a l l y  couples' Indeed of  made of  make  therapy  session  and  what  distressed  and  author,  during  the therapy  as  No  have  each  attempt  has  been  i n their  about  manner  changes  outside  Indeed,  been  examination to  of r e l a t i n g  environment.  session.  relate  may make  to conclusions  there  t o an  they  session.  manner  demonstrated  p o s i t i v e change i n  i s limited  the couple  i n their  have is  been  known  a number about  nondistressed  i n the laboratory  the differences  parallel  therapy  therapy  there  generalize  between  actually  the  of the  to the  no r e p o r t e d  best  attempts  a generalization.  However,  this  couples  has been  about  interaction  i n t h e home  of t h i s  t o make s u c h  study  changes  during  may  Therapy  i n bringing  of t h i s  to generalize  observations  Couples  the actual  couples  of  i n attitudes  FINDINGS  and i n t e r a c t i o n  behavior  during  knowledge  OF THE  effective  the purpose  relating  about  r e l a t i o n s h i p s , but  Focused  behavior  couples'  other  p o s i t i v e changes  more p o s t i v e l y .  THE G E N E R A L I Z A B I L I T Y  to  report  present  study  distressed  and  the p o s i t i v e  the  setting  could  environment.  The  nondistressed couples  that  to  between  interaction  t o what  suggested  changes  attempts  differences  couples'  i n t h e home have  of previous  from be  said  findings  the  differences  couple's  interaction  make  during  effective  113  therapy. could  I t i s logical  be p r o v i d e d  changes to  in  f o r future  to in-the-home  generalize  nondistressed t h e home  the  suggest  attempts  changes  that  some  direction  to generalize  by r e v i e w i n g  differences  in-therapy  previous  between  attempts  distressed  i n t e r a c t i o n i n the laboratory  and  to the differences  environment.  Researchers salient  to also  t o an  interaction  have  identified  examination  in  of  several  factors  the difference  the laboratory  and  their  which  between  are  couples'  interaction  i n the  home.  First,  the  experimental  task  interaction couple's  is  around an  et a l .  made  the error  from  describing  knowing  how  suggest  the  which  important  subject  the  matter  couple  variable  an  (1977)  note  that  of assuming  that  there  couples'  couples  that  resemble  would  research  existing  in  or  organizes  the their  determining  the  interaction resolve which  salient  a  many  i s no on  real  a  inferential  structured  marital  involves  marital  investigators  issue  issue.  marital will  task  have leap to They  interaction more  closely  i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h e home.  Similarly, discuss  of  behavior.  Gottman  around  nature  their  Schaap  (1984)  own p r o b l e m s ,  reports  as they  that  s e e them,  when their  couples  discussion  114 is  highly  tasks  animated  which  are  These during  approximate  in  ( 1 9 7 9 ) and  the  and  that  setting  the  in  influences  the  that  couple's  Faunce  (1972)  a  is  of  neutral  Schaap  examinations  increased  freedom  engaged  in  an  as  contrast,  hour  to long  is  both  will  another  to  closely  call  the  the  is  interact therapy  as  creating  Schaap of  interaction decreased.  session.  a  (1984)  the  task  becoming to  nondistressed  tasks that  would  also  According  verses  expected they  and  discussion  length  interactional be  the  unfamiliar  interaction.  the  to  Interaction.  distressed  i t might  attention  interaction,  on  important  Gottman  relatively  that  time  of  employ  encouraged  issues  friendly  with the  being  interaction  behavior.  limit  evidence  increasingly  In  and  couples'  interaction,  interaction  are  couples'  time  nature  minutes.  discussion  home.  the  influences  couple's  other  couples*  setting  more p o l i t e  there  most  the  affect  having  they  investigator's  will  towards  that  relationship  physical  Riskin  Third,  where  central  determining  possibility  notes  suggest  interaction  Second,  contrasting  relevant.  sessions,  about  tendency  focused,  observations  interact  public  less  therapy  variable  and  of  10  couples  naturally  to  15 have when  115  Fourth,  the actual  suggested  to  nature  a  of  (Margolin presence order  be  an  couple's  the  t o promote  of the i n v e s t i g a t o r  influencing  factor  interaction  and Wampold, of  presence  1981).  therapist change)  in  in  the  In marital  (who i s an  by  has  been  determining  the  laboratory  therapy  definition  inevitable  setting  sessions the intervenes  factor  in  i n effecting  interaction.  Gottman and  In-home  couples.  (1979)  examines  interaction Prior  to  the difference  f o r both  distressed  h i s examination  he  between and  makes  laboratory  nondistressed the  following  comment: There i s currently no r e s e a r c h addressed to the important question of the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of marital i n t e r a c t i o n across settings... However i n our laboratory we have often been thanked by couples who found the laboratory assessment procedures therapeutic, even though t h e p r o c e d u r e s were n o t designed as t h e r a p y . This observation would lead to the formulation of a hypothesis... that interactions i n the laboratory are l i k e l y t o be more positive than similar i n t e r a c t i o n s a t home, w i t h o u t t h e p r e s e n c e o f s t r a n g e r s . The p r e s e n c e o f s t r a n g e r s i n a r e l a t i v e l y p u b l i c and unfamiliar setting such as t h e l a b o r a t o r y should, logically, have the effect of increasing politeness (and) decreasing negative i n t e r a c t i o n , (page 237-238)  In of  a  ground  recorded  interaction distressed  public in  breaking  experiment,  interaction the  Gottman  and n o n d i s t r e s s e d  couples'  the effect  determine  whether  of the setting  there  a  comparison  i n t h e l a b and r e c o r d e d  home,  determine  involving  (1979)  examined  interaction  effect  both  i n order  on t h e i n t e r a c t i o n ,  was a d i f f e r e n t  private  given  to  and t o  the level  116  of  marital  Gottman  distress.  t o two  distressed negative easier when  and  obtained  An couples'  compared  that  "the  when  may  from  of  both  significantly And  second,  nondistressed the  these  underestimate  i s  couples which  two  these  more i t  laboratory,  between  groups  differences  245)  o f t h e above  factors  i n t e r a c t i o n i n the l a b verses statements  interaction  about  during  and f i n d i n g s  about  i n t h e home c a n l e a d  expected  marital  differences  therapy  and  to  between couple's  a t home.  Because  marital  marital  Issues  couples  i n therapy  couples  in a  expected  that  interaction  i s  in  differences  extrapolation  interaction  and  to  i n the laboratory  tentative  couples'  couples  distressed  of the data l e d  the i n t e r a c t i o n  i n the laboratory.  home  home." ( p a g e  some  than  analysis  First,  nondistressed  to discriminate at  subsequent  conclusions.  a t home  suggests  at  A  therapy  as opposed have  structured  to structured less  be  time  less  than  discussion  between  of s a l i e n t  subjects,  restraints  experimental  the differences  will  encourages  and  as  setting,  compared  to  i t might  be  in-therapy  the differences  because  and  between  in-home in-lab  in-home i n t e r a c t i o n .  However, settings  because  a r e exposed  couples to a  i n both  strange  therapy  environment  or  laboratory  and t h e a c t i v e  117 presence be  of strangers  expected  that  in-lab  will  be  i t  interaction  characterized  and  in-therapy  direction  reasonable  during  than  i t might  as t h e  and i n -  differences  Interaction.  is  by more  interaction  between  i n t h e same  and In-home  Accordingly, couples'  and e x p e r i m e n t e r s ) ,  the differences  home i n t e r a c t i o n between  (therapists  the marital  negative  the  to  same  and  hypothesize  therapy less  couples'  that  session  positive  will  behavior  interaction  i n the  home.  Also, between  Gottman's distressed  laboratory home  may  and  another  changes  demonstrated  experience,  2nd  and 7 t h s e s s i o n  positive of  change  couples  changes  in  experience Couples the  is  behavior through  Therapy  satisfying  relationships  by  In  their  couples  and  the privacy  in  differences  i n the  Namely,  during  a  the  successful  the difference may  the  between  underestimate the Interaction  therapy.  to  participation  the  differences  i n t h e in-home  interaction  (Greenberg changes  same  interaction,  reasonable  and  the  interaction  or s p e c i f i c a l l y  successful  i t  that  hypothesis.  or the difference  following  Therefore  these  tentative  therapeutic session  finding  nondistressed  underestimate  supports  positive  (1979)  suggest which  of  their  positive  couples  seem  i n Emotionally  Johnson, couples  the  1984)  Focused  underestimates  experience homes.  to  in  Indeed,  their this  118  possibility Couples seeking  strengthens  Therapy to  enrich  offers their  the  assertion  a  valuable  relationships.  that  Emotionally  alternative  to  Focused couples  119 BIBLIOGRAPHY A d a m s , 0. a n d N a g n u r , 0. M A R R I A G E D I V O R C E AND M E N T A L I T Y . A L I F E T A B L E A N A L Y S I S FOR CANADA: 1 9 7 5 - 7 7 . Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1981. B e n j a m i n , L. S t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s of P S Y C H I A T R Y : JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF v o l . 4 2 , 1 9 7 9 , p. 1-23.  differentiation failure. INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES,  Benjamin, L. Principles of prediction • using structural a n a l y s i s o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . I n R. Z u c k e r , J . A r o n o f f , a n d A. Rabin (Eds.), P E R S O N A L I T Y AND THE P R E D I C T I O N OF B E H A V I O R . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1984. Benjamin, L., Foster, S., Roberto, L., and Estroff, S. Breaking the family code: A n a l y s i s of videotapes of family i n t e r a c t i o n s by s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o r ( S A S B ) . I n L . G r e e n b e r g a n d W . P i n s o f ( E d s . ) , HANDBOOK OF PSYCHOTHERAPY R E S E A R C H . New y o r k : T h e G u i l f o r d P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 . B e r n a l , G. P u n c t u a t i o n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s a n d m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s : A qualitative analysis. FAMILY THERAPY, v o l . 9 ( 3 ) , 1982, p. 2 8 9 - 2 9 8 . B u r g e r , A. a n d J a c o b s o n , N. T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s e x r o l e characteristics, couple satisfaction and problem-solving skills. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY, v o l . 7, 1 9 7 9 , p.52-61 . Campbell, D. and EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS Company, 1 9 6 3 .  Stanley, J. FOR R E S E A R C H .  Cohen, J . A c o e f f i c i e n t of E D U C A T I O N A L AND P S Y C H O L O G I C A L p.37-46.  EXPERIMENTAL C h i c a g o : Rand  AND QUASIM c N a l l y and  agreement f o r nominal scales. MEASUREMENT, v o l . 2 0 ( 1 ) , 1 9 6 0 ,  Cohen, J. Weighted Kapa: Nominal provision for scaled disagreement PSYCHOLOGICAL B U L L E T I N , v o l . 7 0 , 1968,  scale agreement with or partial credit. p.213-220.  D a v i d s o n , B., B a l s w i c k , J . a n d H a l v e r s o n , C. A f f e c t i v e selfdisclosure and m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t : A t e s t o f e q u i t y theory. JOURNAL OF M A R R I A G E AND THE F A M I L Y , v o l . 4 5 ( 1 ) , 1 9 8 3 , p . 9 3 102 . D e u t s c h , M. C o n f l i c t s : P r o d u c t i v e and d e s t r u c t i v e . SOCIAL ISSUES, v o l . 2 5 ( 1 ) , 1969, p.7-41. Feldman, L. Marital conflict and marital integrative psychodynamic-behavioral-systemic PROCESS, v o l . 1 8 ( 2 ) , 1979, p.69-78.  JOURNAL  OF  intimacy: An model. FAMILY  120  Feldman, L. D y s f u n c t i o n a l m a r i t a l conflict: An integrative interpersonal-intrapsychic model. JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY, O c t o b e r , 1 9 8 2 , p . 4 1 7 - 4 2 7 . F l e i s s , J . STATISTICAL York: Wiley, 1981.  METHODS FOR  RATES  AND  PROPORTIONS.  New  H a h l w e g , K., S c h i n d l e r , L . , R e v e n s t o r f , D. a n d B r e n g e l m a n n , J . The marital therapy study. I n K. H a h l w e g a n d N. Jacobson ( E d s . ) , M A R I T A L I N T E R A C T I O N . New York: The G u i l f o r d Press, 1984, p.3-26. Humphrey, L. A s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s of family processes i n a n o r e x i a a n d b u l i m i a . I n NEW D I R E C T I O N S I N A N O R E X I A NERVOSA: PROCEEDINGS FROM THE FOURTH ROSS CONFERENCE ON MEDICAL RESEARCH. C o l u m b u s , O h i o : R o s s L a b o r a t o r i e s , 1 9 8 3 . Gottman, 1979 .  J.  MARITAL  INTERACTION.  New  York:  Academic  Press,  Gottman, J . Emotional r e s p o n s i v e n e s s i n m a r i t a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s , J O U R N A L OF C O M M U N I C A T I O N , v o l . 3 2 ( 3 ) , 1 9 8 2 , p . 1 0 8 - 1 2 0 . G o t t m a n , J . , M a r k m a n , H., a n d N o t a r i u s , C. T h e t o p o g r a p h y of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY, v o l . 3 9 ( 3 ) , 1977, p.461-477. Gottman, J . and P o r t e r f i e l d , A. C o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e i n t h e n o n v e r b a l b e h a v i o r o f m a r r i e d c o u p l e s . J O U R N A L OF M A R R I A G E AND THE F A M I L Y , v o l . 4 3 ( 4 ) , 1 9 8 1 , p . 8 1 7 - 8 2 4 . Gray-Little, B. and B u r k s , N. Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, v o l . 9 3 ( 3 ) , 1983, p.513-538. Greenberg, L. and J o h n s o n S. Emotionally focused couples therapy: An integrated affective systemic approach. I n N. Jacobson and A. Gurman (Eds.), THE CLINICAL HANDBOOK OF M A R I T A L T H E R A P Y . New Y o r k : T h e G u i l f o r d P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 . G u r m a n A. a n d K n i s k e r n , D. R e s e a r c h on m a r i t a l and f a m i l y t h e r a p y : P r o g r e s s , p e r s p e c t i v e , a n d p r o s p e c t . I n S. G a r f i e l d a n d A. B e r g i n ( E d s . ) , HANDBOOK OF P S Y C H O T H E R A P Y AND B E H A V I O R CHANGE ( 2 n d e d i t i o n ) , New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1 9 7 8 Jacobson, N., Follette, W., and Waggoner McDonald, R e a c t i v i t y t o p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e b e h a v i o r i n d i s t r e s s e d nondistressed married couples. JOURNAL OF CONSULTING C L I N I C A L PSYCHOLOGY, v o l . 5 0 ( 5 ) , 1 9 8 2 , p . 7 0 6 - 7 1 4 .  D. and AND  121  J o h n s o n , S. A C O M P A R A T I V E TREATMENT STUDY OF E X P E R I E N T I A L AND BEHAVIORAL APPROACHES TO MARITAL THERAPY. Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1984. Johnson, S. and G r e e n b e r g L. The differential effects of cognitive behavioral and e x p e r i e n t i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n marital therapy. JOURNAL OF C O N S U L T I N G AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, i n press . Koren, P., Carlton, K. and Shaw, D. Marital conflict: Relations among b e h a v i o r s , o u t c o m e s , a n d d i s t r e s s . JOURNAL OF C O N S U L T I N G AND C L I N I C A L PSYCHOLOGY, vol.48(4), 1980, p.460468 . L ' A b a t e , L. I n t i m a c y i s sharing hurt feelings: A reply to d a v i d m a c e . J O U R N A L OF M A R R I A G E AND F A M I L Y C O U N S E L I N G , A p r i l , 1977, p.13-16. Margolin G. An interactional model f o r the assessment of m a r i t a l relationships. BEHAVIORAL v o l . 5 ( 2 ) , 1983, p.103-127.  behavioral ASSESSMENT,  M a r g o l i n G. a n d W a m p o l d , B. S e q u e n t i a l analysis of c o n f l i c t and accord i n distressed and n o n d i s t r e s s e d marital partners. JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, vol.49(4), 1981, p.554-567. M a r k m a n , H. T h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a b e h a v i o r a l model o f m a r r i a g e in predicting relationship satisfaction f o r couples planning marriage. JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, v o l . 4 , 1979, p.743-749. M a r k m a n , H. T h e l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y o f c o u p l e s ' interactions: Applications f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and p r e d i c t i n g t h e development of m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s . I n K. H a h l w e g a n d N. J a c o b s o n (Eds.) MARITAL I N T E R A C T I O N . New york: The Guilford Press, 1984, p.253-281. M e n a g h a n , E. M e a s u r i n g c o p i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s : A p a n e l analysis o f m a r i t a l p r o b l e m s a n d c o p i n g e f f o r t s . JOURNAL OF H E A L T H AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, v o l . 2 3 ( 3 ) , 1 9 8 2 , p . 2 2 0 - 2 3 4 . N a p i e r , A. T h e r e j e c t i o n - i n t r u s i o n p a t t e r n : A central family d y n a m i c . JOURNAL OF M A R R I A G E AND F A M I L Y C O U N S E L I N G , J a n u a r y 1978, p.5-12. P i n s o f , W. F a m i l y t h e r a p y p r o c e s s D. Kniskern (Eds.), HANDBOOK OF Brunner/Mazel, 1981, p.669-741.  research. I n A. FAMILY THERAPY.  R a u s h , H. B a r r y , W. , H e r t e l , R. a n d C O N F L I C T AND M A R R I A G E . S a n F r a n c i s c o :  Gurman and New York:  S w a i n , M. COMMUNICATION, J o s s e y - B a s s , 1974.  122 Revenstorf, D., Hahlweg, K., Schindler, L. and V o g e l , B. I n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o f m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . I n K. H a h l w e g a n d N. J a c o b s o n ( E d s . ) , M A R I T A L I N T E R A C T I O N . New Y o r k : T h e G u i l f o r d P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 , P. 1 3 3 - 1 5 8 . Rice L. and Greenberg L. PATTERNS OF CHANGE: ANALYSIS OF THE PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC PROCESS. New G u i l f o r d P r e s s , 1984. Riskin, J. interaction 455 .  INTENSIVE York: The  and F a u n c e , E. A n e v a l u a t i v e review of family r e s e a r c h . FAMILY PROCESS, v o l . 1 1 ( 4 ) , 1 9 7 2 , p.365-  S c h a a p , C. A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f d i s t r e s s e d a n d n o n d i s t r e s s e d m a r r i e d c o u p l e s i n a l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n . I n K. H a h l w e g a n d N. J a c o b s o n ( E d s . ) , M A R I T A L I N T E R A C T I O N . New Y o r k : The G u i l f o r d P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 , p . 1 3 3 - 1 5 8 . Simon, J . , W i l k e r s o n , J . and K e l l e r , J . M a r r i a g e dilemma a s s e s s m e n t d e v i c e . FAMILY THERAPY, v o l . 9 ( 2 ) , p . 1 2 7 - 1 3 2 .  and  Spanier, G. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e q u a l i t y o f m a r r i a g e and s i m i l a r dyads. JOURNAL OF M A R R I A G E AND THE F A M I L Y , v o l . 3 8 ( 1 ) , 1 9 7 6 , p . 1 5 - 2 8 . S p a n i e r , G. a n d F i l s i n g e r , E. T h e d y a d i c a d j u s t m e n t s c a l e . I n E. F i l s i n g e r ( E d . ) , M A R R I A G E AND F A M I L Y A S S E S S M E N T . Beverly H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1983 , p. 155-168 . Spanier, G. a n d T h o m p s o n , L . A c o n f i r m a t o r y d y a d i c a d j u s t m e n t s c a l e . J O U R N A L OF M A R R I A G E v o l . 4 4 ( 3 ) , p.731-738.  analysis AND THE  of the FAMILY,  Vincent, M. Marriage and mental HEALTH, v o l . 2 9 ( 3 ) , p.7-9 and 27-28.  health.  CANADA'S  MENTAL  Waring, E. Facilitating marital d i s c l o s u r e . THE A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L OF 1981, p.33-42.  intimacy through selfFAMILY THERAPY, v o l . 9 ( 4 ) ,  Waring, E. M a r i t a l i n t i m a c y and s e 1 f - d i s c l o s u r e . C L I N I C A L PSYCHOLOGY, v o l . 3 9 ( 2 ) , 1 9 8 3 , p . 1 8 3 - 1 8 9 .  JOURNAL  W a t z l a w i c k , P., B e a v i n , A. a n d J a c k s o n , D. P R A G M A T I C S OF COMMUNICATION. New Y o r k : W.W. N o r t o n and Company, 1 9 6 7 .  OF  HUMAN  Weiss, R. Cognitive and behavioral measures of marital interaction. I n K. H a h l w e g a n d N. J a c o b s o n ( E d s . ) , MARITAL I N T E R A C T I O N . New Y o r k : T h e G u i l f o r d P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 , p . 2 3 3 - 2 5 2 . Wile,  D.  C O U P L E S T H E R A P Y . New  York:  W i l e y - I n t e r s c i e n c e , 1981.  APPENDIX 1  123  STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR (SASB) The F u l l Model 120 Endona freedom  INTERPERSONAL  OTHER  Uncaringly let go 128 Forget 127 Ignore, pretend not there 126 Neglect inttreiti. needs 125 Illogical initiation 124 Abandon, leave in lurch 123 Starve, cut out 122 Angry dismiss, reject 121 j-  118 Encourage separate identity 117 Vou can do it fine 116 Carefully, fairly consider 11S Friendly listen 114 Show empathic understanding 113 Confirm as OK as is 112 Stroke, soothe, calm 111 Warmly welcome  110 Tender sexuality  Annihilating attack 130 Approach menacingly 131 Rip off, drain 132 Punish, take revenge 133 Delude, divert, mislead 134 Accuse, blame 135 Put down, act superior 136 Intrude, block, restrict 137 Enforce conformity 138  141 Friendly invite 142 Provide for, nurture 143 Protect, back up 144 Sensible analysis 145 Constructive stimulate 146 Pamper, overindulge 147 Benevolent monitor, remind 148 Specify what's best  Manage, control 140 220 Freely come and go  SELF  Go own separate way 228 Defy, do opposite 227 Busy with own thing 226 Wall-off, nondisdose 225 Noncontingent reaction 224 Detach, weep alone 223 Refuse assistance, care 222 Flee, escape, withdraw 221  218 Own identity, standards 217 Assert on own 216 "Put cards on the table" 215 Openly disclose, reveal 214 Clearly express 213 Enthusiastic showing 212 Relax, flow, enjoy 211 Joyful approach  -  Desperate protest 230 Wary, fearful 231 Sacrifice greatly 232 Whine, defend, justify 233 Uncomprehending agree 234 Appease, scurry 235 Sulk, act put upon 236 Apathetic compliance 237 Follow rules, proper 238  210 Ecstatic response  241 Follow, maintain contact 242 Accept caretaking 243 Ask, trust, count on 244 Accept reason 245 Take in, learn from 246 Cling, depend 247 Defer, overconforrh 248 Submerge into role  Yield, submit, give in 240 320 Happy-go-lucky  INTRAPSYCHIC  Drift with the moment 328 Neglect options 327 Fantasy, dream 326 Neglect own potential 325 Undefined, unknown self 324 Reckless 323 Ignore own oaiic needs 322 Reject, dismiss self 321  Introject of OTHER Torture, annihilate self 330 " Menace to self 331 to SELF Drain, overburden self 332  Vengeful self punish 333 Deceive, divert self 334 Guilt, blame, bad self 335 Doubt, put self down 336 Restrain, hold back self 337 Force propriety 338  318 Let nature unfold 317 Let self do it, confident 316 Balanced self acceptance 315 Explore, listen to inner self 314 Integrated, solid core 313 Pleased with self 312 Stroke, soothe self 311 Entertain, enjoy self  310 Love, cherish self  341 Seek best for self 342 Nurture, restore self 343 Protect self 344 Examine, analyze self 345 Practice, become accomplished 346 Self pamper, indulge 347 Benevolent eye on self 348 Force ideal identity  Control, manage self 340  APPENDIX 2  124  STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR (SASB) The C l u s t e r Version  I 1 26, S lull doesn't notice or M y u t i n n o n io 0 at a" 125. S neglect! O, 0 » m t t r t m . needl. 124. 5 ignores the ' e c u and offtrt 0 unbelievable nonsense •no craimeil 123.  1 27 1 28 1 20 118 117  S 'orgett ell about O. iheir agreement*, plant Without concern. $ i « 0 do and be anything «i «>i S peacefully teevet 0 comoteieiy on his o* her own S leaves O frae to do ana De whatever 0 th.nm .t rjei Believing 0 doet things weu, S leave* 0 to do mem h of her own way. ( a  116 S leu 0 tpeaft ireeiy and neen 0 wen lhey disagree 115. S 'teilv heart 0 . acknowiedgei O i views even ,1 i r * disagree. y  114.  Jutt x h i n S n needed mott, S abandom 0. 'eevet O aione with trouble.  113. S liket 0 and thinks 0 >* fine IUSI ei 0 n.  122  S angrily leavn 0 to go without what 0 needi very much even when S easily could give it to 0. 121. S angrily leaves 0 out. S completely return 10 have  ~ 130. 131 132.  $ clearly underitandi 0 and lihei 0 even when they disagree.  112. S gently, lovingly u r o k e i and soothes 0 without asking for anything in return • II. Fun of happy armies, S lovingly greets 0 >ust as 0 >i. 110. With gently loving rendernea, S connect! seiueliy .1 0 warns to want it.  anything to do with 0. S murders kiHs^destrovt end leaves 0 ei a useless heeo. Looking very mean. S follow* 0 end tries to h u n 0 . S rips 0 off, teen, neati, grabs all he or the can from 0 .  141. S warmly, cheerfully myites 0 to be m touch w»th S as often as O wants. 142. S provKMs tor. nurtures, takes cava of O  133.  S harshly punishes and tortures 0 . takes revenge.  134. S mi 1 leads 0 . disguises things, tries 10 throw 0 off track 135. S accuses and blames 0 . S tries to get 0 to believe and say 0 it wrong. 136. S puts 0 down, tells 0 his or her ways ere wrong, end S'l ways are better.  143. S lovingly looks after O'l interests and lakes steps to protect O. S actively backs 0 UP. 147  227  226. 5 it too busy and alone with his or her "Own thing" to be with O. 225. S wain htm or herself off from 0 ; doesn't hear, doesn't react. 224. S reacts to what 0 says or does in strange, unconnected, unrelated ways. 223. S bitterly, angrily detaches from O and doesn't ask  Believing it's really tor O'l own good. S check 1 often on 0  and reminds 0 of what should be done. Believing he or the really knows what is beet for 0 , S tells O exactly what to do, be, think. 140. S controls O in a matter of-tact way. S has the habit of taking charge of everything. 138. S makes 0 follow his or her rules and ideas of whet ts righl and Drooer. 137 S butts in and takes over, blocks and restricts O . 148.  228. 220. 218. 217.  144. With much kindnees and good etnas. S figures out end explains things to 0 . 146. S gets 0 interested and teaches 0 how to underttend and do things. 148. S pay* ctoea attention to O so 3 can f^ure out all of O ' l need* and take care of everything.  To do his or her own thing, S does the opposite of what 0 wants. S goes his or her own separate way apart from 0 . S treaty comes and gtMe: does his or her own .thing separately from 0 . S has a clear senaa of who he or she is separately from 0 . 5 speaks up, clearly and firmly states his or her own separate position.  ASSERTING ANO SEPARATING  tor anything. S weeps atone about 0  216.  5 is straightforward, truthful and clear with O about S's own position. 215. S freely and openly talks with 0 about h u or her innermost tetf. 214. S expresses him or herselt dearly m a warm and friendly way. 213. 5 is loyful. happy end very open with 0  222.  S furiously, angrily, hatefully refuses to accept O's offers to help out. 221. Boiling over with rage and/or tear, S tries to escape, flee, or hide from 0 . 230. In great pain and rage, S screams and shouts that 0 is destroying him or her. 231. S is very tense, thekv, wary, fearful with 0 232.  212. 5 relates, lets 90, eniovi. leeit wonderful about oemg with 0. 211. S it very naoov. playful, iov»ul. delighted to be with O 210. S loyfully. lovingly, very happily respondi to 0 tevuall' 241, S warmly, happily n e v i around and keep! m touch with O. 242. S warmly, comfortably eccepti O'l help and careqivmq  S bitterly, hatefully, resentfully chooses to let O i need! and went) count more than hu or her own.  233. S whines, unhappily protein, tries to defend him or herself from 0 . Pull of doubt 1 and tension, S son ol goes along with O i view* anyway.  234.  235.  To avoid O ' l disapproval, S bottles up hu or her rage and resentment ana does *na: 0 wants 236. 5 caves in to 0 and does things O i way, but S l u l k i and l u w j a b o u t it.  247, S checks with 0 about every little thing because S caret so much about what 0 thinks. S feels, thinks, doet. becomet whet he or ihe thinki 0 wann. 240. S gives m to 0 , Vieldt sndtuomitt to 0. 238. S mindlessly obeys O ' l ruiet, ttanaardi. ideal sbOui how things should be done. 237, S gives up, helplessly ooet things O't way withoui feelings or views ol hit or her own.  243. S 11 trusting with 0 , S comfonaDly count! on O to comr through when needed. 244. S willingly accepts, goes aionq with 0't iea»onanie tuggeitioni. >deai 245  S learni from 0. comfortably takei advee J i a Quittance from 0.  246.  S trustingly depend! 0 « 0 to men every need  248.  5  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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