UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A process study of marital conflict resolution Plysiuk, Michele 1985

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 P59.pdf [ 5.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054274.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054274-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054274-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054274-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054274-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054274-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054274-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054274-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054274.ris

Full Text

A PROCESS STUDY OF MARITAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION By MICHELE PLYSIUK B. A. The University of V i c t o r i a . 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Counselling Psychology We accept t h i s t hesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1985 © MICHELE PLYSIUK 1985 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of c o s ^ s s u ^ v c - f w c r t o c o d / The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date S£f>^ ? / *i DE-6 6/81) - i i -Supervisor: Dr. L e s l i e S. Greenberg This i s a model b u i l d i n g study which addresses i t s e l f to observing and i n v e s t i g a t i n g what t r a n s p i r e s between two couples as they complete the process of r e s o l v i n g a m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . Four therapy sessions where the couples s u c c e s s f u l l y resolved a m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t and one therapy session where a r e s o l u t i o n was attempted but was unsuccessful were se l e c t e d f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A task a n a l y s i s was completed i n which the moment-by-moment i n t e r a c t i o n s of the couples were rigourously tracked to r e v e a l the i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns that d i s t i n g u i s h couples who resolve m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t s from those who are not s u c c e s s f u l at r e s o l v i n g t h e i r c o n f l i c t s . The i n t e r a c t i o n a l task a n a l y s i s involved s i x s t r a t e g i e s . The i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s c o g n i t i v e map of the r e s o l u t i o n process was o u t l i n e d . The task was defined as a pursue-distance c o n f l i c t i n which one partner was i d e n t i f i e d as an emotional pursuer and the other i d e n t i f i e d as an emotional withdrawer. The task environment, an emotionally focused therapy session, was s p e c i f i e d . In the f i r s t r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s model was presented. The t r a n s c r i p t s of the r e s o l u t i o n events were reviewed and repeated patterns were i d e n t i f i e d i n the f i r s t e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s . In the second r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s process i n d i c a t o r s that would di s c r i m i n a t e between the stages of r e s o l u t i o n were chosen from four process measures. In the second empirical a n a l y s i s two process measures (the SASB and the Experiencing scale) were used to i d e n t i f y the stages of r e s o l u t i o n - i i i -and produce a f i n a l model of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . The f i n a l model c o n s i s t s of four steps which the couples move through to reach r e s o l u t i o n . These steps are; E s c a l a t i o n . De-escalation, Testing, and Mutual Openness. E s c a l a t i o n involves e i t h e r an 'attack-defend', 'attack-withdraw *, or * attack-attack 1 pattern where the pursuer i s blaming t h e i r partner and the other partner i s e i t h e r defending, withdrawing or attacking. Each partners focus i s on representing t h e i r own p o s i t i o n and both partners u s u a l l y f e e l angry, f r u s t r a t e d or unheard. In De-escalation one partner openly d i s c l o s e s t h e i r experience or asks f o r what he or she needs. This u s u a l l y involves an expression of v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The other partner responds with e i t h e r 'affirming and understanding* or 'helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' behavior. With Testing there i s an i n i t i a l p o s i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n i n which the withdrawer responds to the pursuer's open expression of f e e l i n g s or needs with 'helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' , 'nurturing and comforting' or ' t r u s t i n g and r e l y i n g * behavior. The pursuer however suddenly switch to ' b e l i t t i n g and blaming', 'sulking and appeasing' or 'walling o f f and avoiding' behavior. The pursuer appears to be dealing with the issue of t r u s t , they are not sure i f they can t r u s t t h e i r partners response to them as t o t a l l y genuine and l i k e l y to occur again. Mutual Openness resembles De-escalation however i t t h i s stage both partners complete ' d i s c l o s e / t r u s t r e l y ' or 'affirm/help protect* sequences. Both partners rather than j u s t one complete a sequence i n which they explore t h e i r p a r t i n the problem openly - i v -while the other partner l i s t e n s and a f f i r m s them. A f a i l u r e to move from E s c a l a t i o n to De-escalation and the absence of 'affirming and and understanding' communication behaviors d i s t i n g u i s h e d the non-resolution event from the r e s o l u t i o n events. -v-TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES . . . .. v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . i x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem 1 The Problem . .. 2 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms . . . . . . . . 4 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Differences i n C o n f l i c t I n t e r a c t i o n Patterns i n D istressed and Non-Distressed Couples 11 Phases of M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t . 17 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Constructive and Destructive C o n f l i c t 18 CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY Task An a l y s i s 25 Process Measures 27 Outcome Measures 33 Procedures 34 CHAPTER IV RESULTS T h e o r e t i c a l Framework E x p l i c a t i o n of Map and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 F i r s t Rational A n a l y s i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 - v i -TABLE OF CONTENTS continued F i r s t Empirical Analysis 54 Procedure 54 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Second Rational Analysis 67 Second Rational Model 68 Second Empirical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Procedure . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 D i f f e r e n t i a t e d Descriptions of Performance Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Resolution Event 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Resolution Event 2 ..... 87 Resolution Event 3 94 Resolution Event 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Non-resolution Event 5 . . . . . . . . . . 110 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION I n t e r a c t i o n a l Model . 116 Relationship of Results to Other Research . . . . 125 Considerations f o r Further Research . . . ... . . . 127 REFERENCES . . 129 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 - v i i -LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 4.1 F i r s t Empirical Analysis - Twenty Categories Describing the Process of the I n t e r a c t i o n a l Statements . . . 5 5 4.2 F i r s t E m p i r ical A n a l y s i s - Stages of Resolution 58 4.3 Second Rational Model - Process Indicators of Stages - E s c a l a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4.4 Second Rational Model - Process Indicators; of Stages - De-escalation . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.5 Second Rational Model - Process Indicators of Stages - E s t a b l i s h i n g Trust 70 4.6 Second Rational Model - Process Indicators of Stages - Mutual Openness 72 4.7 Second Rational Model — Process Indicators of Stages - Resolution . . . . . . 74 4.8 Second Empirical Analysis - Scores on Outcome Measures 81 - v i i i -LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1.1 Development of Pursue-Distance C o n f l i c t . . . . 8 4.1 F i r s t Rational Model of C o n f l i c t Resolution Performance . . . . . . . . 53 4.2 F i r s t E mpirical Analysis - Prototype of the Diagram of the Task Performers I n t e r a c t i o n a l P o s i t i o n s 56 4.3 F i r s t E m p i r i cal Analysis - Micro and Macro Steps of the Resolution Performance . . . . . . . . . 59 4.4 S t r u c t u r a l Analysis of S o c i a l Behavior . . . . . . 79 4.5 Performance Diagram - Resolution Event 1 . . . . 82 4.6 Performance Diagram - Resolution Event 2 . . . . 88 4.7 Performance Diagram - Resolution Event 3 . . . . 95 4.8 Performance Diagram - Resolution Event 4 ..... . 100 4.9 Histogram Comparing Proportions of Experiencing at Levels Five and Above i n the De-escalation and Mutual Openness Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.10 Performance Diagram - Non-resolution Event . . . 112 5.1 Performance Model . . . 117 Acknowledgement I would l i k e to extend my thanks and appreciation to the fol l o w i n g people; Dr. Les Greenberg f o r h i s c r e a t i v i t y , persistance and patience Peter Vaughan f o r h i s d i l i g e n c e and humor Dave Stevenson f o r h i s enthusiasm Steven Trende f o r more than words could express K i i k o Trende f o r providi n g a deadline and then not a r r i v i n g too soon. -1-CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem The present consensus i n m a r t i a l research l i t e r a t u r e i s that couples' i n t e r a c t i o n a l processes during c o n f l i c t are r e l a t e d to t h e i r degree of m a r i t a l s a t i s i f a c t i o n ( B i l l i n g s , 1979; Gottman, Markman and Notarius, 1977; Koran, Carlton and Shaw, 1980). The a b i l i t y to e f f e c t i v e l y resolve c o n f l i c t s rather that allowing them to escalate and continue has been shown to be an e s s e n t i a l aspect of maintaining m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n (Bircher and Webb, 1977; Raush, Barry, H e r t e l and Swain, 1974). G l i c k and Gross (1975) note that the process of re s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t s i s l i n k e d to m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n through i t s i n f l u e n c e on: decisions made by the couple about the nature of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , g r a t i f i c a t i o n obtained through the dis c u s s i o n of the c o n f l i c t i t s e l f , and the success of future attempts to resolve other c o n f l i c t s . When dealing with m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s , t h e r a p i s t s tend to focus on the spouses' processes of i n t e r a c t i o n during c o n f l i c t as a way of enhancing m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n (Glick and Gross, 1975). While i t i s h e l p f u l f o r t h e r a p i s t s to understand the r o l e of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n i n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n , i t i s also e s s e n t i a l f o r th e r a p i s t s to understand the i n t e r a c t i o n a l processes' spouses engage i n , in. order to s u c c e s s f u l l y resolve t h e i r c o n f l i c t s . I t i s the process i n psychotherapy, the t r a c k i n g of what happens from moment to moment, focusing on how the behavior of one partner a f f e c t s the other, - 2 -and how the couple a r r i v e s at a c e r t a i n s t a t e , that i s of i n t e r e s t to c l i n i c a n s . Understanding the mechanisms of change or the process of change i n therapy i s as important as knowledge of the goals or outcome of therapy. Rice and Greenberg (1984) suggest that therapeutic success can be improved through greater understanding of ". . . productive c l i e n t performance and the interventions that have f a c i l i t a t e d them" (p. 8). In order to f u r t h e r the c l i n i c a n ' s understanding of these change mechanisms on c l i e n t performances Rice and Greenberg (1984) recommend studying not groups of people s i m i l a r or some i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s , " . . . but rather groups of episodes of therapeutic i n t e r a c t i o n s i n which c l i e n t s are engaged i n pers o n / s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n s which have important commonalities" (p. 10). They suggest that the episode of therapeutic i n t e r a c t i o n or 'event' to be studied should c o n s i s t of an i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequence between the c l i e n t and t h e r a p i s t . The c r i t e r i o n f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an event i s the presence of a 'marker' that i n d i c a t e s the c l i e n t i s involved i n attempting to solve a p a r t i c u l a r problem by a p a r t i c u l a r process. I t would be t h i s 'marker' that d i f f e r e n t i a t e s the sequence from other in-therapy events. The Problem Glick. and Gross (1975) i n an evaluation of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n and m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t research, o u t l i n e d the need f o r the a n a l y s i s of - 3 -couple's i n t e r a c t i o n a l processes under conditions where the couple's communicative behavior holds s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p and r e f l e c t s the couple's own methods of coping with c o n f l i c t . The problem to which t h i s study addresses i t s e l f i s : the observation and i n v e s t i g a t i o n what t r a n s p i r e s between two spouses when they are i n the process of r e s o l v i n g a m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . Rather than t e s t i n g a hypothesis, the aim of t h i s study w i l l be to b u i l d a model of inte r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n , based on an in t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s of four s u c c e s s f u l in-therapy r e s o l u t i o n s of a m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t and one in-therapy event where the attempt at c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n i s unsuccessful. The moment-by-moment i n t e r a c t i o n s of these events w i l l be tracked r i g o r o u s l y i n a search f o r i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns that seem to d i s t i n g u i s h couples who resolve m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t s from those who are not s u c c e s s f u l at r e s o l v i n g t h e i r c o n f l i c t s . Task a n a l y s i s , which has been defined as a method, " . . . designed to explore the moment-by-moment performance of c l i e n t s engaged i n r e s o l v i n g tasks, i n order to i d e n t i f y the components of su c c e s s f u l performances" Greenberg, 1984, p. 67), i s the method of an a l y s i s that w i l l be used i n t h i s process study of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . The steps involved i n the task a n a l y s i s method w i l l be discussed i n the methodology chapter. At t h i s point, however, i t i s important to note, f i r s t , that the type of task to be analyzed i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l i n nature. I t involves the communication behavior of two i n d i v i d u a l s that w i l l , i n turn, influence both the behavior of each other and the r e s o l u t i o n of the -4-c o n f l i c t . I t i s also important to note that t h i s study i s discovery-oriented. The o b j e c t i v e i s to b u i l d a model of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n and suggest hypotheses f o r f u r t h e r study rather than to prove c e r t a i n hypotheses. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms In order to a r r i v e at a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e of what the problem or therapeutic event to be studied w i l l look l i k e , i t w i l l be h e l p f u l to delineate what i s meant by the terms c o n f l i c t and r e s o l u t i o n . Deutsch (1969) defines c o n f l i c t as e x i s t i n g when " . . . incompatable a c t i v i t i e s occur" (p. 7). The incompatable actions may take place within one person, as i n the case of an intrapersonal c o n f l i c t or between two or more people, as i n an int e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t . An incompatable a c t i o n i s one that i n t e r f e r e s with, i n j u r e s , or makes another a c t i o n l e s s e f f e c t i v e . Deutsch (1969) also d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between co n s t r u c t i v e and d e s t r u c t i v e c o n f l i c t . Destructive c o n f l i c t i s c h a racterized by the tendency to escalate and the r e l i a n c e on s t r a t e g i e s of power, i n c l u d i n g threat, coercion, and deception. Constructive c o n f l i c t , on the other hand, i s characterized by concentration on the issue around which the c o n f l i c t centers, and by the processes involved i n c r e a t i v e thinking or mutual problem-solving. Another i n s i g h t f u l d e f i n i t i o n of c o n f l i c t i s provided by Fink (1968). He defines s o c i a l c o n f l i c t as ". . . any s i t u a t i o n or process i n which two or more s o c i a l e n t i t i e s are l i n k e d by at l e a s t one form of -5-antagonistic p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n or a l e a s t one form of an t a g o n i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n " (p. 456). Fink's d e f i n i t i o n h i g h l i g h t s the i n t e r a c t i o n a l nature of in t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t , and the elements of overt struggle and covert antagonism or opposition. These d e f i n i t i o n s are s t i l l very broad and do not focus s p e c i f i c a l l y on m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t which i s our main focus. Raush e t a l . (1974) note that marriage involves adaptation and o r i e n t a t i o n to one's spouse and there are many areas i n day-to-day l i v i n g that produce c o n f l i c t . However c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s seem to touch b a s i c underlying sources f o r i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t . The issue of separateness and connectedness i s seen by Raush et a l . (1974) to be a core issue i n m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . Various terms such as intimacy vs. i s o l a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a t i o n vs. f u s i o n and distance vs. closeness have been used by t h e o r i s t s to describe t h i s e s s e n t i a l theme or issue. Wile (1981) sees the struggle to deal with both the issue of closeness and separateness and the u n f u l f i l l e d expectations that one's partner w i l l compensate f o r one's own inadequacies, r e s u l t i n g i n the adoption of one of three i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns. The f i r s t of these, o u t l i n e d by Wile, i s 'mutual withdrawal', i n which both partner's response to u n f u l f i l l e d needs and expectations i s to suppress t h e i r resentment and avoid engaging each other i n any meaningful way. In the second pattern, 'mutual accusation', partners respond to disappointment by blaming and attacking each other. The i n t e r a c t i o n s of the mutually accusing -6-couple are characterized by e s c a l a t i n g arguments. The t h i r d i n t e r a c t i o n a l pattern, *pursue-withdraw', or 'pursue-distance* i s the one that w i l l be the focus f o r t h i s study. Fogerty (1979) has described t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e as emotional pursuer-emotional di s t a n c e r synchrony. This concept has been b u i l t upon by Guerin (1982) i n h i s work on the stages of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . Guerin (1982) sees the emotional pursuer-emotional distancer pattern as fundamental to m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t and the attack-attack or withdraw-withdraw patterns as v a r i a t i o n s of the pursue-distance p a t t e r n . The set of sequential steps that partners move through i n the development of a pursue-distance c o n f l i c t have been o u t l i n e d by Guerin (1982) i n the fol l o w i n g manner. When the partners are experiencing s t r e s s w i t h i n t h e i r environment they tend to move e i t h e r toward or away from one another i n an attempt to re s t o r e t h e i r i n t e r n a l comfort. In response to s t r e s s the emotional pursuer w i l l move toward the emotional distancer f o r emotional connection and reassurance. The distancer i n response to s t r e s s and/or the pursuer's movement, w i l l move away from the pursuer i n order to r e - e s a b l i s h t h e i r i n t e r n a l comfort. The pursuer i n response to t h i s movement away i n t e n s i f i e s the movement toward the di s t a n c e r and the distancer responds with increased distance. When the emotional pursuer t i r e s of t r y i n g to connect without success, hurt and anger set i n and the pursuer begins to withdraw. The di s t a n c e r i n response to the pursuer's r e a c t i v e d i s t a n c i n g may begin to approach the pursuer but i s kept at a - 7 -distance by the pursuer's c r i t i c a l attack as a r e s u l t of t h e i r hurt. The distancer, who a l s o requires acceptance and reassurance, withdraws i n response to the c r i t i c i s m and there begins to be a state of f i x e d distance between the spouses (See Figure 1.1). The task or problem that t h i s study w i l l explore i s the couple's processes as they resolve a c o n f l i c t characterized by the pursue-distance c y c l e . Rice and Greenberg (1984) note that " . . . the primary d i f f e r e n c e between studying c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e problem s o l v i n g i s that i n the l a t t e r the f i n a l outcome i s l e s s often defined and the c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n i s not generally known" (p. 139) . This i s c e r t a i n l y the case i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n where r e s o l u t i o n i s not as e a s i l y defined as c o n f l i c t . While the concept of c o n f l i c t has received a l o t of a t t e n t i o n i n m a r i t a l theory and research, there i s a large gap when i t comes to the concept of r e s o l u t i o n . Of the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed by the author the concept of r e s o l u t i o n receives the most a t t e n t i o n from Koran e t a l . (1980) . In a study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between behavior, outcomes and d i s t r e s s i n m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t , Koran et a l . (1980) state that c o n f l i c t outcomes can be evaluated from e i t h e r the perspective of mutual s a t i s f a c t i o n of the outcomes or a focus on the attainment of objective r e s o l u t i o n . The state of r e s o l u t i o n i s not described however, and outcome s a t i s f a c t i o n i s measured through the summing of r a t i n g s that both spouses provided a f t e r completing each i n t e r a c t i o n task... As c o n f l i c t , has been defined i n terms of closeness and distance and the f i f t h stage i n the pursue/distance c y c l e i s characterized by - 8 -STEP I emotional distancer balance / emotional pursuer low s t r e s s - balance of operating s t y l e s STEP II st r e s s emotional d i s t a n c e r distance « i i-A emotional pursuer p u r s u i t s t r e s s introduced - spouses react by moving to restore l e v e l of i n t e r n a l comfort STEP I I I emotional d i s t a n c e r i , X emotional pursuer i n t e n s i f i e d distance i n t e n s i f i e d p u r s u i t i n response to distance emotional pursuer i n t e n s i f i e s movement toward distancer - emotional distancer responds with increased distance STEP IV a) emotional d i s t a n c e r r e a c t i v e distance emotional pursuer pursuer t i r e s of t r y i n g to connect without success, begins to withdraw with anger c r i t i c i s m b)emotional distancer w a l l of hurt emotional pursuer pursuer i n i t a t e s process of r e a c t i v e d i s t a n c i n g - moves behind a wall of hurt and hurles c r i t i c i s m s at distancer STEP V emotional d i s t a n c e r f i x e d distance emotional pursuer the d i s t a n c e r i n response to c r i t i c i s m again withdraws s e t t i n g up a state of f i x e d distance between to spouses FIGURE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT OF PURSUE-DISTANCE CONFLICT adapted from Guerin's 'Stages of M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t ' -9-both spouses maintaining a f i x e d distance behind walls of hurt, anger and c r i t i c i s m , i t seems reasonable to suggest that r e s o l u t i o n w i l l involve a bri d g i n g of t h i s distance and some form of connecting between the spouses. Resolution w i l l involve a movement or s h i f t i n the partners* p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to each other. There may be a s h i f t i n terms of hierarchy or 'up-down* as well as a s h i f t i n distance. Rather than p o l a r i z a t i o n and the coercive attempts to c o n t r o l mentioned by Deutsch (1969) there w i l l be an increased  acceptance of the other on the part of the spouse, and a sense of intimacy. In the case of r e s o l u t i o n of a c o n f l i c t i n the pursue/distance c y c l e the author expects there w i l l be a change or s h i f t i n the i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns of both the pursuer and the distancer with the unmet needs of both partners being acknowledged and integrated i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Feldman (1982) i n an a r t i c l e on dysfu n c t i o n a l m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t describes an example of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t from h i s c l i n i c a l experience that f i t s the pursue/distance i n t e r a c t i o n a l p a t t e r n . In t h i s example a growing awareness on the pa r t of each spouse of t h e i r needs and v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s , and an awareness and acceptance of t h e i r partner's needs leads to s u b s t a n t i a l reduction i n t h e i r c o n f l i c t behavior, a great increase ". . . i n the degree of p o s i t i v e intimacy i n the marriage . . . and an increase i n t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n with the r e l a t i o n s h i p " (p. 426). The s p e c i f i c markers that w i l l be used to i n d i c a t e the beginning of the therapeutic event, the i n t e r a c t i o n a l c o n f l i c t and i t s end, r e s o l u t i o n , w i l l be -10-given f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n i n the d i s c u s s i o n of methodology. The context i n which the 'event' or task of r e s o l v i n g the m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t occurs i n i s a m a r i t a l therapy session i n v o l v i n g both members of the couple. The therapeutic treatment approach used has been described by Greenberg and Johnson (1983,in press) and i s known as emotionally focused therapy. This therapy approach i s within the same t r a d i t i o n of Feldman (1982), Pinsof (1983), S a t i r (1973) and Wile (1981). The focus i n t h i s therapy i s upon the expression of unmet needs and the i n t e r r u p t i o n of patterns of r e j e c t i o n and d i s t a n c i n g i n couples. The emphasis i s not on improving c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n s k i l l s , and helping a couple compromise or s t r i k e a good bargain, but on acknowledging and expressing needs, emotions and personal meanings i n order to f o s t e r personal intimacy. The acknowledgement of f e e l i n g s , t h e i r experience and expression i s expected to lead to new ways of viewing s i t u a t i o n s and new i n t e r a c t i o n s (Greenberg and Safran, 1984). Once emotional responses have been accessed and expressed they are used to f o s t e r the implementation of more adaptive i n t e r a c t i n g patterns. Problems are not so much solved as integrated i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p . S p e c i f i c operations i n t h i s approach include i d e n t i f y i n g negative i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e s , increasing the awareness of f e e l i n g s and needs, and i n t e r p r e t i n g i n t e r a c t i n g s e n s i t i v i t i e s . Having o u t l i n e d the question t h i s study proposes, and defined the nature of the task or event to be studied, the l i t e r a t u r e relevant to the process of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n w i l l be reviewed i n the next chapter. -11-CHAPTER I I LITERATURE REVIEW Differences i n C o n f l i c t I n t e r a c t i o n Patterns i n Dist r e s s e d And Non-Distressed Couples The research l i t e r a t u r e i n m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n has tended to focus on the d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns i n d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed marriages rather than the act u a l processes that occur when couples resolve c o n f l i c t s . B i l l i n g s (1979) used two r a t i n g systems to code the communication behavior of non-distressed and d i s t r e s s e d couples as they engaged i n four predetermined c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n s i t u a t i o n s . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the communication behaviors of d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed couples were found. Di s t r e s s e d couples showed a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater percentage of h o s t i l e submissive acts and smaller percentages of f r i e n d l y dominant a c t s . A s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater percentage of r e j e c t i n g and coercive attacking acts were found among d i s t r e s s e d couples as well as a smaller percentage of co g n i t i v e acts than the non-distressed couples. Sequential analyses suggest, according to B i l l i n g s (1979): " . . . that d i s t r e s s e d couples e x h i b i t e d greater, whereas non-distressed couples exhibited l e s s e r , r e c i p r o c i t y of negative acts than s t a t i s t i c a l l y expected. There was evidence t h a t the two couple types may resolve the c o n f l i c t s t i u a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t ways and that among some d i s t r e s s e d couples, the proportion of h o s t i l e communications escalates as the c o n f l i c t continues" (p. 374). These f i n d i n g s are supported by those of Margolin and Wampold (1981) i n t h e i r sequential a n a l y s i s of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns of -12-d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed couples as they spent ten minutes r e s o l v i n g r e a l l i f e c o n f l i c t s . A f t e r an i n i t i a l c o n j o i n t interview, the couples, with the help of one of the members of the research team, chose two to p i c s that were a source of c o n f l i c t f o r them. Before leaving the room the experimenter i n s t r u c t e d the couple to spend ten minutes d i s c u s s i n g the t o p i c i n as constructive a manner as p o s s i b l e i n order to negotiate a b e t t e r understanding and r e s o l u t i o n of each t o p i c . Both the non-verbal and verbal behaviors of the couples were coded from videotaped recordings of the negotiation sessions. In t h i s study negative r e c i p r o c i t y and negative r e a c t i v i t y , or the l i k e l i h o o d of a negative response given a negative stimulus i s greater than the unconditional p r o b a b i l i t y of negative behaviors, were exhi b i t e d only by d i s t r e s s e d couples. P o s i t i v e r e c i p r o c i t y , or the l i k e l i h o o d of a p o s i t i v e response given a p o s i t i v e stimulus i s greater than the unconditional p r o b a b i l i t y of p o s i t i v e behaviors, was seen i n both d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed couples. Non-distressed couples tended to e x h i b i t higher rates of problem-solving, verbal and non-verbal p o s i t i v e and n e u t r a l behaviors than d i s t r e s s e d couples. Koran et a l . (1980) presented d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed couples with c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n tasks s i m i l a r to those used by B i l l i n g s (1979) and rated the i n q u i r y , responsiveness, c r i t i c i s m , and s o l u t i o n proposal behaviors of the couples. The behaviors, responsiveness and c r i t i c i s m were found to discriminate between the two groups. Non-distressed couples were more l i k e l y than d i s t r e s s e d -13-couples to be v e r b a l l y responsive to each other's influence e f f o r t s . D i s t r e s s e d couples, on the other hand, were more l i k e l y to r e l y on c r i t i c i s m i n attempting to i n f l u e n c e each other's p o s i t i o n . Instead of d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r issues i n n e u t r a l terms the d i s t r e s s e d couples tended to ". . . a t t r a c t elements of blame so that the other spouse was made to appear a t f a u l t " (p. 464). The couples who were able to o b j e c t i v e l y resolve t h e i r c o n f i c t were l i k e l y to show responsiveness, explore p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s and minimize c r i t i c i s m . D i s t r e s s e d couples o f f e r e d s o l u t i o n proposals at the same rate as non-distressed couples. However, non-distressed couples were more l i k e l y to reach agreements on the s o l u t i o n s proposed. In t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n of these r e s u l t s Koran et a l . (1980) suggest that the communication behaviors of the couples define not only the content l e v e l of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s but a l s o the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p that e x i s t s between the spouses. Both responsiveness and c r i t i c i s m " . . . appeared to carry r e l a t i o n s h i p messages that had s u b t a n t i a l consistancy across the couples. Responsiveness conveyed p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s about the marriage and increased the l i k e l i h o o d of a r r i v i n g at both r e s o l u t i o n s and s a t i s f a c t o r y outcomes. By the same token, c r i t i c i s m r e f l e c t e d a d i s s a t i s f a c t o r y marriage and decreased the l i k e l i h o o d of r e s o l u t i o n s and s a t i s f a c t o r y outcomes" (p. 467). Koran et a l . (1980) made another i n t e r e s t i n g observation about the couples who tended to resolve the c o n f l i c t i s sues. While these couples were able to express t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l viewpoints even when they were not i n agreement, " . . . they were c a r e f u l to communicate e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y that the m a r i t a l bond i t s e l f was not -14-jeopardized by t h i s disagreement" (p. 467). Revenstorf, Halvreg, Schindler, and Vogel (1983) i n a therapy outcome study compared the data c o l l e c t e d from d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed couples' problem discussions both before and a f t e r they recieved therapy. In t h e i r work Revenstorf e t a l . (1983) i d e n t i f i e d four patterns of i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the i n t e r a c t i o n s of d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed couples before and a f t e r therapy. These are: 1. Distancing - characterized by an a l t e r n a t i o n of negative responses. 2. Problem e s c a l a t i o n - an a l t e r n a t i o n of problem d e s c r i p t i o n and negative responses to t h i s . 3. Acceptance - problem d e s c r i p t i o n s are alt e r n a t e d with p o s i t i v e responses. 4. A t t r a c t i o n - characterized by a pattern of repeated a l t e r n a t i n g responses. I t was found that c e r t a i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns tended to lead to problem e s c a l a t i o n , while others l e d to problem defusion. The problem was l i k e l y to escalate when one partner stated the problem, the other partner responded negatively and the problem was restated. Problem e s c a l a t i o n a l s o occurred when a l t e r n a t i n g negative statements or 'distancing' was the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n . The problem was l i k e l y to be defused or de-escalated when the problem statement was accepted or r e i n f o r c e d through a p o s i t i v e response to i t . Before the -15-d i s t r e s s e d couples received m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g , t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s were more l i k e l y to be characterized by problem e s c a l a t i o n and di s t a n c i n g than the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the non-distressed couples. A f t e r treatment, the d i s t r e s s e d couples responded with even l e s s problem e s c a l a t i o n than the non-distressed couples. With treatment, mutual a t t r a c t i o n i n the d i s t r e s s e d couples l a s t s longer, s t a r t s at a higher l e v e l and reaches a higher maximum than seen i n non-distressed couples The patterns of d i s t a n c i n g and problem acceptance i n the d i s t r e s s e d couples move i n the d i r e c t i o n of the non-distressed couples a f t e r treatment, but don't reach the same l e v e l s . The extensive research completed by Gottman, Markman and Notarius (1977, 1979) supports the r e s u l t s of much of the work reviewed i n t h i s chapter. Gottman et a l . (1979) have analyzed three components (content, a f f e c t and context) of messages i n the communication acts of c l i n i c and n o n - c l i n i c couples as they attempt to resolve a s a l i e n t m a r i t a l i s s u e . The studies completed have addressed themselves to the t e s t i n g of a s t r u c t u r a l model of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . This model i s based upon the fo l l o w i n g hypotheses: 1. Degree of str u c t u r e - there i s more patterning of str u c t u r e i n the i n t e r a c t i o n of d i s t r e s s e d couples than i n the i n t e r a c t i o n non-distressed couples. 2. Positiveness - non-distressed couples are more p o s i t i v e and l e s s negative to one another than d i s t r e s s e d couples. The d i f f e r e n c e s should be greater f o r non-verbal than verbal behavior. -16-3. R e c i p r o c i t y - the r e c i p r o c a t i o n of negative behavior w i l l d i s c r i m i n a t e d i s t r e s s e d from non-distressed couples with more r e c i p r o c i t y of negative behavior i n d i s t r e s s e d than i n non-d i s t r e s s e d couples. 4. Dominance - the i n t e r a c t i o n of d i s t r e s s e d couples w i l l show more asymmetry i n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , with one partner more responsive than the other partner, than w i l l the behavior of non-d i s t r e s s e d couples (pp. 72-73). In regard to these hypotheses, Gottman et a l . (1979) found that non-verbal behavior d i f f e r e n t i a t e d d i s t r e s s e d from non-distressed couples b e t t e r than verbal behavior. Negative a f f e c t assessed non-v e r b a l l y was the most consistant d i s c r i m i n a t o r between the two groups. On an agreement-disagreement scale i t was found that d i s t r e s s e d couples were more l i k e l y to express agreement with accompanying negative non-verbal behaviors than the non-distressed couples. Dominance was reconceptualized as asymmetry i n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n the behavior o f husband and wife.. With dominance redefined i t was found that the wife i s more emotionally responsive to the husband than vice versa i n c l i n i c couples, while t h i s asymmetry was not seen i n n o n - c l i n i c couples. Gottman et a l . (1979) found some other i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns that discriminated d i s t r e s s e d from non-d i s t r e s s e d couples. One of these i s the notion of summarizing s e l f to t o t a l summary statements. The d i s t r e s s e d couples' i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns were more l i k e l y to be characterized by a summarization of -17-s e l f rather than summarizing the spouses' p o s i t i o n or both partners' p o s i t i o n s . As w e l l , n o n - c l i n i c couples were l i k e l y to engage i n a loop r e f e r r e d to as ' v a l i d a t i o n 1 , where information or expression of f e e l i n g i s responded to with agreement and n e u t r a l a f f e c t . In contrast to t h i s , c l i n i c couples tended to respond to information or f e e l i n g s about a problem with an expression of t h e i r own f e e l i n g s or new information. This loop i s known as 'cross-complaining'. Mind reading occurs i n both c l i n i c and n o n - c l i n i c couples, however c l i n i c couples were more l i k e l y to mind read with negative a f f e c t , which i s seen as blaming c r i t i c i s m and i s r e f u t e d by the other spouse. Mind reading with n e u t r a l a f f e c t tended to be i n t e r p r e t e d as a probe or question about f e e l i n g s by the n o n - c l i n i c group. Phases of M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t The major patterns t h a t emerged from the s e r i e s of observational studies completed by Gottman et a l . (1979) suggest that the d i s c u s s i o n of a m a r i t a l issue can be d i v i d e d i n t o three phases. In the f i r s t phase the task i s 'agenda b u i l d i n g * and i s characterized by the expansion of f e e l i n g s about the problem. In t h i s phase the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the n o n - c l i n i c couples were characterized by v a l i d a t i o n sequences, i n contrast to the c l i n i c couples, who tended to use cross-complaining sequences of i n t e r a c t i o n . The middle phase of the d i s c u s s i o n , 'arguing*, i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n both the c l i n i c and n o n - c l i n i c groups by disagreement. In t h i s phase the i n t e r a c t i o n s of -18-both groups looked very s i m i l a r except i n the area negative a f f e c t and summarization of s e l f or other. Negative a f f e c t or sarcasm was often seen i n the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the c l i n i c couples. When these couples d i d summarize, they tended to summarize t h e i r own p o s i t i o n , rather than t h e i r spouse's p o s i t i o n . Information exchange, agreement and communication t a l k c h a r a c t e r i z e d the f i n a l phase of the d i s c u s s i o n , known as 'negotiation'. Here c o n t r a c t i n g sequences and summary statements of the other's p o s i t i o n characterized the n o n - c l i n i c couples, while counter-proposals were frequently seen i n the couples' i n t e r a c t i o n s . In summarizing these observations, Gottman et a l . (1979) s t a t e : " . . . c l i n i c couples are most l i k e l y to engage i n sequences i n which complaint i s met with c r o s s -complaint, i n which a proposed s o l u t i o n of a problem i s met with a counter-proposal, and i n which negative a f f e c t i s met with negative a f f e c t . . . . N o n - c l i n i c couples on the other hand, are more l i k e l y than c l i n i c couples to engage i n sequences i n which a complaint i s f i r s t met with agreement, assent or validation,, i n which a proposed s o l u t i o n i s met with accepting m o d i f i c a t i o n of one's own p o s i t i o n and a c o n t r a c t i n g sequence, i n which negative a f f e c t i s not as l i k e l y to be met with negative a f f e c t " (p. 233). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Constructive and Destructive C o n f l i c t The question of the i n f l u e n c e of contextual v a r i a b l e s , such as the couples* actions, the stage and state of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , the s i t u a t i o n and p o s s i b l e behavioral d i f f e r e n c e s between the male and female partners, on the outcome of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t was explored through an extensive study by Raush et a l . (1974). In t h e i r work, -19-Raush et a l - (1974) a l s o attempted to discover the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between d e s t r u c t i v e and constructive c o n f l i c t . In order to observe couples engaged i n c o n f l i c t stuations, four improvisation scenes were developed. These scenes were designed to be quasi-experimental i n that a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t was created through the separate i n s t r u c t i o n s that were given to each partner. The couples were i n s t r u c t e d to be themselves rather than play r o l e s , so the s i t u a t i o n s were a l s o q u a s i - n a t u r a l i s t i c . Two of the scenes used is s u e - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t s , while the other two were designed to explore r e l a t i o n s h i p - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t s . In the r e l a t i o n s h i p - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t s the spouses were a l t e r n a t e l y asked to be ""distant' while the other spouse attempted to r e - e s t a b l i s h some closeness. Raush e t a l . (1974) found t h a t the couples tended to e i t h e r a c t i v e l y engage i n the c o n f l i c t issues i n an attempt to resolve them or manage the c o n f l i c t by avoiding dealing with any disagreement. Raush e t a l . (1974) d i f f e r e n t i a t e between avoiding i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s and d e a l i n g with i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t by avoidance. The couples who coped with int e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t through avoidance tended to p i l e up den i a l s , e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n s , and d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . An avoidance technique that tended to push the d i s c u s s i o n toward e s c a l a t i o n was the " . . . manipulative use of extraneous, d i s t r a c t i n g and i r r e l e v a n t remarks while maintaining a stance of r e j e c t i n g the other" (p. 79). I t was found that couples often colluded with another i n avoiding i n t e r p e r s o n a l issues. A system seemed to develop where each partner -20-would support the e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n s and denials of the other partner. Coping with c o n f l i c t through engagement was seen to r e s u l t i n both c o n s t r u c t i v e and d e s t r u c t i v e processes. The outcome of engagement tended to be de s t r u c t i v e when the couple seemed to have a c o n s t r i c t e d r e p e r t o i r e of i n t e r a c t i o n s and when int e r p e r s o n a l confrontation and commitment were seen as threatening. Destructive engagement was characterized by expansion of the issue or p i l i n g up diverse issues i n order to overwhelm the partner. Couples who were c o n s t r u c t i v e l y engaged i n the c o n f l i c t tended to "emphasize the process of i n t e r a c t i n g with one another rather than the. s p e c i f i c outcome of t h e i r interchange" (Raush e t a l . , 1974, p. 106). Humor and pla y f u l n e s s were exh i b i t e d without i n v a l i d a t i n g the seriousness of the issue, and there was an emphasis on exploration of s e l f and other. A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the data gathered from independant assessments of the couples, and an a n a l y s i s of the interviews and questionaires suggested that the couples f e l l i n t o two groups, with e i t h e r discordant or harmonious r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the couples' s t y l e of managing c o n f l i c t (avoidance or engagement) d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y place them i n the harmonious or discordant group. Raush et a l . (1974) state that despite t h e i r i n i t i a l p rejudices, the coping mechanisms of avoidance or engagement seem tenable f o r sta b l e marriages "given the context of continuing  p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i o n " (p. 106). However Raush et a l . (1974) also state that when avoidance i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c response to c o n f l i c t , -21-i n t e r p e r s o n a l issues are never addressed and there can be no mutually s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s o l u t i o n . A s i x category coding scheme was used by Raush e t a l . (1974) to rate the communication acts of the partners i n the improvisational scenes. The coding scheme included the following categories: 1. Cognitve a c t s : n e u t r a l acts, suggestions and r a t i o n a l arguments. 2. Resolving a c t s : aimed at c o o l i n g the c o n f l i c t or r e s o l v i n g the c o n f l i c t i s s u e . 3. R e c o n c i l i n g acts: acts aimed at r e c o n c i l i n g the two partners emotionally. 4. Appealing acts: acts appealing to the other to grant one's wishes. 5. Rejecting acts: acts showing a c o l d or nasty r e j e c t i o n of the other's arguement or person. 6. Coercive acts or personal attacks: acts aimed at f o r c i n g compliance by power plays, with induction, or disparagement of the other. (p. 115) Raush et a l . (1974) found some tendency toward r e c i p r o c i t y i n i n these categories however, they d i d not f i n d symmetrical r e c i p r o c i t y i n a l l categories. Resolving and r e c o n c i l i n g acts tended to be r e c i p r o c a l , while r e j e c t i o n l e d more often to appeal and coercion than to r e c i p r o c a l r e j e c t i o n . Issue-oriented c o n f l i c t scenes produced higher l e v e l s of c o g n i t i v e exchanges and lower l e v e l s of -22-r e j e c t i o n and coercion than d i d r e l a t i o n s h i p - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t s . The extensive use of r e j e c t i o n and coercion was s i g n i f i g a n t l y associated with the i n a b i l i t y to resolve the closeness-distance scenes. The discordant couples tended to engage i n much longer scenes than the harmonious couples. These scenes seemed to be used by the discordant partners to play out exaggerated power stuggles. The wives i n the discordant group responded to the issue-oriented scenes as though the d i f f e r e n t wishes of the partners touched d i r e c t l y on issues r e l a t e d to power and self-esteem. By the t h i r d scene, where the husband i s i n s t r u c t e d to i s o l a t e himself from h i s wife, the discordant husbands were f a r more coercive and l e s s c o n c i l i a t o r y than other husbands. The enactment scenes i n the harmonious group were characterized by a lack of heated exchange and a high proportion of r e c o n c i l i n g messages by husbands. While couples who both avoided and engaged i n c o n f l i c t f e l l i n t o the harmonious group, a l l couples i n t h i s group avoided e s c a l a t i o n of the c o n f l i c t . The l i k e l i h o o d of reaching r e s o l u t i o n was increased when couples kept the focus of the c o n f l i c t to a s p e c i f i c i s s u e . However, Raush e t a l . (1974) observed that some couples whose c o n f l i c t management s t y l e was characterized by c o n s t r u c t i v e engagement, moved beyond r e s o l u t i o n of a s p e c i f i c i s s u e . In these s i t u a t i o n s , there was a freedom from the " . . . r e c i p r o c a l p u l l evoked by a partner's negatively toned message" (p. 209) and an element of c r e a t i v i t y . The e a r l y stages of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n resemble the processes Deutsch (1969) describes as features -23-of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g . The couple then move beyond s p e c i f i c r e s o l u t i o n ; toward p r a c t i c a l planning, emotional r e c o n c i l a t i o n of the partners, r e a f f i r m a t i o n and c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p through discussions of other a c t i v i t i e s and eventually to the t o p i c of future coping with s i m i l a r c o n f l i c t i s s u e s . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y p e r t i n e n t to t h i s study to note that the issue of intimacy vs. i s o l a t i o n or d i s t a n t i a t i o n was the " c l e a r e s t dimension" (p. 104) that emerged from the study f o r Raush et a l . (1974). They state that: ". . . f o r some couples, the e s s e n t i a l s of the c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s are the mutual r e c o g n i t i o n and awareness of one another. At the opposite extreme, f o r other couples the c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s are t o t a l win-lose confrontations and t e s t s of i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y i n the a s s e r t i o n of power. For most couples the weight i s balanced i n one d i r e c t i o n or the other but the balance can s h i f t with the nature of the scene - with the issue i t poses and with threat or support of the partner's a c t i o n s " (p. 104) Intrigued by the 'mirroring behaviors' of c l i n i c couples, the tendency to meet complaint with cross-complaint, proposal with counter-proposal and negative a f f e c t with negative a f f e c t , Gottman et a l . (1979) went on to explore the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the perception and behavior of the couples. They suggest that the i mirroring behavior resembles the 'vying f o r symmetry' (p. 233) seen i n the t e r r i t o r i a l dispute r e l a t e s to intimacy i n that i t i s an attempt to increase i n t e r p e r s o n a l distance. As a r e s u l t of i n v e s t i g a t i n g the couples' perceptions of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s , Gottman et a l . (1979) found that couples who are d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r -24-r e l a t i o n s h i p and who mirror behaviors; maintain int e r p e r s o n a l distance through t e r r i t o r i a l disputes, do not develop a p r i v a t e message system and are not as e f f e c t i v e as s a t i s f i e d couples at reading t h e i r partner's non-verbal behavior. The l a s t f i n d i n g i s supported by Kahn (1970), who found that d i s s a t i s f i e d husbands and wives are p a r t i c u l a r l y prone to m i s i n t e r p r e t i n g each other's non-verbal s i g n a l s . D i s s a t i s f i e d spouses are more i n c l i n e d than s a t i s f i e d spouses to a t t r i b u t e negative connotations to t h e i r spouse's attempts to communicate a f f e c t i o n , happiness and p l a y f u l n e s s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the f i n d i n g s of both Gottman et a l . (1979) and Raush et a l . (1974) lead them to the issue of intimacy and the ways i n which int e r p e r s o n a l distance i s maintained i n u n f u l f i l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t i s c l e a r that the a b i l i t y to resolve issue of i n t e r p e r s o n a l distance or c o n f l i c t s c h aracterized by a pursue-withdraw cy c l e are important f o r m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . While a s u b s t a n t i a l amount i s already known about the d i f f e r e n t approaches d i s t r e s s e d and non-d i s t r e s s e d couples take toward in t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t , Raush et a l . (1974) note that the approach taken can change and lead to d i f f e r e n t outcomes. I t i s the processes involved i n s h i f t i n g from a problem e s c a l a t i n g track characterized by c r i t i c i s m to a problem s o l v i n g track characterized by mutual acceptance of the partner's p o s i t i o n that need to be observed on a moment by moment s c a l e i n order to understand the mechanisms of change and c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . -25-CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY Task An a l y s i s The purpose of t h i s study was one of model b u i l d i n g , rather than hypothesis t e s t i n g . Thus d e s c r i b i n g the method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n used i n order to gather the observations the model w i l l be based on, rather than s t a t i n g hypotheses i s appropriate here. This study b u i l t upon the work of Greenberg (1980, 1984) and Johnson (1980) i n which the re s o l u t i o n s of intrapersonal c o n f l i c t s were subject to a task a n a l y s i s i n order to b u i l d a model f o r i n t r a p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . The theory of human problem s o l v i n g developed by Newell and. Simon (1970, 1972) had been drawn upon by Greenberg and Johnson. According to Newell and Simon (1970) there are a number of important elements th a t must be understood i n order to perform a task a n a l y s i s and p r e d i c t task performance. A task a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e s : - an 'information processing system' - a person engaged i n the process of s o l v i n g a problem or completing a task - the task and i t s goal or s o l u t i o n , which are defined by an o b j e c t i v e outsider - the external context or environment i n which the task takes place, known as the task environment. While Newell and Simon used task a n a l y s i s to b u i l d models of problem s o l v i n g behavior with c o g n i t i v e tasks, Rice and Greenberg (1984) have shown that task a n a l y s i s i s a method w e l l - s u i t e d to the -26-study of the processes involved i n therapy where c l i e n t s complete a f f e c t i v e tasks. In a task a n a l y s i s of therapeutic events i t i s the c l i e n t ' s moment by moment process of completing a task that i s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In t h i s p r o j e c t the task i s an i n t e r a c t i o n a l one of r e s o l v i n g a m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t and the external context or task environment i s the set of therapeutic i n t e r v e n t i o n s . The an a l y s i s of an a f f e c t i v e task r e s u l t s i n the development of two p o s s i b l e types of models of change (Greenberg, 1984b). The f i r s t of these i s the performance model which describes the ac t u a l behaviors involved i n a suc c e s s f u l task performance. The second model, the information processing model, describes the underlying p s y c h o l o g i c a l system that could be responsible f o r generating the su c c e s s f u l performance. The concepts, ' e x p e r i e n t i a l s t a t e s ' , and 'performance diagrams' are important i n understanding how the moment by moment processes of therapeutic events are transformed i n t o performance models. When s o l v i n g an a f f e c t i v e task a person's awareness and concept u a l i z a t i o n of the problem represents h i s or her e x p e r i e n t i a l s t a t e or frame of mind. This s t a t e i s constantly changing as people accumulate new information and understanding as they work on the problem. Each e x p e r i e n t i a l state represents a step i n the process of problem s o l v i n g . As the problem s o l v e r moves through the various e x p e r i e n t i a l states required to solve the problem, t h e i r behavior can be charted to form the performance diagram. This diagram represents the sequences of the performances of the problem s o l v e r . I t includes -27-each e x p e r i e n t i a l state and forms the bas i s of a performance model. As the task i n t h i s study was an i n t e r a c t i o n a l one, the performance diagrams represent the i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics between the two problem s o l v e r s . The i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s model of in t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n are analogous to the c o g n i t i v e states that are graphed i n a task a n a l y s i s of a performance event i n v o l v i n g an i n d i v i d u a l s o l v i n g a cogni t i v e problem. When two people are involved i n a task performance t h e i r s e l f organizations and subsequent communicative behaviors occur within the context of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s . I t i s assumed that the communicative behavior of each partner influences the i n t e r n a l processing and communicative behaviors of the other, as w e l l as the performance outcome. The data used to create the performance diagram was taken from a t r a n s c r i p t of what the problem solvers d i d and s a i d as w e l l as the relevant aspects of t h e i r non-verbal behavior, such as voice q u a l i t y . The process of gathering and s t r u c t u r i n g the data f o r the performance diagrams and subsequent models involved a number of s t r a t e g i e s . These s t r a t e g i e s are o u t l i n e d a f t e r the fo l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of the measures considered f o r use i n t h i s study. Process Measures A number of process measure were considered f o r use i n i d e n t i f y i n g the engagement of the problem solvers i n the a f f e c t i v e task and the s o l u t i o n of the task. The b a s i c u n i t f o r a l l r a t i n g s -28-was a statement by one member of the couple, where a statement i s defined as a speaking turn i n an i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e i r partner. The measurement instruments used to define the therapeutic event or task performance were: the S t r u c t u r a l A nalysis of S o c i a l Behavior (SASB), the Experiencing Scale, the C l i e n t Voice Q u a l i t y System, the Target Complaints measure and the C o n f l i c t s Resolution Box Scale. S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s of S o c i a l Behavior The SASB, which was designed by Benjamin (1974), i s composed of a three-dimensional g r i d system on which dialoque i s analyzed and coded. The communication behaviors of the spouses are coded on two of the three-dimensional g r i d s . The two g r i d s i n d i c a t e whether the communication focuses on oneself or one's partner. The g r i d s a l s o have a h o r i z o n t a l axis which runs from d i s a f f i l i a t i o n to a f f i l i a t i o n and a v e r t i c a l axis running from maximal dependence to maximal independence. Each g r i d has 36 behavior categories that correspond to the dimensions defined by the g r i d s and t h e i r axes. The SASB has been found to be a sound measuring device and appropriate f o r the ana l y s i s of therapeutic processes. Benjamin (1974) reports t h a t " v a l i d i t y has been e s t a b l i s h e d by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , circumplex a n a l y s i s , a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n techniques and dimensional r a t i n g s . " When using the instrument to analyze therapeutic processes Greenberg (1980) found an i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of .911 using Cohen's Kappa. Humphrey (1983) reports i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s on SASB ranging from .61 to -29-.79 with a mean of .69 on independent r a t i n g s , using Cohen's Kappa. When four r a t e r s were asked to reach a consensus a f t e r d i s c u s s i o n Humphrey obtained i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s between .80 and .84 with a mean of .81. Experiencing Scale The Experiencing Scale (Klein, Mathiew, Gendlin & K i e s l e r , 1969) i s a seven p o i n t scale that has been shown to be a h i g h l y r e l i a b l e measure of c l i e n t involvement or 'experiencing' i n therapy. A low scale r a t i n g i n d i c a t e s s u p e r f i c a l involvement and references to the s e l f . Moving toward the middle of scale there i s a progression toward d e s c r i p t i o n s of f e e l i n g s and a t high l e v e l s of the s c a l e there i s an e x p l o r a t i o n of f e e l i n g s that may lead to problem-solving and new understanding of oneself. The s i x t h stage of the scale i s characterized by a "synthesis of r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e , newly recognized, or more f u l l y r e a l i z e d f e e l i n g s and experiences to produce personally meaningful structures or to resolve issues" (Klein et a l . , 1969). C l i e n t Voice Q u a l i t y System The C l i e n t Voice Qu a l i t y System (CVQ, Rice, Koke, Greenberg, and Wagstaff, 1979) i s comprised of four mutually exclusive voice patterns; focused, e x t e r n a l i z e d , l i m i t e d and emotional. Each of these i s i d e n t i f i e d i n terms of 6 features: 1) energy, 2) primary s t r e s s e s , 3) r e g u l a r i t y of s t r e s s e s , 4) pace, 5) timbre, and 6) contours. I t -30-has been shown that voice q u a l i t y i n d i c a t e s the measure of involvement i n the moment and that more focused voice was found i n good therapy sessions that i n poor therapy sessions (Rice and Wagstaff, 1967) . Greenberg (1980) combined the r a t i n g s on focused and emotional voice i n t o a 'good contact' category and the r a t i n g s on external and l i m i t e d voice i n t o a 'poor contact' category. In the 'good contact' category the speaker i s l e c t u r i n g at another (external) or speaking from a withdrawn p o s i t i o n ( l i m i t e d ) . A rank order c o r r e l a t i o n or r e l i a b i l i t y between judges f o r the CVQ was found to be between .70 and .79 on the four categories (Rice and Wagstaff, 1967). Percentage agreement was .70 and Cohen's Kappa was .49 f o r the same study. Coding Scheme f o r Interpersonal C o n f l i c t The Coding Scheme f o r Interpersonal C o n f l i c t designed by Raush, Barry, H e r t e l and Swain (1974) i n d i c a t e s r e s o l u t i o n of the c o n f l i c t . With t h i s coding scheme each statement or a c t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l i s coded on both an a c t i o n category and a phase category. The phase coding i n d i c a t e s the general p o s i t i o n of the partners with respect to the flow of the c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n . The three phases are 'introductory', ' c o n f l i c t ' and ' r e s o l u t i o n and post r e s o l u t i o n ' . There are 36 a c t i o n categories that may be c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r c o g n i t i v e , a f f i l l a t i v e or c o e r c i v e . I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y has been found to be between .70 and .77 depending upon the number of categories used i n coding. -31-Couples I n t e r a c t i o n Coding System The Couples I n t e r a c t i o n Coding System (CICS) developed by Gottman et a l . (1979) i s based on the idea that every message has sev e r a l components, i n c l u d i n g : - the content - the p r i n t e d word or l i t e r a l aspect of the message - the a f f e c t - the nonverbal behaviors of the speaker during transmission of the message - the context - the nonverbal behaviors of the l i s t e n e r . Each thought u n i t of the t r a n s c r i b e d videotape i s coded on the eight summary codes of the CICS. These include; agreement, disagreement, communication t a l k , mind reading, proposing a s o l u t i o n , summcLiizing other, summarizing s e l f , and problem information. The f a c i a l gestures, voice, and body p o s i t i o n of both the speaker and l i s t e n e r are a l s o coded as e i t h e r negative, p o s i t i v e , or n e u t r a l f o r each thought u n i t . G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y studies done by Gottman et a l . (1979) suggest that the CICS i s a r e l i a b l e coding system i n the sense of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y across coders and sample lengths. R e l a t i o n a l Communication Control System The R e l a t i o n a l Communication Control system designed by Rogers and Farace (1975) i s based on the assumption that a l l messages transmit two types of meaning, content and r e l a t i o n a l . The coding scheme focuses on the d e f i n i t i o n a l nature of the i n t e r a c t o r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus i t measures the c o n t r o l dimension of ongoing -32-messages through which i n t e r a c t o r s r e c i p r o c a l l y define t h e i r p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e to one another. A three d i g i t code i s used to categorize messages by speaker, grammatical form and response mode. Then the message codes are t r a n s l a t e d i n t o one-up, one across, or one-down c o n t r o l d i r e c t i o n s . One-up ( f ) messages attempt to a s s e r t d e f i n i t i o n a l r i g h t s ; one-down ( -l ) messages request or accept the others d e f i n i t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . One across (•—*) l e v e l i n g messages minimize a s s e r t i n g or accepting d e f i n i t i o n s . As the focus of the coding system i s r e l a t i o n a l and each message i s considered to be both a response to what preceeded i t and a stimulus f o r the message that follows, the c o n t r o l d i r e c t i o n s of the message are p a i r e d . These combined c o n t r o l d i r e c t i o n s form the minimal st r u c t u r e u n i t of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and are c a l l e d t r a n s a c t s . There are three b a s i c types transacts or c o n t r o l patterns i n r e l a t i o n a l communication. When the d e f i n i t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f f e r e d by one i n t e r a c t a n t i s accepted by the other the t r a n s a c t i s complementary and the c o n t r o l d i r e c t i o n s are opposite ( T j , ) or ( J , T ) . With symmetrical transacts the c o n t r o l d i r e c t i o n s are the same ("ft 44 7* -r+) ; there i s a s i m i l a r i t y i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and the communication behavior of one partner mirrors that of the other. In t r a n s i t o r y transacts (f_>^_> _^7(-vp the c o n t r o l d i r e c t i o n s are d i f f e r e n t but not opposite, with one of the i n t e r a c t a n t s choosing a one across l e v e l i n g movement. When the coding system was used i n a study of i n t e r a c t i o n amoung 65 married couples, i t y i e l d e d r e l i a b l i t y l e v e l s ranging from 1.00 to -33-.68 across four d i s c u s s i o n t o p i c s . The average r e l i a b i l i t y across a l l comparisons was .86 (Ericson and Rogers 1973). Outcome Measures Target Complaints Scale The Target Complaints scale was used to access the couple's perspective on the completion of the task. This measure, designed by Battle.j, Imber, Hoer-Sarich, Stone, Nash and Frank (1966) c o n s i s t s of three 5-point scales on which each spouse i s asked to r a t e the amount of change on three d i f f e r e n t complaints r e l a t e d to the core c o n f l i c t i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . In t h i s study the s c a l e was administereffis.during an i n i t i a l interview and at termination of therapy to i d e n t i f y movement toward r e s o l u t i o n of the issue presented. C o n f l i c t Resolution Box Scale T h e , C o n f l i c t Resolution Box Scale notes the degree to which the couple and the t h e r a p i s t f e e l the c o n f l i c t issue has been resolved during the session. This seven p o i n t scale ranges from 'not at a l l resolved* i n the f i r s t box to 'somewhat resolved* i n the fouth box, to ' t o t a l l y resolved' i n the seventh box. This instrument has been shown to s u c c e s s f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e between more or l e s s resolved sessions i n a. study, comparing the e f f e c t s of two c h a i r and empathic r e f l e c t i o n s on c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n s (Greenberg and Dompierre, 1981). -34-Dyadic Adjustment Scale The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier and Thompson 1982) measures the l e v e l of m a r i t a l adjustment achieved by couples. The DAS has four i n t e r r e l a t e d dimensions; Dyadic Concensus, Dyadic Cohesion, Dyadic S a t i s f a c t i o n and A f f e c t i o n a l Expression. The t h e o r e t i c a l range of scores i s from 0 to 151, with a score under 100 sugesting that the couple i s experiencing d i s t r e s s . The DAS was administered to the couples i n t h i s study during an i n i t i a l interview and at termination of therapy to measure change i n m a r i t a l adjustment. Procedures The seven s t r a t e g i e s of a. task a n a l y s i s are: 1. E x p l i c a t i o n of the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s c o g n i t i v e map (subjective and theory) 2. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the task ( r e s o l u t i o n of the pursue-distance c o n f l i c t ) 3. The s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the task environment (emotionally focused therapy) 4. Demonstration of the potency of the processes under i n v e s t i g a t i o n (outcome studies) 5. The r a t i o n a l task a n a l y s i s 6. The e m p i r i c a l task a n a l y s i s 7. Model construction The e x p l i c a t i o n of the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s c o g n i t i v e map appears i n the -35-Results chapter of t h i s study. S e l e c t i o n of the Event The performance studied here has been i d e n t i f i e d as the i n t e r a c t i o n a l task of r e s o l v i n g a m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a pursue-distance c y c l e . The performance i s an 'event* with a , " . . . sequence that has a begining, an end, and a p a r t i c u l a r s tructure that gives i t meaning as an i s l a n d of behavior d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the surrounding behaviors i n the ongoing psychotherapeutic process." (Greenberg 1984b p. 138) The f o l l o w i n g process was used to s e l e c t videotapes of f i v e m a r i t a l therapy seesions, four of which included a r e s o l u t i o n event and a f i f t h i n which there was an unsuccessful attempt at the r e s o l u t i o n of a pursue-distance. c o n f l i c t . A 'marker' or c l i e n t performance patte r n s i g n a l s the begining of the event. In t h i s task a n a l y s i s the marker i s a pursue-distance i n t e r a c t i o n . Each member of the couple was i d e n t i f i e d as e i t h e r a pursuer or distancer, according to SASB r a t i n g s on an e a r l y segment of the c o n f l i c t u a l i n t e r a c t i o n under study. Pursuers were those who i n i t i a l l y engaged i n the c o n f l i c t with a higher proportion than t h e i r partners of behaviors i n the 'attacking and r e j e c t i n g ' , ' b e l i t t l i n g and blaming', or 'watching and managing' c l u s t e r s . Distancers i n i t i a l l y showed higher proportions than t h e i r partners of 'walling o f f and avoiding', 'protesting and withdrawing', 'sulking and appeasing', or 'deferring and submitting' communication a c t s . The i n v e s t i g a t o r l i s t e n e d to tapes of the therapy sessions, and reviewed the t r a n s c r i p t s of these sessions to f i n d the -36-pursue-distance i n t e r a c t i o n that occured before ' d i s c l o s i n g and expressing' or 'affirming and understanding' communication a c t s . Subsequent i n t e r a c t i o n s were tracked and coded u n t i l the occurance of a r e s o l u t i o n . C r i t e r i a f o r the occurance of a r e s o l u t i o n were: 1) a score of a t l e a s t 3 on the Target Complaints measure a t termination of therapy 2) a report by the spouses of l e v e l 4 or more on the C o n f l i c t Resolution Box Scale 3) a report by the t h e r a p i s t of l e v e l 4 or more on the C o n f l i c t Resolution Box Scale 4) g l o b a l c l i n i c a l judgement from three c l i n i c i a n s l i s t e n i n g to the l a s t ten minutes of the session and judging the degree r e s o l u t i o n . Task Environment The t h i r d step, s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the task environment, was given b r i e f a t t e n t i o n i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s study. The reader i n t e r e s t e d i n a more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the task environment, emotionally focused couples therapy i s r e f e r r e d to the works of Greenberg and Johnson (1983,in p r e s s ) . The fourth step, demonstration of the potency of the task environment and the process was accomplished by Johnson and Greenberg (in p r e s s ) . -37-Rational Analysis The f i f t h step, r a t i o n a l task a n a l y s i s , was accomplished by the i n v e s t i g a t o r engaging i n a "thought experiment", Greenberg (1984b). The i n v e s t i g a t o r drew upon her experience, both personal and c l i n i c a l , and the experiences of her collegues i n an attempt to e n v i s i o n a number of ways that the problem or task could be solved. In t h i s thought experiment the p o s s i b l e performances of the couple were f r e e l y imagined f o r the purpose of e x t r a c t i n g "the e s s e n t i a l nature of r e s o l u t i o n performances and the fundamental strategy underlying these performances" (Greenberg 1983, p. 141). The r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s makes e x p l i c i t the assumptions that quide the i n v e s t i g a t o r i n h i s or her observations and provides a framework f o r understanding the a c t u a l c l i e n t performances. According to Johnson (1980) any models developed through t h i s thought experiment must meet c e r t a i n requirements i n order to be used i n the next steps of the task a n a l y s i s . The models must present a 'process' which can be applied to a v a r i e t y of content problems. The models must communicate as c l e a r l y as p o s s i b l e the •processes f o r doing' - the type of task, the way the two problem solvers i n t e r p r e t the task, the on-going i n t e r a c t i o n a l dynamics, and the thoughts and f e e l i n g s of the problem s o l v e r s . I t must a l s o include the 'processes f o r deciding what to do next', - how the communication behavior of one spouse a f f e c t s the other as they move from one s t a t e of experience to another, and how they attempt to solve the problem. The goal of the r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i s to provide a -38-comprehensive yet d e t a i l e d model representing the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s best quess of the s t r a t e g i e s involved i n task completion. Once t h i s has been done, the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s can move to the s i x t h step, the empirical task a n a l y s i s . This step involves rigourously d e s c r i b i n g the a c t u a l moment by moment performance of the problem solvers as they complete the task. E m p i r i c a l Analysis Each videotape was tran s c r i b e d and each statement of the spouses was coded by two r a t e r s . The main goal here was the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of patterns i n the process of the task performance. The SASB , the Experiencing Scale, the C l i e n t Voice Quality System, the Coding Scheme f o r Interpersonal C o n f l i c t , the Couple's I n t e r a c t i o n Coding system, and the R e l a t i o n a l Communication Control System were considered as po s s i b l e instruments f o r coding the t r a n s c r i p t s and where non-verbal behavior i s coded, the videotapes. The f i r s t r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s guided what we were measuring and determined which of the proposed measures were se l e c t e d f o r the coding. Information obtained from these scales was used to i d e n t i f y and track each i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n and e x p e r i e n t i a l state the problem solvers moved through. The i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s formed the basi s of the performance diagrams. These became a model of performance which provided a framework f o r constructing a model of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s and e x p e r i e n t i a l states that generated the observed performance. -39-Information was gathered from some couples i n a process known as Interpersonal Process R e c a l l ( E l l i o t 1979) and t h i s a l s o contributed to the e m p i r i c a l task a n a l y s i s . In the IPR's the couples reviewed a tape of the therapy session within a few days of i t s occurrence. They were asked to r e c a l l what they were th i n k i n g and experiencing during the session and the impact that the dynamics of the s i t u a t i o n had on t h e i r i n t e r n a l processing. The spouses were encouraged to become aware of and explore any images, memories, or thoughts they had during the task performance. In t h i s way, the i n v e s t i g a t o r gained not only a p i c t u r e of the external behavior of the problem solvers but a l s o an impression of the problem s o l v e r s i n t e r n a l processes. Model Construction The seventh stage, construction of the models involved a comparison of the models generated through the r a t i o n a l task analyses and the empirical task analyses. The thought experiment i s compared with the a c t u a l performances to a r r i v e a t a performance model. The empirical a n a l y s i s w i l l e i t h e r corroborate or expand the o r i g i n a l r a t i o n a l model or disconfirm i t and suggest other p o s s i b i l i t i e s . -40-CHAPTER IV RESULTS T h e o r e t i c a l Framework E x p l i c a t i o n of Map and Theory The f i f t h step of the task a n a l y s i s , having defined the task and the task environment i s to complete a r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of p o s s i b l e r e s o l u t i o n performances to provide a framework f o r understanding the performance that i s to be studied. In t h i s step the i n v e s t i g a t o r s draw upon t h e i r review of the l i t e r a t u r e , c l i n i c a l knowledge, and personal experience to answer the question, 'How could I solve t h i s problem?'. Greenberg (1984) describes t h i s process as a " ... kind of though experiment, (Husserl 1939/1973) i n which p o s s i b l e performances are v a r i e d f r e e l y i n the imagination to extra c t the e s s e n t i a l nature of r e s o l u t i o n and the fundamental strategy underlying these performances" (p. 141). In engaging i n t h i s thought experiment I have an image of myself as the d i r e c t o r of an imaginary p l a y . The scene i s created by the i n t e g r a t i o n of what I've read, my theory of change and experiences. I then move the actors around the stage having them play out scenarios of r e s o l u t i o n u n t i l I f e e l they are a c t i n g out the e s s e n t i a l aspects of experience, or u n i v e r s a l experiences that the audience w i l l r e l a t e to.. The stage has been set i n part through the d e l i n e a t i o n of the sequential steps the partners appear to go through i n the development of a pursue-distance c o n f l i c t . This has been included i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n (See Chapter I ) . -41-The stage can be fu r t h e r set by considering the theory behind emotionally focused couples therapy (Greenberg & Johnson 1983). In the 'pursue-distance 1 or 'attack-withdraw' c o n f l i c t the i n t e r a c t i o n s are complementary. The i n d i v i d u a l s are organized i n such a way that t h e i r behavior whether i t i s attack or withdraw i s the dominant aspect of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l o r ganization. This organization i s "...simultaneously maintained and supported by 1) The negative  i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e , i e . couple system functioning and by 2) Some  i n d i v i d u a l processes being more dominant i n f o c a l awareness, i e . In d i v i d u a l subsystem fu n c t i o n i n g " (p. 10). Thus both the current i n t e r a c t i o n between the two partners and the current e x p e r i e n t i a l processes w i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l s play a part i n maintaining the c o n f l i c t . Change, then involves both a change i n each partner's view of themselves and a change i n t h e i r context, i . e . t h e i r communication with each others The partners must experience 1) themselves and 2) each other d i f f e r e n t l y and 3) they must s h i f t t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to each other. The pursuer needs to stop blaming or c r i t i c i z i n g and the withdrawer needs to make contact with the pursuer i n a non-rejecting ways. This i s a c i r c u l a r rather than l i n e a r process, that can be i n i t i a t e d by the behavior of e i t h e r the pursuer or the withdrawer. In order to describe t h i s process though we have chosen to begin the sequence with the pursuer's behavior as i t i s often most e f f e c t i v e c l i n i c a l l y to soften the pursuer's blaming behavior before encouraging the withdrawer to make contact with the -42-pursuer. The process of experiencing oneself or one's partner d i f f e r e n t l y i s brought about by refraining the negative i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e i n terms of the underlying emotional experiences of each partner. When the underlying fears or a n x i e t i e s are expressed by the pursuer, rather than anger the other partner perceives t h e i r spouse i n a new way. When the withdrawer i s confronted with t h e i r partners' v u l n e r a b l i t i e s , rather than t h e i r anger they are l e s s threatened and are able to respond with compassion rather than f u r t h e r d i s t a n c i n g . Pursuers when they are confronted by t h e i r partners' f e e l i n g s , needs and wants perceive them not as r e j e c t i n g and f e e l more needed by t h e i r partners' requests. Greenberg and Johnson (1983) s t a t e t h a t the "... expression of f e a r and v u l n e r a b i l i t y , besides evoking compassion, a l s o communicates a n a l o g i c a l l y that, ' t h i s i s not an attack' and often represents a major change i n p o s i t i o n i n the i n t e r a c t i o n by that person, e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e i r p r i o r p o s i t i o n was e i t h e r blaming or withdrawing " (p. 13). The expression of emotional experiences such as f e a r , v u l n e r a b i l i t y , sadness or pain rather than anger or resentment both brings new aspects of the s e l f i n t o f o c a l awareness and represents major changes i n one's p o s i t i o n i n an i n t e r a c t i o n . Greenberg and Johnson (1983) o u t l i n e f i v e major changes or steps that couples appear to move through as the complimentary pursue-distance organization i s a l t e r e d . These are: -43-1. An i n d i v i d u a l preceives him or h e r s e l f d i f f e r e n t l y by br i n g i n g i n t o focus awareness experiences not pr e v i o u s l y dominant i n t h i s persons view of s e l f ; f o r example, 'I see and accept my v u l n e r a b i l i t y . ' 2. The spouse on witnessing the partners new a f f e c t i v e expressions preceives the partner i n a new way: f o r example, 'I see your need f o r c a r i n g and contact rather than h o s t i l i t y . * 3. The i n d i v i d u a l s personal reorganization leads to d i f f e r e n t behavior i n the i n t e r a c t i o n with the spouses; f o r example, 'I now ask you f o r reassurance from a p o s i t i o n of v u l n e r a b i l i t y . ' 4. The spouse's new perceptions of the partner lead to d i f f e r e n t responses; f o r example, 'I comfort you rather than withdraw.' 5. As a function of t h e i r partners new behaviors, the i n d i v i d u a l s come to see themselves i n a new way, f o r example, 'Since I can f u l f i l l your needs I see myself as valuable and necessary to you. Subjective Data A r a t i o n a l task a n a l y s i s focuses not only on the "process f o r doing" but al s o on the "process f o r deciding what to do next" (Johnson 1980, p. 45). Thus we are drawn to questions l i k e ; what goes on i n s i d e pursuers when they are able to take a s e l f - f o c u s and assume r e s p o n s i b l i t y f o r t h e i r state rather than p l a c i n g r e s p o n s i b l i t y outside themselves by blaming, or what happens i n s i d e the withdrawer when they f e e l safe enough to i n i t i a t e contact and express e i t h e r c a r i n g or t h e i r own fears and needs. In a task a n a l y s i s the i n v e s t i g a t o r makes e x p l i c i t h i s or her c o g n i t i v e map, drawing on the subjective experience as w e l l as knowledge of the phenomena (Greenberg 1984). In order to come c l o s e r to understanding the process of r e s o l u t i o n I began to s c r u t i n i z e my own i n t e r a c t i o n s with my husband. -44-I a l s o asked my husband and another colleague to write about t h e i r experiences and perceptions as she and her partner move from a problem e s c a l a t i o n pattern of r e l a t i n g to a problem s o l v i n g i n t e r a c t i o n . My colleague notes that a c o n f l i c t between her and her spouse u s u a l l y begins with both of them r a t i o n a l l y a s s e r t i n g t h e i r d i f f e r i n g opinions and p o s i t i o n s without r e c e i v i n g acknowledgement from the other. My husband o u t l i n e s our problem e s c a l a t i o n p a t t e r n i n the fo l l o w i n g way. In a disagreement both of us tend to concentrate on as s e r t i n g our own separate p o s i t i o n s . We emphasize our own sense of j u s t i c e , i e . 'I am r i g h t , s/he's wrong'. Then sensing that our own p o s i t i o n i s not being heard or understood our f r u s t r a t i o n increases as does our determination to communicate our p o s i t i o n . This occurs simultaneously, both of us c l e a r l y not l i s t e n i n g to the others viewpoint, rather concentrating on our own is s u e s . When I do respond to her p o s i t i o n i t i s from my own perception of what her p o s i t i o n i s , u s u a l l y an inaccurate one. This increases her f e e l i n g of being misunderstood or uncared f o r because I c l e a r l y was not l i s t e n i n g . We f i n d ourselves arguing about two separate issues, unaware and not being heard. This can continue i n an ever i n c r e a s i n g and exhausting s p i r a l . My colleague describes a sequence i n which she and spouse move from problem e s c a l a t i o n to r e s o l u t i o n . As she and her spouse discuss an i n c i d e n t they get f u r t h e r and f u r t h e r entrenched i n defending t h e i r p o s i t i o n s and move to general accusations that go beyond the immediate s i t u a t i o n . My colleague becomes s i l e n t , r e f l e c t s on t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n and then becomes teary. She t a l k s to her partner about; how threatened she was i n the in c i d e n t , her need f o r h i s support, and her -45-hurt at not r e c e i v i n g i t . My colleague's partner now responds by comforting her and v a l i d a t i n g her p o i n t of view. In t h i s i n c i d e n t my collegue brings i n t o f o c a l awareness her v u l n e r a b i l i t y . Her partner p e r c e i v i n g her d i f f e r e n t l y i s able to respond to her by v a l i d a t i n g and comforting her rather than counter-attacking or withdrawing. For the most part the problem e s c a l a t i o n patterns of my spouse and I involve me p l a y i n g the r o l e of the pursuer and my spouse taking the r o l e of the withdrawer. Through reviewing the times when I have been able to stop blaming my spouse and express my underlying f e e l i n g s i t seems there are a number of things that happen that allow or encourage me to take a s e l f - f o c u s and express my v u l n e r a b l i t y . 1. At times a memory, a v i s u a l p i c t u r e or l i s t e n i n g to the tone of my voice clues me i n t o the f a c t that I am blaming and that I w i l l not get what I want by making angry demands. I then t r y to change my tone of voice and be open about what I want or need rather than complain about what he i s not doing f o r me. 2. Just as becoming aware of my voice tone can help me r e a l i z e that I am blaming and i t i s counter-productive c e r t a i n f a c i a l expressions and mannerisms of my partner can clue me i n to when he's f e e l i n g blamed. Sometimes when I am angry my husband w i l l t r y to placate me. When he does t h i s he takes on an almost hangdog expression, hunching h i s shoulders a b i t and lowering h i s head. This used to make me more angry but now i t t r i g g e r s my awareness that I am making i t d i f f i c u l t f o r him to give me the contact I want. I now perceive my partner d i f f e r e n t l y , rather than seeing him as somehow weak or at f a u l t I see him as genuinely needing my support. My spouse seems, to have a t l e a s t two ways to stop me i n my tracks when I am blamimg and i n i t i a t e a change i n our i n t e r a c t i o n -46-c y c l e . 1. A number of times my spouse has broken the attack-withdraw c y c l e by commenting on what's happening between us and how he f e e l s . He us u a l l y says something l i k e , 'I f e e l I can't win now', or 'Anything I say w i l l be wrong ', or 'I don't have a l l the answers to t h i s ' . This t r i g g e r s i n me the awareness that I am expecting him to take f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r what's going on and that i s n ' t f a i r . I also experience him d i f f e r e n t l y , rather than experiencing the abandonment I f e e l when he withdraws I see him as t r y i n g to r e l a t e and solve the problem. This helps me to l e t go of my anger and become vulnerable. 2. When my spouse of h i s own accord i n i t i a t e s an expression of c a r i n g f o r me or expresses how much he would l i k e to do t h i s but that he f e e l s I have put a b a r r i e r between him and me, i t i s hard f o r me to remain angry or c r i t i c a l . As I see hi s w i l l i n g n e s s to respond to me I am able to openly express my needs. In t r y i n g to understand the dynamics of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e from the withdrawer's p o s i t i o n I asked my husband about a time when he expressed a de s i r e to care f o r me and comfort me when I was s t i l l angry. He s a i d , 'I wasn't f e e l i n g g u i l t y . I could see that i t was your problem, you had made y o u r s e l f miserable, so I had some ca r i n g f o r you. I knew you were upset a t me but I wasn't worried about that because I knew I wasn't g u i l t y . I t r i e d to break the cyc l e because I didn't want a lousy weekend but I wasn't t r y i n g to win. I f e l t I was r i g h t , but I didn't need to e i t h e r win or give i n . I didn't f e e l a need to win.' Another time my spouse expressed ca r i n g f o r me a f t e r I had been c r i t i c a l , r e t r e a t e d i n anger and then t r i e d to openly express my anxiety without blaming him. When asked about t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n he sa i d , -47-I thought you were upset at me f o r t a l k i n g about G.\s inadequacies. I know you don't l i k e that. I didn't want you to create a b a r r i e r . I wanted to soften you, to have you not look at my own inadequacies but l e t you know I loved you and hoped you could be more receptive to me. I also saw you were t r y i n g . ' Through the process of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n the i n v e s t i g a t o r has noticed some changes i n the process she and her spouse move through i n r e s o l v i n g t h e i r c o n f l i c t s . The changes can be i l l u s t r a t e d i n the fo l l o w i n g example. On a recent Saturday I helped my husband out with some work he needed done. As I worked he spontaneously expressed h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r me by g i v i n g me a hug, t e l l i n g me how wonderful I was and how much he appreciated my help. He s a i d that on Sunday he would be sure to t r e a t me w e l l , s t a r t i n g with breakfast i n bed and going from there. This was unexpected and at that moment I f e l t s p e c i a l and appreciated. Sunday morning came and went without breakfast i n bed. When I asked my spouse about what he had planned f o r the day he s a i d he had to study. I f t h i s had happened a year ago I would have been f u r i o u s but not s a i d anything at the time. Instead I would have been c o l d and d i s t a n t a l l day and f e l t that my husband r e a l l y didn't care f o r me. Eventually t h i s would have le d to a f i g h t with me accusing my spouse of not l o v i n g me. Now I didn't say much but went away to t r y to s o r t out my own f e e l i n g s and expectations. I could see that my husband hadn't had much time to himself and was t i r e d . This was why he hadn't followed through on hi s plans. I knew t h a t he wasn't being h o s t i l e toward me but was -48-quiet and a b i t d i s t a n t because of h i s own needs. I was s t i l l angry but rather than f e e l i n g r e j e c t e d I was merely f e e l i n g forgotten and disappointed. I wasn't sure what to do with these f e e l i n g s but f i n a l l y decided to confront my spouse. I went to him and reminded him of what he s a i d on Saturday. I t o l d him I was angry and s a i d , ' I f you didn't mean what you s a i d I wish you wouldn't have s a i d i t . ' At t h i s p o i n t I was angry and my comments were h o s t i l e . A long s i l e n c e followed during which I considered leaving the room, but didn't probably because I was curious about what my spouse was t h i n k i n g and what h i s response would be. F i n a l l y he q u i e t l y s a i d , 'I am sorry', and I glared at him. He continued to t a l k explaining that he had been t i r e d and self-absorbed. He hadn't r e a l l y been t h i n k i n g about me that morning. I remember f e e l i n g the tension begining to leave my face. I f e l t my anger and disappointment begin to subside. When he s a i d , 'I r e a l l y d i d appreciate you yesterday and the f e e l i n g s I had toward you were genuine, but I guess I was i n a d i f f e r e n t s t a t e t h i s morning', I wanted to go over to him and f e e l h i s arms around me and say i t was okay that was a l l I needed to hear. Instead he moved a few f e e t c l o s e r to me. I laughed and s a i d he could move c l o s e r , I wouldn't eat him. Then I reached out and hugged him. My spouse talk e d about f e e l i n g bad that the day hadn't s t a r t e d w e l l , he wanted to salvage what was l e f t of i t . I s a i d i t was okay and we went on to make plans f o r the day. - 4 9 -In reviewing t h i s i n c i d e n t I asked my spouse f o r h i s perceptions. He s a i d that while he d i d f e e l that I was blaming him when I i n i t a l l y confronted him, he saw that I was hurt as w e l l as angry. I looked unhappy to him. In the s i l e n c e that followed my confrontation he s a i d that he was f e e l i n g i n a bind. He had not followed through on h i s plans and f e l t that i f he d i d anything now to show me h i s appreciation i t would be to f u l f i l l h i s o b l i g a t i o n and to placate my anger. He thought I probably wouldn't accept t h i s and so he was i n a no-win s i t u a t i o n . He found himself wishing we could s t a r t over again. Apologizing involved the r i s k of s t a r t i n g the argument over again, however he f i n a l l y d i d t h i s and t r i e d to explain the bind he was i n . My husband was sur p r i z e d that I l i s t e n e d to him rather than "jumping on' what he s a i d . When he saw me l i s t e n i n g he f e l t he could show some cari n g toward me without i t being merely a f u l f i l l m e n t of h i s o b l i g a t i o n to me. He moved c l o s e r to me because he sensed I was l i s t e n i n g to him rather than attacking him. He didn't want to move too c l o s e to me though because he wasn't qu i t e sure how I would r e a c t . When I laughed and hugged him he f e l t that I had given up my hold on my anger, he now f e l t t h a t we could t a l k about how to change the s i t u a t i o n . There are a number of ways that we handled the s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y than we would have a few years ago. 1. While I was angry at not r e c e i v i n g what I had expected on Sunday I didn't automatically i n t e r p r e t my husbands distance as a r e j e c t i o n of me. -50-2. I was h o s t i l e when I confronted my spouse but I t r i e d to focus on my own f e e l i n g s of anger and disappointment, rather than presenting him with a t i r a d e of accusations. I stated my p o s i t i o n and waited to hear what he had to say. 3. While I was angry and h o s t i l e my spouse was somehow able to see my underlying hurt and respond to t h i s . My spouse f e l t blamed but he didn't withdraw or defend himself. 4 . Instead of withdrawing or defending himself my husband v a l i d a t e d my p o s i t i o n . He s a i d , 'You're r i g h t , I didn't follow through t h i s morning'. He then openly expressed h i s dilemma hoping I would l i s t e n to him. 5. My spouses v a l i d a t i o n of my p o s i t i o n helped me to be able to l i s t e n to him and to accept what he s a i d about r e a l l y wanting to have done something nice f o r me as a genuine statement f a t h e r than an excuse. 6. We were able to come to a s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s o l u t i o n and experience closeness within about ten minutes. Before t h i s could have e a s i l y taken hours. In summary, the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s theory and experience seem to be i n agreement with Greenberg and Johnson's theory ( i n press) and i n d i c a t e that b r i n g i n g denied aspects of the s e l f , one's fear s , a n x i e t i e s , or v u l n e r a b l i t i e s i n t o f o c a l awareness and expressing these rather than c r i t i c i s m , allows the partner to see the spouse i n a new way. I f these new aspects of s e l f are responded to and va l i d a t e d by the partner t h i s seems to create the r i g h t climate f o r a s h i f t from problem e s c a l a t i o n to problem s o l v i n g . A v a l i d a t i o n of the prev i o u s l y denied aspects of s e l f by oneself and one's partner may r e s u l t i n both partners f e e l i n g accepted and s a f e r i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t may then be p o s s i b l e to begin to negotiate the pragmatic aspects of r e s o l v i n g the t r o u b l i n g issue. -51-The process of r e s o l u t i o n o u t l i n e d i n t h i s thought experiment bears some resemblance to the communication t r a i n i n g developed by Guerney (1977), but there are also some important d i f f e r e n c e s . Guerney's communication t r a i n i n g involves teaching couples four basic sets of s k i l l s . These are: 1. Expressive communication s k i l l s - expressing emotions, thoughts, or desires without generating h o s t i l i t y or defensiveness i n the other. 2. Empathic responding s k i l l s - conveying acceptance of the other. 3. Mode switching s k i l l s - moving from expressive communication to empathic responding at appropriate times. 4. F a c i l i t a t o r s k i l l s - helping the others use the above s k i l l s e f f e c t i v e l y . While the process o u t l i n e d i n the thought experiment does involve the use of good communication s k i l l s these are not taught and emerge more as a r e s u l t of change rather than as f a c i l i t a t o r s of change. I t i s the partners* d i f f e r e n t experience of themselves and each other through b r i n g i n g i n t o f o c a l awareness emotional experiences such as fear, v u l n e r a b i l i t y and sadness rather than ' t a l k i n g about' f e e l i n g s that f a c i l i t a t e s c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . The withdrawer a c t u a l l y seeing the pr e v i o u s l y blaming partner as vulnerable becomes more a c c e s s i b l e and responsive. This i n turn e l i c i t s a new perception of the withdrawer i n the pursuer's eyes - 5 2 -and r e s u l t s i n improved communication and problem s o l v i n g . F i r s t Rational Analysis The f i r s t r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , which i s based on the preceding e x p l i c a t i o n of the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s theory, personal map and subjective data i s o u t l i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g diagram (See Figure 4.1). The sequence begins with the pursuer blaming h i s or her partner who f e e l s c r i t i c i z e d and e i t h e r withdraws contact or defends him/herself. In e i t h e r case the pursuer does not experience the emotional comfort and closeness being sought. A s h i f t i n the i n t e r a c t i o n occurs when there i s a change i n the dominant aspect of the pursuer's i n d i v i d u a l organization which allows the pursuer to stop blaming and express an underlying f e a r or v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The withdrawer now seeing the partner as vulnerable rather than angry f e e l s l e s s threatened and makes contact e i t h e r by accepting the partners statement or d i s c l o s i n g f e e l i n g s . The pursuer then seeing the partner as ac c e s s i b l e asks f o r reassurance or stat e s personal needs. The withdrawer i n turn sees the partners need rather than anger and f e e l s compassion rather than pressure. The withdrawer f e e l s c l o s e r to the partner and responds to the partners need with reassurance or acceptance. This reassurance i s accepted by the pursuer, who now sees the partner as capable of responding to h i s or her need. The pursuer, f e e l i n g c l o s e r to h i s or her partner, expresses appreciation -53-New experience of s e l f triggered'by: •own voice tone -memory or visual picture -partners response, voice tone,posture, or f a c i a l expression Pursuer blaming Distancer Changes dominant aspects of individual organization and allows Pursuer takes a self-focus Tentati ve expression of under-lying feelings. Sees partner as accessible. Asks for reassurance or states needs. Accepts reassurance sees partner capable of responding to need. Feels closer to partner. Expresses appreciation or acknowledges partners worth. Feels c r i t i c i z e d or ) 1 1  Sees partner Sees partners * Sees / defenseless. as vulnerable needs. Feels s e l f / Withdraws. rather than compassion as angry. Feels rather than capable less threatened. pressure. of giving Makes contact Responds with and as either by reassurance. accepted. accepting Feels May partners closer to state statement or partner. own disclosing own needs. feelings. Partners operating from a new view of s e l f hand other. Both feel more secure and are able to negotiate. FIGURE 4.1 FIRST RATIONAL MODEL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION PERFORMANCE -54-or acknowledges the partner. The withdrawer now experiences acceptance and may st a t e h i s or her own needs. At t h i s p o i n t both partners are now operating from a new view of themselves and the other. There i s an increase i n t h e i r sense of acceptance and safety i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . The partners are able to negotiate with each other. F i r s t E m p i r i cal Analysis Procedure The f i r s t e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s involved the i n v e s t i g a t o r reviewing the t r a n s c r i p t s of the performance events and w r i t i n g a b r i e f comment that she f e l t captured the process of each of the partners statements. The i n v e s t i g a t o r i n i t a l l y came up with t h i r t y d i f f e r e n t types of i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s or st a t e d e s c r i p t i o n s . These t h i r t y categories were col l a p s e d i n t o twenty categories with the assistance of another c l i n i c a n f a m i l i a r with the model (See Table 4.1). Each category was then assigned an abbreviation and a colour code. The statements from each t r a n s c r i p t were represented g r a p h i c a l l y on long sheets of paper (See Figure 4.2 f o r a prototype). A t o t a l of f i v e r e s o l u t i o n events were graphed i n t h i s way along with one non-resolution event. Model Inspection and comparison of the four diagrams of the r e s o l u t i o n events suggested f i v e stages i n the r e s o l u t i o n performance. These -55-TABLE 4.1 F i r s t E m p i r ical Analysis Twenty Categories Describing the Process of the I n t e r a c t i o n a l Statements Categories Abbrevi. 1) Expressing Acceptance A 2) Blaming BL 3) Trust I s s u e - r e j e c t i n g B-TI 4) Challanging CH 5) C l a r i f y i n g CL 6) Making Contact C 7) De-escalating-by focus on s e l f D-FS 8) Defending or Distancing D 9) Accepts R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r Part i n Cycle ARC 10) Personal Problem Solving PPS 11) Reconciling,Responding Reassuring R 12) Re c o n c i l i n g - c o n d i t i o n a l R-C 13) Re c o n c i l i n g - t e n t a t i v e R-T 14) Sof tening:-becoming vulnerable S 15) So l u t i o n Proposal SP 1.6) St a t i n g Need,Want,Feeling S/N/W/F 17) S t a t i n g P o s i t i o n S/P 18) Subtask ST 19) One-up T 20) One-down •I -56-A A CH S A A A A S B S S A A B-TI B • ARC • R • R A A CH A A A CH A S/P • • D-FS • ARC • S/N/W/F • R-T A c A S/N/W/F A S/N/W/F A B-TI A A • • S/N/W/F • • • FIGURE 4.2 FIRST EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS - PROTOTYPE OF THE TASK PERFORMERS INTERACTIONAL POSITIONS - Triangles represent the female partner. Squares represent the male partner. The diagram reads left to right. See Table 4.1 for a key to the abbreviations describing the interactional positions. - 5 7 -stages were c a l l e d ; e s c a l a t i o n , de-escalation, e s t a b l i s h i n g t r u s t , mutual openness and r e s o l u t i o n . Each stage had a number of micro-steps or e s s e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s . I t i s important to note th a t the performance steps i n r e s o l v i n g a c o n f l i c t are c y c l i c a l rather than l i n e a r . Thus while the stages of r e s o l u t i o n and the i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s can be organized i n t o a f i v e step t a b l e i t i s important to remember that the couple doesn't move s t r a i g h t through the process i n f i v e easy steps. Instead the couple often moves through a few steps and then loops back to an escalatory i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n . I f the partners can s u c c e s s f u l l y de-escalate again they w i l l then re-enter the r e s o l u t i o n process and move through a few more steps. These steps are therefore considered to be components of competance, i e . they have have to be att a i n e d f o r the r e s o l u t i o n process to move forward to the next step. The f i v e components of competance shown i n Table 4.2 and Figure 4.3 are discussed below. E s c a l a t i o n As the issues are explored i n therapy the o r i g i n a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns appear to be transformed i n t o blame/defend patterns with the emotional pursuers blaming and the emotional withdrawers defending. The task begins with the partners i n an escal a t o r y i n t e r a c t i o n a l c y c l e . One of the partners i s blaming the other, or demanding something from them i n a h o s t i l e manner. The other partner responds to the blame or demand with e i t h e r a - 5 8 -TABLE 4.2 F i r s t E m p i r ical Analysis STAGES OF RESOLUTION COMPONENTS OF COMPETANCE INTERACTIONAL POSITIONS MICRO-STEPS ESCALATION A. Blaming,Accusing B. Defending,Avoiding,Appeasing, Counter-complaining DE-ESCALATION A. or B. Taking R e s p o n s i b i l i t y For S e l f Owning A Part In Cycle Accepting ESTABLISHING TRUST DISCLOSE/RESPOND A. St a t i n g Need,Want,or F e e l i n g B. Responding,Accepting Attempting To Contact PASSING THE TEST A. Deflecting,Blaming,Defending B. Responding,Accepting MUTUAL OPENNESS S B . S t a t i n g Need,Want,or F e e l i n g Showing V u l n e r a b i l i t y Understanding,Acceptance,Contact Vice Versa RESOLUTION A.& B. S o l u t i o n Proposal,Personal Problem Solving, Reconciling,Agreeing Accepting A. = Pursuer B. = Withdrawer 59-ESCALATION DE-ESCALATION ESTABLISHING DISCLOSE/RESPOND TRUST MUTUAL OPENNESS TESTING RESOLUTION A. Blaming, Accusing B. Defending, Avoiding, Appeasing A.or B. Accepting, Understanding A.or B. Taking Responsibility for Self. Owning a Part in Cycle A.or B. Exploration of, needs, s e l f -worth, early experiences A.or B. Stating Need, want,Feeling. Showi ng Vulnerability A.or B. Responding, Accepting, Attempting to Contact A. Blaming. Defending, Rejecting B. Responding, Accepti ng A. Stating Need, Want, Feeling Understanding Accepting, Contact B. Understanding Accepting Contact Stating Need, Want,Feeling A.or B. Solution Proposal. Personal Problem Solving. Agreeing A.or ts. Reconciling, Accepting Blaming FIGURE 4.3 FIRST EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS Micro and Macro Steps of the Resolution Performance - 6 0 -statement of defense, appeasement or counter-attack. The f i r s t partners respond with another blaming or demanding statement or a counter-complaint. The interchange might go something l i k e -K.-'We didn't spend anytime together t h i s week because he wasn't i n t e r e s t e d enough to remember that we had agreed to do t h a t . 1 T.-'I forgot, I forgot we had that agreement on top of the other things we were doing.' K.-'Well even given that, you d i d remember the other things.' In t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n K., the pursuer, blames T. by a s c r i b i n g to T. the f u l l r e s p o n s i b l i t y f o r them not spending time together. She accuses T. of not being i n t e r e s t e d enough i n her to spend time with her. T. t r i e s to defend himself by o f f e r i n g the excuse, 'I f o r g o t ' . Rather than accepting t h i s K. o f f e r s a counter-complaint by accusing T. of being able to remember other things. Once again K. i s implying that T. i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n her. De-escalation The second stage, begining De-escalation, i s entered when e i t h e r of the partners switch from blaming or defending statements to acknowledgeing or taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r p a r t i n present or past negative i n t e r a c t i o n c y c l e s . The defending or appeasing statements made by the withdrawers seem to only exacerbate the pursuing partners, r e s u l t i n g i n the pursuers repeating t h e i r message louder and with more fo r c e . On the other hand, when the withdrawers own t h e i r p art i n the c y c l e i t seems to have the opposite e f f e c t . -61-The f o l l o w i n g two statements are examples of withdrawers taking r e s p o n s i b l i t y f o r t h e i r p a r t i n the cyc l e R. - 'I f e e l defensive when she's angry. I f e e l defensive...' M. - 'I guess maybe eventually f e e l i n g h e l p l e s s w i l l develop i n t o r e a l f r u s t r a t i o n and maybe I ' l l r e t r e a t . ' This kind of statement seems to e i t h e r communicate to the pursuers that they are being heard or allow the pursuers a glimpse of another side of t h e i r partner. When the puruers take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r p a rt i n the c y c l e they often do so by acknowledging t h e i r angry f e e l i n g s or behavior. For example: K. - 'That's why I get so pi s s e d o f f when he closes o f f . ' Therapist - 'It's l i k e he's deserted you j u s t l i k e a l l the other people who've disappointd you.' K. - 'Right and that's where the hurt goes i n t o anger.' or D. — 'I know that there's times where I have gone over-board and held back and s t u f f because I wanted to punish her. I admit that.' I f the other partner responds to statements l i k e these with e i t h e r blaming or defending statements the movement i s back to e s c a l a t i o n . However, i f the statements are accepted de-escalation begins. Trust The micro-step i n which one of the partners owns t h e i r part i n the c y c l e can be bypassed and the couples can move to the t h i r d stage, Trust, i f the t h e r a p i s t blocks the pursuers blaming -62-statements and pushes them to e i t h e r ask d i r e c t l y f o r what they need, or focus on t h e i r hurt rather than t h e i r anger. For the pursuers to express t h e i r needs i n a way that the withdrawers do not f e e l c r i t i c i z e d or pressured the pursuers a f f e c t must change from h o s t i l e or demanding to vulnerable. At t h i s p o i n t the pursuers voice becomes s o f t e r , the focus of t h e i r statements i s themselves and t h e i r experience rather than t h e i r partner. The pursuers may al s o c r y . For example, the t h e r a p i s t encourages the pursuer to be vulnerable by saying with a s o f t but urgent voice, T h . - ' T e l l him about that f e e l i n g you t o l d him about l a s t week. How you would l i k e to be able to t a l k to him and have him l i s t e n to you.' The pursuer crys s o f t l y and then says, M.-'I need you to l i s t e n to me and l e t me know I am important to you.* Thus the Trust stage can be entered through de-escalation by one of the partners owning t h e i r p a r t i n the cyc l e or through the th e r a p i s t s blocking the blame/defend c y c l e and pushing the pursuers to s t a t e t h e i r needs. In e i t h e r case there i s a period of t e s t i n g where the pursuers d i s c l o s e t h e i r f e e l i n g s , needs, or p o s i t i o n and the withdrawers respond with acceptance or attempts to reassure or contact the pursuers. I t i s as i f the pursuers decide to expose a b i t of themselves and t e n t a t i v e l y put out a need to see whether the withdrawers w i l l remain d i s t a n t or w i l l respond to t h e i r need., when the withdrawers attempt to respond to the pursuers, the pursuers -63-often do not respond i n kind but d e f l e c t the withdrawers i n i t i a l response. This i s done e i t h e r by; changing the t o p i c , complaining about times i n the past where t h e i r partner hasn't responded, and minimizing or focusing on negative aspects of t h e i r partners response. In one performance event the pursuer t e a r f u l l y t e l l s her husband how hurt she was by a c r i t i c a l comment he made to her. The partner begins to reassure h i s wife that while he had made a c r i t i c a l comment to her he wasn't r e j e c t i n g her. The pursuer then moves away from h i s attempt to reassure her and escalates again by saying, M.-'Now you're gonna say you weren't r e j e c t i n g me, j u s t r e j e c t i n g what I d i d , but I don't need that kind of r e j e c t i o n f o r what I do or anything. 1 Issues of t r u s t and the pursuers need f o r acceptance often surface at t h i s p o i n t . The pursueing partners appear to be t e s t i n g the withdrawers to see i f t h e i r responses are genuine and i f they can r e l y on the withdrawer to respond to them at other times. I f the withdrawers respond to the pursuers d e f l e c t i n g behavior by r e v e r t i n g to defending or appeasing s t r a t e g i e s the partners move back to escalatory i n t e r a c t i o n s . I f the movement i s to continue forward at t h i s p o i n t i t i s important f o r the withdrawers to continue to meet the pursuers t e s t i n g behavior with congruent non-escalatory statements. These statements are often simple and short with a focus on the present dynamics. At times these statements are reassuring i n nature conveying an accepting presence. For example, R.-'I don't want to be a threat to you.' The congruent statements can also be -64-asse r t i o n s or non-hostile challenges. In one event the withdrawer challenges h i s wifes d e f l e c t i n g behavior with the statement-T.- ' I t seems l i k e you don't r e a l l y t r u s t the way I am now, or was i n those few moments. You don't even t r u s t what was going on here because i t doesn't meet your c o n d i t i o n s . ' ( s a i d i n a non-hostile manner with an expressive,involved voice conveying a sense of discovery) Mutual Openness Whether the withdrawers e s t a b l i s h contact by; reassuring, or a s s e r t i n g themselves the movement to the fo u r t h stage, Mutual Openness, occurs when the pursuers accept rather than d e f l e c t the withdrawers response. This u s u a l l y r e s u l t s i n the pursuers expressing deeper fears or needs. I t i s important that the pursuers continue to express t h e i r desires or fears i n a vulnerable rather than h o s t i l e manner. I t i s a l s o important that the withdrawers hear these statements as genuine needs rather than complaints. I f they are heard as complaints or c r i t c i s m s , even i f they aren't intended as such, the withdrawer defends and the movement i s back to e s c a l a t i o n . To continue with mutual openness which leads to intimacy, the withdrawers must acknowledge the pursuers p o s i t i o n and needs as v a l i d . An example of such an i n t e r a c t i o n i s -M.-'I need to f e e l accepted and to f e e l respected f o r my judgement without i t having to be confirmed by you as the f i n a l arbitrator..' -65-R.-'Unconditional acceptance have I ever given you that? When I grew up acceptance was always t i e d performance and behavior. I can see what you want and what you want i s l i k e a very accepting love, undoubtedly that i s much more important than achieving. I ' l l have to struggle to keep things i n perspective.' When the pursuers receive the withdrawers v a l i d a t i o n the withdrawers often move to an expression of t h e i r needs and f e a r s . I f the pursuers f e e l heard and v a l i d a t e d by the withdrawers they are l i k e l y to accept the withdrawers needs,and d e s i r e s . For example-G.—'I'd l i k e yoyi t c take my f e e l i n g s i n t o consideration...I'd l i k e you to care about my needs.' M.-*I do care about your needs.' Once again i t i s important that the pursuers hear the withdrawers needs or fears as a vulnerable expression of a deep f e e l i n g rather than a demand or c r i t i c i s m . I f the expression of need i s seen as a demand or i f i t i s made before the pursuers f e e l s v a l i d a t e d by the withdrawers, the pursuers are l i k e l y to counter the withdrawers statement with a complaint or demand. This leads once again to e s c a l a t i o n . I f the expression of needs and fears i s met with acceptance and reassurance the partners move to the f i n a l stage, Resolution. Resolution Resolution i s characterized by s o l u t i o n proposals, problem s o l v i n g and agreement. The s o l u t i o n proposals tend to focus more on the i n t e g r a t i o n of underlying f e e l i n g s and needs rather than s p e c i f i c - 6 6 -behavioral changes l i k e , ' I ' l l clean the bathroom i f you play with the k i d s . ' Much of the problem s o l v i n g i s personal problem s o l v i n g , i n which one of the partners accepts a new aspect of themselves or r e a l i z e s a new option they have i n the i n t e r a c t i o n . In one couple the pursuer r e a l i z e s that rather than f e e l i n g enraged when her partner doesn't respond to her i n the way she expected she can f e e l disappointed. She concludes she w i l l not die i f she does not get what she wants. Her partner concludes i n a dramatic way that when he f e e l s pressured i n t o t a l k i n g about something he's f e a r f u l about he can simply say he's f e a r f u l and doesn't want to t a l k . The r e s o l u t i o n process concludes with agreement. Sometimes the partners a f f i r m each other or the r e l a t i o n s h i p , commenting on the changes i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p or t h e i r f e e l i n g s toward each other. Subtasks While a l l of the r e s o l u t i o n performances include the f i v e stages discussed above, some of them include a d d i t i o n a l subtasks. In the subtask the t h e r a p i s t and one of the partners are u s u a l l y engaged while the other partner l i s t e n s . The subtasks are often entered i n t o a f t e r a sequence i n which one of the partners has become vulnerable and the other of the partners i s unable to respond i n an accepting way, or the acceptance o f f e r e d i s r e j e c t e d by the ones who have become vulnerable. The subtasks tend t o focus on what blocks one of the partners from responding to the other, or accepting a p o s i t i v e -67-response. This may involve an e x p l o r a t i o n of e i t h e r partners source of self-worth, relevant experiences i n t h e i r family of o r i g i n , or simply what they need i n order to respond to t h e i r partner. When suc c e s s f u l , the subtasks lead to de-escalation and mutual openness. This occurs e i t h e r by the pursuers accepting the withdrawers responses, which have become l e s s t e n t a t i v e , or by the pursuer responding to the withdrawers open expression of needs during or a f t e r the subtask. The stages of r e s o l u t i o n the i n v e s t i g a t o r expects to f i n d when the performance events are coded have now been o u t l i n e d and we can turn our a t t e n t i o n to the expected process i n d i c a t o r s of the stages. Second Rational Analysis Having o u t l i n e d the above stages of the r e s o l u t i o n performances the coding s c a l e s presented i n the second chapter were reviewed to determine which codes would p o s s i b l y i n d i c a t e and d i s c r i m i n a t e between the various stages. The f i v e stages plus the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the process i n d i c a t o r s of these stages formed the second r a t i o n a l model to quide f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The process i n d i c a t o r s s e l e c t e d as being p o s s i b l y h e l p f u l i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g the processes thought to be important were chosen from the f o l l o w i n g measures; the S t r u c t u r a l A nalysis of S o c i a l Behavior (SASB), the R e l a t i o n a l Communication Control system (RCC), the C l i e n t Voice Q u a l i t y system (CVQ), the Experiencing Scale (EXP), and the Interpersonal Process R e c a l l (IPR). These process i n d i c a t o r s are shown i n Tables 4 . 3 to -68-TABLE 4.3 Second Rational Model Process Indicators Of Stages A. = Pursuer B. = Withdrawer E s c a l a t i o n Micro-steps - A. Blaming,Accusing B. Defending,Avoiding,Appeasing SASB A. Subcluster B e l i t t i n g & Blaming 133-136 B. Subclusters Sulking & Appeasing 233-236 Defering & Submitting 247-237 Pr o t e s t i n g & Withdrawing 322-232 > / > CVQ A. s B. External EXP A. low 2 or 3 B. low 2 or 3 IPR Comments A. - I f e l t f r u s t r a t e d , he/she seemed so d i s t a n t and detached. B. - I was f e e l i n g attacked- I was always t r y i n g to f i n d some s o r t of defense yet i t never held up. -69-TABLE 4.4 Second Rational Model Process Indicators of Stages De-escalation Micro-steps — A. or B. Taking R e s p o n s i b i l i t y For S e l f Owning Part In Cycle A. or B. Accepting, Understanding SASB RAUSH A. or B. Subcluster - D i s c l o s i n g & Expressing 213-216 A. or B. 115 c a r e f u l l y f a i r l y consider 116 f r i e n d l y l i s t e n 20 Accept blame or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y RCC CVQ EXP A. & B. Focused A. & B. 3-4 IPR Comments A. or B. - The presence of a t h i r d party made me c a r e f u l of how I s a i d things. I was less c o n f r o n t a t i o n a l and more focused on my own f e e l i n g s . A. or B. - I was hearing his/her f e e l i n g s without anger attached and I thi n k I could r e l a t e better to that. -7 CI-TABLE 4.5 Second Rational Model Process Indicators of Stages E s t a b l i s h i n g Trust - Disclose/Respond Testing Micro-steps -Disclose/Respond A. Statement of Need,Want,Feeling Showing V u l n e r a b i l i t y B. Responding,-Acceptance Attempting to Contact Testing A. Blocking,Blaming,Defending B. Responding,Accepting SASB Disclose/Respond A. D i s c l o s i n g & Expressing 213-216 243 ask, trupf., count on B. A f f i r m i n g & Understanding 113-116 Testing A.121 angry,dismiss,reject 134 delude,divert,mislead 137 i n t r u d e , b l o c k , r e s t r i c t B.same as i n disclose/respond or 217 ass e r t on own RCC Disclose/Respond CVQ Focused -71-TABLE 4.5 (cont.) EXP Disclose/Respond A. 4 - 5 B. 4 - 5 TESTING A. 2 - 3 B. 4 - 5 IPR Comments Disclose/Respond A. - I f e l t s/he was r e a l l y l i s t e n i n g and t h a t made i t ea s i e r f o r me to say things I hadn't s a i d before. B. - I could see that s/he was being honest and i t made i t a l o t e a s i e r f o r me to understand.. - I could see that he/she was having d i f f i c u l t y and my co l d heart warmed up a l i t t l e . T e s ting A. - I t was hard f o r me to t a l k about what I neeaed. I think I was r e c a l l i n g i n c i d e n t s when my needs weren't met. B. - I had an uncomfortable f e e l i n g of being pushed away, of not being able to p a r t i c i p a t e . -72-TABLE 4.6 Second Rational Model Process- Indicators of Stages Mutual Openness Micro-steps - A. Statement of Need,Want,Feeling B.. Understanding, Acceptance Contact Vice Versa A. D i s c l o s i n g & Expressing 213-316 Trusting & Relying 243-246 B. Af f i r m i n g S Understanding 113-116 Nurturing & Comforting 112-142 Vice Versa A. 4: Appeal-31,33,35,37,40 B. 3: Interpersonal Reconciliation-19,20,21,24,25,28 CVQ Focused EXP A. 4 - 6 B. 4 - 6 SASB RAUSH RCC - 7 3 -TABLE 4.6 (cont.) IPR Comments A. S B . - I saw that my partner was w i l l i n g to l e t t h e i r guard down, and I too f e l t l e s s defensive, a rapport was beginning to happen between us. - I began to understand what my partner was r e a c t i n g to and I f e l t I could understand more of t h e i r motivation behind s p e c i f i c t hings. - Suddenly I was aware of the reasons behind what he/she was doing and that made i t more t o l e r a b l e . TABLE 4.7 Second Rational Model Process Indicators of Stages Micro-steps - A. or B. S o l u t i o n Proposal,Personal Problem Solving,Reconciling,Agreeing,Accepting SASB A. or B. 214 c l e a r l y express 241 follow,maintain contact 242 accept caretaking 243 ask,trust,count on 244 accept reason 245 take i n , l e a r n from 113 confirm OK as i s 142 provide for,nurture 143 protect,back up 148 s p e c i f y what's best RAUSH A. or B. 2: Resolution of conflict-13,15,23,26,27,29 CVQ Focused EXP A. 4 - 6 B. 4 - 6 Resolution RCC -75-TABLE 4.7 (cont.) IPR Comments A. or B. - The a i r was c l e a r . - I had a good f e e l i n g about our r e l a t i o n s h i p and our p o t e n t i a l . - We were more aware of each others needs. -76-Second E m p i r i c a l Analysis Procedure Process Measures A review of the coding systems and the process i n d i c a t o r s o u t l i n e d i n the second r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s r e s u l t e d i n the s e l e c t i o n of the SASB sc a l e and the Experiencing Scale f o r the coding i n t h i s study. The SASB sc a l e was the one that most c l o s e l y resembled the twenty categories developed i n the f i r s t e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s to capture the underlying process of the partners' i n t e r a c t i o n a l statements. I t was f e l t that the Experiencing Scale could help d i s t i n g u i s h between the De-escalation and Mutual Openness stages. Data gathered through the use of the other scales would only be redundant at t h i s stage. In the coding the b a s i c u n i t of a n a l y s i s was a c l i e n t statement. With the SASB system two t r a i n e d coders worked independantly f o r the i n i t i a l r a t i n g of the statements. The statements that the coders d i d not reach agreement upon were rated by a t h i r d t r a i n e d coder. I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y between the f i r s t two coders was c a l c u l a t e d using Cohen's Kappa. An i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of .68 was obtained on the independant r a t i n g s . Discussion of the r a t i n g s r e s u l t e d i n an i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of -91. Once a l l the statements were coded t h i s data was used to form -77-the performance diagrams (see Figures 4.7 to 4.11). The person's i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n represented by each statement i n the task performance i s presented on the graph. Statements made by the female partner are represented by t r i a n g l e s , those made by the male partner are represented by squares. The symbol -V- between the f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e a break i n the dialogue, due e i t h e r to the e s c a l a t i o n sequence being taken from an e a r l i e r s e c t i o n of the session or the partners having been i n v o l v i n g i n a tangent or subtask. Each node on the graph represents a d i f f e r e n t SASB behavior. As the partners adopted new SASB behaviors new nodes were generated towards the r i g h t of the page. As the partners returned to a p r e v i o u s l y expressed SASB behavior a node was drawn below the node of the same category and a v e r t i c a l l i n e added to connect them. Thus the diagram i s l i n e a r l y ordered by time of generation of behaviors, with time running to the r i g h t and down. Each t r i a n g l e or square has a number that appears to the l e f t side of i t . This number i s the statement number and i t s main purpose i s to help locate the statement on the t r a n s c r i p t . When there are two numbers to the l e f t of the t r i a n g l e or square, one over the other, i e , 28/32 t h i s i n d i c a t e s that statements 28 to 32 were made by the same partner without i n t e r r u p t i o n from the other partner and the statements f a l l i n t o the same SASB c l u s t e r . This c o l l a p s e s the graph and makes i t a b i t more manageable. The ' S e l f and 'Other' g r i d s of the SASB were used to code each of the statements. Each g r i d has a h o r i z o n t a l axis which - 7 8 -runs from d i s a f f i l i a t i o n to a f f i l i a t i o n and a v e r t i c a l axis running from maximal dependance to maximal independance. Thus behaviors coded on the r i g h t side of the g r i d are f r i e n d l y while those coded on the l e f t side are u n f r i e n d l y . Behaviors coded on the top h a l f of the g r i d encourage or take autonomy and those coded on the bottom h a l f are c o n t r o l l i n g or submissive. The axes d i v i d e each g r i d i n t o four quadrants which are numbered 1 to 4. The quadrants on the 'Other' g r i d are; (I) Encourage F r i e n d l y Autonomy, (II) Invoke H o s t i l e Autonomy, (III) H o s t i l e Power, (IV) F r i e n d l y Influence. On the ' S e l f g r i d the quadrants are; (I) Enjoy F r i e n d l y Autonomy, (II) Take H o s t i l e Autonomy, (III) H o s t i l e Comply, (IV) F r i e n d l y Accept. The quadrants are d i v i d e d i n t o e i g h t 'tracks', and these 'tracks' have been organized i n t o c l u s t e r s that have d e s c r i p t i v e l a b e l s such as, 'Affirming and Understanding', or ' B e l i t t l i n g or Blaming'. The l e t t e r s and numbers at the bottom of the graph below the t r i a n g l e s and squares represent the SASB c l u s t e r code given to each statement. The l e t t e r 'S' has been used when the statement has been coded on the ' S e l f g r i d . The l e t t e r '0' i n d i c a t e s the statement has been coded on the 'Other' g r i d . The number i n d i c a t e s which of the ei g h t c l u s t e r s the statement f a l l s , i n (See Figure 4.4). The number d i r e c t l y under the t r i a n g l e s and squares i n the De-escalation and Mutual Openness stages i n d i c a t e s the l e v e l of experiencing that the statement was rated on the Experiencing Scale. 126. S lust d o m ' t none* or MV m e n t i o n to O at all. 125. S neglects O. O's interests, needs. 124. $ ignores the facts and offers O unbelievaOte nonatma and craztness. 123. Just when S is needed most. S abandons O . leaves O atone with trouble. 1 127. S forgets all about O , their agreements, plans. 128. Without concern, S lets O do and be anytntng at ail. 120. S peacefully leaves O comptetely on hts or her own. 118. S leaves O free to do and be whatever O thinks is ben . 117, Believing O does things well, S leaves O to do them his or her own way. 122. S J ingnly leaves 0 to go without w hat O needs very much evi m when S easily could gh ra it to 0 . 121. S i tngnly leaves 0 out. S coi y refuses to have an y thing'to do with 0 . 130. s TTurders. kills, destroys an id leaw N 0 as a useless heap. 131. Looking very mean, S follOi ws 0 ai i d tries to n u n 0 . 132. S IDS 0 off. tears, tteatt. gr sos ali he or the can from 0 . 133. 3 harshly punishes and tortures O , takes revenge. ">' S mn>'icts 0 . disguises things, tries to throw 0 off track. 13b. S accuses and blames 0 . S tries to get O to believe and tav O is wrong. 138. S p u n 0 down, tells O his or her ways are wrong, and S ' l ways are better. 118. S lets 0 i peak freely and heart 0 even if triev disagree. 1 1 5 . S really h •ars 0 . acknowledges O ' I views even <f mey disagree. 1 1 4 . S dearly understands 0 and likes 0 even wnen trtey disagree. 1 1 3 . S likes 0 and thinks 0 is fine iust as 0 is. 112. Sgarniyjowngty strokes and tootnes Owitnout asking for anything in return. 111. Pull of heoov smites, S lovingly greets 0 just as 0 •*. 110. With gently loving tenderness. $ connects sexually 0 seams to want it. 141. $ warmly, cheerfully invites 0 to be in touch with 3 as often es O wants. 142. S prowiea for, nurtures, takes care of 0. 147. Oelievii and ran ng it's realty for O's own good rwnd* 0 of what should be doi . S e t * V*. seks often o n 0 148. reUsO ng no or the really knows vvnai exactly what to do. bo, think t isbei a for 0 . 3 140. taking ota 0 in a nvmarof• fact way. ihargeof everything. Shaa the habit of 138. Sf f laM • O f oHow tua or her rules ana ideas of what 137. S b u m in and rakes over, blocks and ream. m a 143. Sfovmgty looks after 0*t interests and takes ireos to protect 0 . S ecttvety backs 0 uo. 144. With much kindness and good tern h . S figures out and •xouwn th ings to 0 . 14S. S gets 0 in teres ted and teaches O now to understand and 148. Oo things* Spev tck t t a attention to 0 so S cs m figure out all of O't needs end lake care of everything. 226. S is too busy and atone w* h his or her "own thing** to be with 0 . 225. S waits him or herself off f rom 0 : does n't hear, doesn't 224. $ reacts to what O tav* or unrelated ways. does «n strat *ge, unconnected. 723. S bitterly, angrily detaches from 0 ane doesn't ask for anything. S weeps atom a about 0 . 227. T o do his 0 228. S goes his 220. Sfreaty or her oven thing, S does tha 222. S furiously, angrily, hatefully refuses to ecceot O's offers to neto out. 2 . 1 . Boiling over with rage and/or fear, S tries to escape, flea, or hide from O. 230. In great pain and rage. S screams and shouts that O is destroying him or her. 231. S is very tense, thekv. wary, tearful with O. 232. S bitterly, hatefully, resentfully chooses to let O ' i needs and wants count more than hit or her own. 233. S whines, unhaooilv protests, tries to defend him or herself from O. 234. Pull of doubts ana tension. S tort of goes along with O't views anyway. 235. To avoid O ' i disaooroval, S bottles uo his or har rage arid resentment *"d aon »nx 0 238. S caves m to O and doet tninos O ' i way. Out S tulkt and fumes about n. 218. S is straightforward, truthful and dear with O about S*s own OOSItKHI. 219. S freely and openly talks with O about his or her innermost self. 214. S expresses htm or herself dearly in a warm and friendly 2^3. S is loyful , happy and very open with O. 212. S relaxes, lets go. emovs. feels wonderful about being with O. 211. S is very haoov. playful, loylui . dehgnted to be witn 0 . 210. S joyfully, lovingly, wary naoptty retoondi I O O sexually. 241. S warmly, nappilv stays around and keeps <n touch with 0 . 242. S warmly, comfortably accepti O ' I halo andcaregiv.ng. 247. S checks with O about every little thing because S cares to much about what 0 thinks. 248. S feels, thinks, does, becomes what he or the minks 0 wants. 240. S gives in to O , yields and-submttt to 0. 238. S mindlessly obeys O ' i rules, standards, ideas about now things should be done. 237. S gives uo, helplessly does things O't way without feelings or views of his or her own. 243. S it trusting with 0. S comfortaoiy count! on 0 to c o m * through when needed. 244. S willingly accepts, goes aion« w i n O' i reaionawe luggestioni. ideas. 245. S learns (rom O , comiortaniy takes advice j " d a from 0 . 248. S trustingly depends on 0 to meet every need. -80-Outcome Measures The couples completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Target Complaints Scale i n an i n i t i a l interview and at termination of therapys. The C o n f l i c t Resolution Box Scale was completed by the couple and the t h e r a p i s t at the end of each session. See Table 4.8 f o r these scores. D i f f e r e n t i a t e d Descriptions Of Performance Diagrams A comparison of the performance diagrams of the task events revealed four d i s c r i m i n a b l e stages? E s c a l a t i o n , De-escalation, Testing, and Mutual Openness that occur i n the s u c c e s s f u l and p a r t i a l l y s u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n performances. Each diagram i s presented along with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the content and process of each event. Resolution Event 1 This event i s taken from the f i f t h of eight therapy sessions with t h i s couple. The couple are attempting to r e s t o r e t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p a f t e r a b r i e f e x tra-marital a f f a i r on the wife's p a r t . D., the male partner complains that he can not be sure of h i s wife's love f o r him and her committment to the r e l a t i o n s h i p . His wife, M. f e e l s f r u s t r a t e d because she sees h e r s e l f as o f f e r i n g D. a l l the reassurance she can and f e e l s D. won't accept what she o f f e r s . See Figure 4.5. TABLE 4.8 Second Empirical Analysis Scores on Outcome Measures OAS Change Score C o n f l i c t Resolution Box Score Target Complaints Score Male Female Male Female Therapist Male Female Resolution Event 1 49 36 5 5 5 5 5 Resolution Event 2 15 9 6 4 6 5 5 Resolution Event 3 16 10 4 5 4 3 4 Resolution Event 4 18 5 5 6 5 5 5 Non-Resolution Event 0 0 5 • 1 4 3 3 -82-FIGURE 4.5 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 1 (continued on next page) -83-50/51 / \ 3 52/53 3 i 55/56 C] 3 57 • 58/62 -3/4 1 64/67 [ ^ ] -3/4 6 9 [ j -63 A 3 -54 £ 3 •68 •70 S 6 S 1 S 2 0 4 S 4 SASB CODES 0 2 - Affirming and Understanding 0 4 - Helping and Protecting 0 6- B e l i t t l i n g and Blaming S 1 - Asserting and Separating S 2 - Disclosing and Expressing S 4 - Trusting and Relying S 6 - Sulking and Appeasing FIGURE 4.5 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 1 -84-E s c a l a t i o n - statements 1-4 The e s c a l a t i o n pattern of t h i s couple i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t than the other couples i n that t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s lean more toward an •attack-attack' pattern than 'attack-withdraw'. The withdrawer i s as l i k e l y to blame and counter-complain as she i s to defend or appease. This couple i s also d i f f e r e n t from the others i n that the pursuer i s the male partner rather than the female partner. The e s c a l a t i o n graphed here begins j u s t a f t e r D. says hn does see what M. does f o r him and he f i n d s i t acceptable. M. blames D. by complaining that D. was j u s t saying he didn't f e e l they had a romantic love. D. follows with a counter-complaint and reminds M. of the times she says she doesn't f e e l anything f o r him. M, defends h e r s e l f by saying that was some time ago. De-escalation - statements 5-11 The t h e r a p i s t intervenes by focusing on D. and suggesting that i t i s hard f o r him to t r u s t again. D. openly d i s c l o s e s h i s experience and the t h e r a p i s t suggests that while M. needs to come back i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p and l e t D. know she wants him D. al s o needs to accept M. back i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p . D. t a l k s about h i s d i f f i c u l t y with t h i s . M.'s response to D. i s coded as 'sensibly analyzes s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g other person' (144). M. notes that many of t h e i r problems are probably due to misi n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the others i n t e n t i o n s . M. then gives an example of when she phones D. to - 8 5 -v i s i t with him and get some information. M. f e e l s she i s attempting to be with D. and he thinks she j u s t wants something from him. D. agrees with her and M. suggests th a t perhaps D. i s j u s t too wary of her. D. now c o n s t r u c t i v e l y analyzes the example M. gave and t a l k s of the change i n t h e i r communication s t y l e s since they've been married. D.'s tone suggests that he i s f r u s t r a t e d but he i s not o v e r t l y blaming M. In t h i s stage D.'s statements are rated a t l e v e l 3 on the Experiencing Scale, which i n d i c a t e s a r e a c t i v e emotionally involved focus on external events. M.'s statements are rated at l e v e l 2, i n d i c a t i n g personal involvement with i n t e l l e c t u a l or behavioral s e l f d e s c r i p t i o n s . T e s t i n g - statements 13-20 M. t r i e s to explain why she responds to D. the way she does on the phone, her tone i s f r i e n d l y so the statement i s coded 'sensibly analyse' (144) rather than 'protests, t r i e s to account f o r s e l f (233) . D. launches i n t o a blame, an assert and then a s t r i n g of blames. He t e l l s M. that she not only cuts him o f f on the phone but at other times as w e l l , and that she can not t r e a t him as a c l i e n t . D. sees M.'s way of dealing with him as communicating a b a s i c contempt f o r him. D. also says that he f e e l s M. thinks he-'s not worthy of consideration. -86-Mutual Openness - statements 21-70 M. very s o f t l y asks i f she hasn't changed i n the past few months and D. agrees she has. M.'s s o f t question seems to defuse D.'s h o s t i l i t y . The t h e r a p i s t then helps D. to focus on h i s own experience, p o i n t i n g out that he may have had doubts about how he handled M.'s a f f a i r and that t h i s r e i n f o r c e s h i s anxiety. D. agrees and elaborates on h i s experience. He i s no longer blaming but speaking openly about h i s own f e e l i n g s and reac t i o n s . He t a l k s about how he i n t e r p r e t e s M.'s responses to him as confirmations of h i s f e e l i n g that she doesn't love him. M. o o f t l y says,'I never say that', i t ' s no longer a defend but a reassurance. D. accepts M.'s statement and.again r e f l e c t s on h i s experience. M. v a l i d a t e s D.'s experience as l o g i c a l and t a l k s about the pattern of r e l a t i n g they've b u i l t up. M. then aff i r m s D. by saying that she didn't know how he f e l t but she can now understand i t . D. and M. continue to t a l k openly about t h e i r experiences with each other, a l t e r n a t e l y • d i s c l o s i n g / t r u s t i n g and r e l y i n g ' , ?nd 'affirming/helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' . At times there i s a tone of f r u s t r a t i o n p a r t i c u l a r y i n D.'s v o i c e . However there i s also an earnest attempt to communicate one's experience and understand the experience of the other as they t a l k about how they've r e l a t e d i n the l a s t few months. Both D. and M. move to a deeper l e v e l of experiencing i n t h i s stage. There are no l e v e l 4 or 5 statements i n De-escalation while the l e v e l of experiencing i n Mutual Openness ranges from 2 to 5. -87-Level f i v e statements i n d i c a t e that the couple are t a l k i n g about t h e i r problems i n personal terms. Their f e e l i n g s and personal experiences are being included and explored rather than described. Resolution Event 2 This couple i n i t i a l l y presented t h e i r c o n f l i c t i n terms of communication and intimacy problems. In the f i r s t therapy session the couple q u i c k l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r negative i n t e r a c t i o n c y c l e and redefined t h e i r c o n f l i c t as part of a pursue-distance c y c l e . K. the female partner d e s i r e d closeness with with T., her spouse but was a f r a i d her needs would not be met. In her attempt to avoid the r i s k of being vulnerable K. would approach T. with h o s t i l e demands. T. would respond to what he perceived as K.'s anger, by withdrawing or defending himself. This r e s o l u t i o n event occurs i n the s i x t h of eight therapy sessions. See Figure 4.6. E s c a l a t i o n — statements 1-3 The e s c a l a t o r y p a t t e r n of t h i s couple i s a b i t d i f f e r e n t than that seen i n the other couples. The pursuer, K. s t i l l blames and accuses the withdrawer, T. However by the s i x t h session the withdrawers responses i n e s c a l a t i o n are more i n the realm of d e f e r r i n g and submitting instead of defending, appeasing or counter-complaining. T.'s responses to K. are a l s o n e utral rather than negative i n tone. In the e s c a l a t i o n sequence charted here K. i s .88-3 A 27 33/34 A A -4 A - B D 4 3 6/7 A — B D 4 I 3 I 9/10 A — U 4 3 12/14 A ' 3/4 j •15 A " W • 5 3 17/19 [ J 20 Q 24 • • 2 l Q — 2 2 Q — 2 3 A 4 4 • 28/29 • 31 • I 35 • • 38 • 39/42 A - ' - 43 Q-5/6 6 37 A 44 A 5 • 2 5 A - 2 6 A • 3 0 32 A - 3 6 A • 0 6 240 S 2 0 4 0 2 S 4 S I 0 3 S 3 S 8 5 7 S 6 0 5 FIGURE 4 . 6 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 2 (continued on next page) SASB CODES 0 6- Belittling and Blaming 240 - Yeilds Submits Gives In To Person S 2 - Disclosing and Expressing 0 4- Helping and Protecting 0 2- Affriming and Understanding S 4 - Trusting and Relying S I - Asserting and Separating 0 3- Nurturing and Comforting S 3 - Approaching and Enjoying S 8 - Walling Off and Avoiding S 7 - Pretesting and Withdrawing S 6 - Sulking and Appeasing 0 5- Watching and Managing FIGURE 4.6 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 2 -90-t a l k i n g about how she got angry at T. on the weekend. She accuses T. of defending himself on the weekend even though she f e l t she hadn't been being c r i t i c a l of him. T.'s response i s simply to say,'Yeah', and i t i s coded as a ne u t r a l on the a f f i l i a t i v e dimension i e . , ' y e i l d , submit give i n to person'(240). This i s consistant with K.'s complaints about T., that he gives i n to her but i t doesn•t mean anything. T.'s response appears only to aggravate K. f u r t h e r and she goes on to accuse T. of being i r r e l e v a n t on the weekend. De-escalation - statements 4-21 In t h i s sequence and the t e s t i n g sequence there i s a merging of the content and the process i n that T. and K. are t a l k i n g about t h e i r pattern of r e l a t i n g and enacting the process at the same time. K. and the t h e r a p i s t are t a l k i n g about K.'s fear that i f she i s vulnerable, T. won't accept her need and w i l l withdraw from her. K. acknowledges and owns her p a r t i n t h e i r negative i n t e r a c t i o n c y c l e by admitting t h a t when she f e e l s T. has withdrawn from her, her hurt goes i n t o anger and she won't t a l k to T. f o r a few days. K. then becomes emotional and c r i e s as she t a l k s about how she f e e l s i n v a l i d a t e d as a person when she doesn't get what she needs. K. has openly d i s c l o s e d to T. and T. responds with the complementary behavior, 'affirming and understanding'. With a s o f t voice T. attempts to understand and empathize with K. K. i n turn elaborates upon her experience. She speaks about i t being e a s i e r to get angry -91-with T. and say she doesn't need him, rather than r i s k being vulnerable with him. At the t h e r a p i s t s prompting K. asks T. f o r h i s response to her now and moves to a l e v e l 5 on the Experiencing Scale as she does t h i s . T. s t a r t s by saying, 'My turn' t h i s i s coded as a, f r i e n d l y 'assert' (217), but i s r e a l l y more of an i n d i c a t i o n that he i s wanting to p a r t i c i p a t e . T. t a l k s about how comfortable he f e e l s with K. now, and then a f f i r m s K. by saying that she was vulnerable a few moments ago and that was okay with him. T. says he wants to be with K., he f e e l s c l o s e to her and w i l l i n g to share. The couple does reach l e v e l s 4 and 5 on the Experiencing Scale i n De-escalation, however there i s only one l e v e l 5 statement rather than an i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequence i n which both partners reach l e v e l 5 or above. Test i n g - statements 22-38 T. again says that he would l i k e to be there f o r K., who at t h i s point makes a non-verbal gesture. The t h e r a p i s t asks what her gesture means and K. says, 'My skepticism'. In focusing on her skepticism K. walls of T.'s open response to her. This statement i s coded as, 'walling o f f and avoiding' and i s negative i n tone. T. however stays p o s i t i v e and f r i e n d l y by agreeing with K. and saying, 'Yeah I saw wariness'. K.'s response i s again negative. She says, 'I've done that before and you withdrew, I don't want to give you a second chance'. The t h e r a p i s t confronts K. by asking her i f she has -92-r e a l l y shown T. her v u l n e r a b i l i t y i n the l a s t while. K. moves to 'sulking and appeasing' and then to ' b e l i t t l i n g and blaming' . T. openly disagrees with K. twice, h i s statements are s t i l l f r i e n d l y though. K. t r i e s to refute T.'s statements and to get him to admit he's wrong. The t h e r a p i s t intervenes at t h i s p o i n t and reminds K. that e a r l i e r they heard T. say th a t he would l i k e K. to give him a chance to be there f o r her. T. agrees with the t h e r a p i s t . This can be seen both as a restatement of h i s request that K. give him a chance and of h i s desir e to respond to K. K.'s response i s negative once again, and i t i s coded as, 'refuses persons car e g i v i n g ' (222). K. then moves back to blaming T. T. responds by saying, 'Put your weapon down'. This i s presumably i n reference to e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n about K. defending h e r s e l f against being hurt by others by keeping them away with a weapon of h o s t i l i t y . T. i s challenging K. by reminding her th a t she's put a b a r r i e r between them and i s p r o t e c t i n g h e r s e l f i n a way she doesn't need t o . The t h e r a p i s t then intervenes suggesting that when T. doesn't see K.'s weapon he w i l l f e e l safe and respond to K. rather than defending himself. T. again challenges K. i n a f r i e n d l y way by p o i n t i n g but that K. doesn't t r u s t T.'s response to her because i t doesn't meet her condit i o n s . K. disagrees with T. by saying she wasn't asking him f o r anything. The statement i s coded as an a s s e r t i o n , but i t i s f r i e n d l y . T. responds to K. by s o f t l y saying, 'No, we were j u s t being together". -93-Mutual Openness - statements 39-50 The t h e r a p i s t now encouages K. to focus on her own experience by suggesting that i t would be d i f f i c u l t f o r K. to allow T. to respond to her, she would have to put her weapon down. This i n i t i a t e s a s e r i e s of open d i s c l o s u r e s on K.'s p a r t where she admits i t would be d i f f i c u l t to put her weapon down. K. i s t e a r f u l as she concludes she has needed the weapon i n the past. K.'s statements are rated at l e v e l s 5 and 6 on the Experiencing Scale. T. then makes a long statement i n which he i s qu i t e emotional and empathizes with K. This statement i s rated at l e v e l 6, a l e v e l that i n d i c a t e s a synthesis of f e e l i n g s to resolve problems. On the SASB T.'s statement i s double-coded as, 'affirming and understanding' and 'watching and managing', on the f r i e n d l y s i d e , as T. says he would l i k e K. to give her weapon up. K. appears to react to the c o n t r o l l i n g aspect of T.'s statement rather than the a f f i r m i n g aspect as she asserts her need f o r her weapon i n the past. Her statement i s however f r i e n d l y and i s a t a l e v e l 5 of experiencing. T. agrees with K. and affir m s her again saying that K. i s p e r f e c t the way she i s . The t h e r a p i s t then suggests T. and K. may want to comfort each other. K. says she doesn't need to be comforted. Once again t h i s i s coded as an as s e r t i o n , but oh the f r i e n d l y s i d e . T. openly d i s c l o s e s h i s f e e l i n g that while he may have been melodramatic he was s t i l l being genuine. K. says i t was a good show and her response i s coded as, 'helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' . Thus the ' d i s c l o s e / t r u s t r e l y - affirm/help p r o t e c t ' -94-sequence i s mutual. The withdrawers d i s c l o s u r e and the pursuers response i s b r i e f e r here than i n the mutual openness sequences of the other couples, but i s s t i l l s i g n i f i c a n t . The session concludes with K. commenting on the f a c t that she and T. have a l o t of p o t e n t i a l . K.'s statement i s coded at l e v e l 6 on the Experiencing Scale. This couple moves through two sequences i n which K. ' d i s c l o s e s ' and T. 'affirms' i n De-escalation, however these statements occur at l e v e l s 3 and 4. When the d i s c l o s e / a f f i r m sequences occur i n Mutual Openness they are at l e v e l s 5 and 6. Resolution Event 3 This couple l i k e the couple i n r e s o l u t i o n event 2 reported that t h e i r c o n f l i c t involved problems with communication and spending meaningful time together. Unlike the previous couple though they appear to have d i f f i c u l t y t a l k i n g about deep f e e l i n g s and patterns i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . The r e s o l u t i o n event i s taken from the l a s t of eight sessions. The couple a l s o completed an Interpersonal Process R e c a l l procedure to e l i c i t t h e i r perceptions of what was occuring at points i n the i n t e r a c t i o n . This session i t s e l f was h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d . The i n t e r a c t i o n s i n the f i r s t seven sessions have not moved much beyond e s c a l a t i o n , now the t h e r a p i s t has been i n s t r u c t e d how to s t r u c t u r e the session so she can lead the couple beyond t h i s p o i n t . As a r e s u l t there i s no e s c a l a t i o n i n t h i s session, although there i s plenty of i t i n the f i r s t seven sessions. M., the female -95-FIGURE 4.7 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 3 (continued on next page) -96-4 l Q 5 48 A 49 A-6 4 I 51 A 6 52/54 O 6, 55/57 A 58/59 Q 6 6 S 4 0 4 42/43Q 4 4 A 6 I 45 • 4 • 5 0 A 4 47 D 4 S 5 S 2 S 6 S 8 S 1 SASB CODES S 4 - Trusting and Relying 0 4 - Helping and Protecting S 5 - Deferring and Submitting S 2 - Disclosing and Expressing S 6 - Sulking and Appeasing S 8 - Walling Off and Avoiding S I - Asserting and Separating 0 2 - Affirming and Understanding 0 5 - Watching and Managing FIGURE 4.7 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 3 -97-partner,has been i d e n t i f i e d as the pursuer and G., the male partner i s the withdrawer. See Figure 4.7. De-escalation - statements 1-16 The t h e r a p i s t asks M. to t e l l G. that she needs G. to l i s t e n to her and l e t her know that she i s important to him. M. c r i e s as she does t h i s . G.'s f i r s t response i s to note th a t M. has very red eyes. He then says that he doesn't understand why what M. needs i s important, but she i s very important to him and he's w i l l i n g to do what M. wants. In the Interpersonal Process R e c a l l G. says that M.'s cr y i n g , stammering and h e s i t a t i o n were unusual and had q u i t e an impact on him. He could see th a t M. was vulnerable and he says i t created a softening w i t h i n him. 'My normally c o l d heart warmed up a l i t t l e b i t . * G. s a i d that the softening helped him to r e a l i z e how important M. was to him and that i t was time something was done about i t . In the IPR, M. says she had never heard G. say she was important to him and t h i s had an impact on her. M. f e l t G. was more w i l l i n g to work with her as part of a team. The couple's statements range from l e v e l 2 to 5 on the Experiencing Scale. Once again though an i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequence does not occur at l e v e l 5. The two l e v e l 5 statements occur at the end of De-escalation as G. t a l k s about not knowing how to give M. what she needs, but being w i l l i n g to t r y . -98-Testing - statements 17-20 When the t h e r a p i s t asks M. how she f e e l s when she hears G. des i r e to respond to her, M. says she's ' a l l ready to f a l l back int o the o l d routine', then she says she knows what she 1s thinking but she's not supposed to say i t . These are coded as, 'walling o f f and avoiding', and i t appears as i f M. i s having d i f f i c u l t y t r u s t i n g or accepting G.'s response. Mutual Openness - statements 21-50 The t h e r a p i s t switches the focus and asks G. how M. can help him learn to get cl o s e to her. G. t a l k s about h i s doubt that he can give M. what she needs. G. and the t h e r a p i s t go on to explore what happens when G. f e e l s pushed away from M. Eventually G. i s able to t e l l M. about what he needs from her. M. accepts t h i s and states that she does care about G. and h i s needs. In the IPR, G. states that at t h i s p o i n t he was f e e l i n g safe, and that M. wasn't 'pouncing' on him. M. f e l t that they were working at b u i l d i n g more t r u s t i n each other and at being c l o s e r together. In the IPR, M. says she f e l t accepted at t h i s p o i n t . M. f e l t that G. wasn't judging how much she cared f o r him by her performance as a wife, but they were simply l i s t e n i n g to one another t a l k . In the session M. t a l k s about f e e l i n g l e s s tense when G. i s open to her, but she i s worried about f a l l i n g back i n t o t h e i r o l d patter n . G. affir m s and supports M. when he says i t ' s a good time f o r both of them to not f a l l back i n t o the o l d -99-patte r n . G. and M. t a l k a b i t more about the d i f f e r e n c e i n r e l a t i n g that they are experiencing now. At the end G. says he has one l a s t request and i t i s to be treated l i k e an equal by M. M. agrees to do t h i s saying she may need help knowing when she i s not doing t h i s . G. agrees to help M. This couple l i k e the others moves to a deeper l e v e l of experiencing i n Mutual Openness. Their statements range l e v e l s 4 to 6 with most of them being at l e v e l s 5 and 6. Resolution Event 4 The DAS scores of t h i s couple i n d i c a t e that they were much le s s d i s t r e s s e d and functioning at a much higher l e v e l than the other couples i n t h i s study. This r e s o l u t i o n event occurs i n the seventh of e i g h t sessions with t h i s couple. In t h i s session M., the female partner takes on the pursuing r o l e and R., the male partner i s more withdrawn. The session begins with a d i s c u s s i o n of an i n c i d e n t on the weekend i n which M. was hurt by R.'s c r i t i c i s m of what she was wearing. Personal autonomy and acceptance of i n d i v i d u a l goals are issues f o r t h i s couple. The weekend i n c i d e n t r e f l e c t s a pattern f o r t h i s couple i n which R.'s need f o r c o n t r o l r e s u l t s i n M. f e e l i n g that R. i s always the f i n a l a r b i t e r of her d e c i s i o n s . See Figure 4.8. E s c a l a t i o n - statements 1-4 In t h i s e s c a l a t i o n sequence M. and R. are arguing over whether -100. I 3 A 36 A ; • — eA—?• I 10/130 I 16 I 18/26 Q -I 28/30O I 33 • I 34 A" 38/39 A I 41 A 43 • - 9 A i -i4 A -isD 31A •40 • I •42 A •17 A 27 A I -32 A 35 • 06 S8 S6 S2 02 04 05 S I S7 S 4 FIGURE 4.8 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 4 (continued on next page) -101-7 6 Q - 7 7 Q 2 4 78/79 Q 4/5 •80Q 5 06 SB S 6 S2 0 2 04 05 SI S7 S4 FIGURE 4.8 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 4 (continued on next page) 102-FIGURE 4.8 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 4 (confined on next page) 103-121/122 / \ 6/4 124 | 4 1 2 5 A 5 S 8 S 6 S 2 0 2 0 4 0 5 S I S 7 SASB CODES 0 6- B e l i t t l i n g and Blaming S 8 - Walling Off and Avoiding S 6 - Sulking and Appeasing S 2 - Disclosing and Expressing 0 2 - Affirming and Understanding 0 4- Helping and Protecting 0 5 - Watching and Managing S I - Asserting and Separating S 7 - Protesting and Withdrawing S 4 - Trusting and Relying 240 - Yields Submits Gives In To Person 0 3 - Nurturing and Comforting FIGURE 4.8 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - RESOLUTION EVENT 4 -104-or not R. respects M.'s opinion. The t h e r a p i s t points out that they are enacting t h e i r c o n f l i c t p a t t e r n i n which M. reacts to R.'s comments with anger and then R. t r i e s to explain h i s way out of the s i t u a t i o n . M. then blames R. again by saying, 'He backs o f f now and does a l o t of explaining, but i n the a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n he doesn't'. R.'s response, 'I don't back o f f nun ?', i s coded as, 'even though suspicious and d i s t r u s t f u l of person goes along with person's ideas' (234), and f a l l s i n t o the h o s t i l e comply quadrant. De-escalation - statements 5-7 The t h e r a p i s t has asked R. to r e l a t e h i s experience of the in c i d e n t they are d i s c u s s i n g . R. begins to openly d i s c l o s e and then h e s i t a t e s . The t h e r a p i s t comments that i t may seem dangerous and R. agrees i t i s . At t h i s p o i n t M. t e l l s R. that he can say what he f e e l s , i n d i c a t i n g that she i s receptive to what he has to say. R. goes on to t a l k about h i s perception of M. on the weekend. The couple's statements are rated at l e v e l s 3 and 4 on the Experiencing S c a l e . I n t e r e s t i n g Phenomenon - statement 8-35 This sequence f a l l s i n t o a unique category that i s not seen i n any of the other r e s o l u t i o n events. I t can not be included as part of the de-escalation sequence as the statements are not e n t i r e l y a f f i l i a t i v e . The t h e r a p i s t again asks R. to describe what was -105-happening f o r him during the i n c i d e n t on the weekend. At f i r s t R. continues to describe h i s perceptions of M. but then he moves to what he was experiencing as he saw her. As he t a l k s he focuses on how the i n c i d e n t conjured up the experience of being r e j e c t e d as a c h i l d and h i s subsequent attempts to compensate f o r f e e l i n g s of inadequacy. R. moves from ex p l a i n i n g h i s p o s i t i o n to an e x p l o r a t i o n of h i s f e e l i n g s and experiences. At f i r s t M.'s comments are short p r o t e s t s or disagreements with R.'s d e s c r i p t i o n of the weekend i n c i d e n t . However at the end M. acknowledges tha t she wasn't aware of what R. was f e e l i n g . M. seems more open to R. at t h i s time, she i s accepting h i s experience rather than t r y i n g to prove him wrong. This sequence i s not t e s t i n g because i n the begining M. i s merely r e f u t i n g R.'s p o s i t i o n rather than a c t u a l l y being wary about h i s i n t e n t i o n s . In the IPR, R. notes that as he began to t a l k about the c r i t i c i s m and r e j e c t i o n he experienced as a c h i l d , he f e l t M. was l i s t e n i n g and was more accepting than before. M. says she was l i s t e n i n g because R. was t a l k i n g about something she hadn't heard before. M. notes that she could now understand where R. was coming from. 'Before I had t h i s f e e l i n g that there was an extraordinary amount of h o s t i l i t y d i r e c t e d towards me out of proportion with what I perceived. Also R. was allowing himself to express f e e l i n g s and to be vulnerable which was a change because i t s not often we w i l l r e l a t e that way, so i t had the e f f e c t of making me r e a l l y l i s t e n and r e a l l y t r y to understand * -106-Testing - statements 36-67 M. f l i p s back to blaming suddenly when she says with a sharp voice that she's never noticed before that R. put a great deal of emphasis on her opinion. The t h e r a p i s t asks M. how she f e e l s now about R. and h i s desire f o r feedback from her. M. says she f e e l s quardedly good. The f a c t that she q u a l i f i e s her good f e e l i n g suggests that she i s wary of R.'s in t e n t i o n s and that a t e s t i n g sequence i s begining. The t h e r a p i s t notes that M. doesn't quite t r u s t what R. says and they go on to discuss why M. i s f e e l i n g quarded. In t h i s sequence M. a l t e r n a t e s between blaming, appeasing, avoiding and a s s e r t i n g statements. The a s s e r t i n g statements unlike the others are on the f r i e n d l y s i d e , but M. i s s t i l l t e l l i n g R. that h i s need to l e t her know how he f e e l s about how she looks i s not acceptable to her. M. maintains her p o s i t i o n that she does not want to hear about R.'s opinion i f i t i s c r i t i c a l . R. f o r the most part maintains a p o s i t i v e response to M.'s c r i t i c i s m s . In h i s p o s i t i v e responses R. al t e r n a t e s between, 'helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' , 'watching and managing', ' d i s c l o s i n g and expressing', and ' t r u s t i n g and r e l y i n g ' . He appears to be l i s t e n i n g to M. and t r y i n g to negotiate a means by which he can accomodate both h i s own needs and those of M. R. defends himself twice when M. i s accusing him and once when M. i s as s e r t i n g her p o s i t i o n R. t r i e s to i n s i s t that M. does things h i s way. These statements are coded on the n o n - a f f i l i a t i v e side of the -107-SASB The f a c t that t h i s couple i s l e s s d i s t r e s s e d than the other couples may explain why R.'s negative responses are t o l e r a t e d and the sequence doesn't lead back to e s c a l a t i o n . Near the end of the sequence R. admits that he hasn't r e a l l y understood M.'s p o s i t i o n before. He says that now he understands he hopes he w i l l be able to respond d i f f e r e n t l y to her, and that she w i l l be able to accept h i s opinions. Once again he appears to be attempting to negotiate a d i f f e r e n t way of r e l a t i n g . M. has d i f f i c u l t y accepting t h i s and challenges R. on whether he r e a l l y w i l l respond d i f f e r e n t l y to her and accept her opinions. M. Takes A Self-Focus - statements 68-71 M. takes a s e l f - f o c u s on her own and admits that she r e a l l y i s n ' t t r u s t i n g R. because she has been hurt before and now i t ' s j u s t hard f o r her to say okay to him. This i s unique i n that a l l the other pursuers only come to t h i s p o i n t through the prompting of the t h e r a p i s t . This also may be due to the f a c t that t h i s couple i s at higher f u n c t i o n i n g l e v e l than the other couples. At t h i s p o i n t M. says that what she needs from R. i s an unconditional acceptance. She requests that rather than demands i t and there i s no element of blame here. Mutual Openness - statements 72-94, 112-120 R. responds to M. by acknowledging the importance of what M. -108-asked f o r and s t a t i n g that he r e a l l y wants to o f f e r M. what she needs. The t h e r a p i s t encourages R. to l e t M. know what what he would l i k e from her. R. asks f o r support and an understanding of those things he wants to achieve. M. states that she does understand R. and recognizes what he needs. R. agrees that M. i s very supportive of him. The t h e r a p i s t and the couple go o f f on a tangent and then the t h e r a p i s t asks R. i f he wants to say anything i n c l o s i n g . R. says s o f t l y that he doesn't want to be a threat to M. and M. responds by saying she's sure he doesn't mean t o . The partners go on to t a l k about how they f e e l about each other now. At t h i s p o i n t both R. and M. have stated t h e i r needs and acknowledged and accepted the needs of the other, thus the Mutual Openness stage i s complete. Both R. and M. reach l e v e l s 5 and 6 on the the Experiencing Scale i n Mutual Openness, while they only reached l e v e l 4 i n De-escalation. Once again there are i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequences at l e v e l s 5 and 6 i n Mutual Openness and not i n De-escalation. In each of the r e s o l u t i o n events there are greater proportions of experiencing l e v e l s 5 and 6 i n Mutual Opennness than i n De-escalation. See Figure 4.10 f o r a comparison of the d i f f e r i n g proportions of higher and lower l e v e l s of experiencing across the r e s o l u t i o n events i n De-escalation and Mutual Openness. At the begining of the session the t h e r a p i s t reconstructs the weekend i n c i d e n t i n great d e t a i l , focusing p a r t i c u l a r l y on M.'s experience. M.'s comments are mostly blames and accusations with -109-FIGURE 4.9 Histogram Comparing Proportions of Experiencing at Levels Five and Above i n the Oe-escalation and Mutual Openness Stages -110-the occasional softening and expression of hurt rather than anger. In the IPR, R. notes that at t h i s time he saw M.'s hurt whereas on the weekend he had seen only M.'s anger. R. also states that the th e r a p i s t s a t t e n t i o n to the d e t a i l s of the weekend i n c i d e n t and her rec o g n i t i o n that M.'s f e e l i n g s were v a l i d demonstrated to him that he was i n a supportive environment. This allowed him to f e e l safe i n the session and to express v u l n e r a b i l i t y . In the IPR, M. states that at the end of the session she f e l t much b e t t e r . She f e l t that she had been heard, that there was a change i n t h e i r awareness and that a s i m i l a r i n c i d e n t would not be as l i k e l y to occur i n the fu t u r e . M. als o d i d not have the same f e e l i n g of apprehension associated with the i n c i d e n t that she had at the begining of the session. Both note that they experienced an easy open rapport as they l e f t the session, 'the a i r was c l e a r ' . Non-Resolution Event 1 This diagram represents a non-resolution event. The couple i n i t a l l y defined t h e i r c o n f l i c t as a d i f f e r e n c e i n approaches to dealing with t h e i r d i s a b l e d daughter, and much of the di s c u s s i o n i n t h i s session focuses on t h i s i s s u e . The event i s taken from the fourth of eight sessions. In t h i s couple D., the female partner has been i d e n t i f i e d as the pursuer, while J . i s the withdrawer. Their e s c a l a t i o n s t y l e leans toward an 'attack-attack' rather than an -111-* attack-withdraw' pattern, with J . blaming h i s partner as well as defending himself. While some of the couple's responses to each other are p o s i t i v e they never get to De-escalation. Most noticable i n t h i s graph i s the absence of any 'affirming and understanding* statements. While D. openly d i s c l o s e s to J . , J . e i t h e r withdraws, avoids, blames, appeases, or watches and manages. While the 'watching and managing' statements are on the a f f l i l a t i v e side of the SASB they are a l s o i n the quadrants that i n d i c a t e c o n t r o l l i n g behavior. The absence of any 'affirming and understanding' responses and the c o n t r o l l i n g aspects of J.'s responses may account f o r t h i s couple never reaching De-escalation. See Figure 4.10. At one po i n t the t h e r a p i s t r e a l l y pushes D. to t e l l J . what she needs from him. At f i r s t D. i n s i s t s J . knows what she needs. Eventually D. says that what J . i s doing now i s f i n e , but then D. goes on to complain about what J . hasn't done i n the past. While D. does sometimes d i s c l o s e her f e e l i n g s to J . she often focuses on the d i f f i c u l t y she has had accepting her c h i l d ' s d i s a b i l i t y . At one poi n t J . stops defending himself and admits he often has d i f f i c u l t y supporting D. J . often doesn't know what D. needs so he leaves her alone even though he knows i t i s not always the r i g h t t h i n g to do. This leads to a sequence i n which both D. and J . openly d i s c l o s e . However i n D.'s d i s c l o s u r e she again focuses on her r e l a t i o n s h i p with her daughter, her mother, and her f r i e n d s rather than her r e l a t i o n s h i p with J . J . t a l k s about how he often doesn't know how D. -112-3 D I B D I I 7/9 •-10 A i I i2 A — L i i 14 A -15 • 16 A n D - i s A : 20 A . , A -19 • 28 • , A 35, S 6 0 6 •uA 21 A 22/23 A I 24 A 26 A 33 27 A I 29 A 1 32 A I • - 3 4 A I A 25 • 30/31 • S 8 0 5 — 36/37 0 4 S 2 S 4 S 7 S 5 FIGURE 4.10 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - NON-RESOLUTION EVENT (continued on next page) 40 48 55 A - s e Q 60 • 62 A - 6 3 A 64 • -113-38 O — 3 9 A I - 4 1 • 42/44 I 45/47 Q I •50/51 D 52/53 • 54 • •57/59 A •61 • S 6 0 6 S 8 0 5 0 4 S 7 S 5 FIGURE 4.10 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - NON-RESOLUTION EVENT (continued on next page) -114-67 A 68 • 69 A 70/72 cn 0 6 S 8 0 5 0 4 S 4 S 7 SASB CODES S 6 - Sulking and Appeasing 0 6- B e l i t t l i n g and Blaming S 8 - Walling Off and Avoiding 0 5 - Watching and Managing 0 4 - Helping and Protecting S 2 - Disclosing and Expressing S 4 - Trusting and Relying S 7 - Protesting and Withdrawing FIGURE 4.10 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM - NON-RESOLUTION EVENT -115-i s f e e l i n g or how upset she i s . D. responds by defending h e r s e l f and saying J . i n i t i a l l y reacted when she talked about her f e e l i n g s about her daughter so she doesn't t a l k about i t anymore. J . blames D. and the two continue a l t e r n a t e l y d i s c l o s i n g , blaming and defending. -116-CHAPTER V CONCLUSION I n t e r a c t i o n a l Model A comparison of the r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s and the performance events has r e s u l t e d i n the construction of a four step i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . The four steps and t h e i r process i n d i c a t o r s are o u t l i n e d i n Figure 5.1... The r a t i o n a l analyses, empirical models and information obtained through the Interpersonal Process R e c a l l s a l l contributed to the following o u t l i n e of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the four stages. E s c a l a t i o n The patterns seen i n the f i v e behavior graphs suggest that e s c a l a t i o n can be defined as a sequence i n v o l v i n g both partners where three or more statements are coded on the n o n - a f f i l i a t i v e side or n e u t r a l points of the SASB s c a l e . In the performance events we saw three v a r i a t i o n s on the e s c a l a t i o n pattern. The f i r s t v a r i a t i o n , 'attack-defend' i s the most common. Here one partner ' b e l i t t l e s and blames' the other, who e i t h e r 'sulks and appeases' or 'defers and submits' i n response. The attacking partner responds to the defend with another blame. In the 'attack-withdraw' pattern the blame i s responded to with, 'ignoring and neglecting', 'walling o f f and avoiding', or 'protesting and withdrawing' behavior. In the t h i r d v a r i a t i o n , 'attack-attack' one partner responds to being blamed by -117-ESCAIATION Micro-Steps A. Blaming,Accusing B. Defending,Avoiding Appeasing  DE-ESCALATION Micro-Steps A.or B. Disclosing, Trusting A. or B. Affirming, Helping TESTING Mi cro-Steps A. Blocking, Blaming,Defending B. Responding, Accepting,Challenging MUTUAL OPENNESS Micro-Steps A. and B. Disclosing, Trusting A. and B. Affirming, Helping  SASB A. SASB A. or B. SASB A. SASB A. and B. B e l i t t l i n g & Blaming 133-136 B. Walling Off & Avoiding 223-226 Protesting & Withdrawing 222-232 Sulking & Appeasing 233-236 240 Y1eV:,jubmit Disclosing & Expressing 213-216 Trusting & Relying 243-246 Affirming & Understanding 113-116 Helping a Protecting 143-146 Nurturi ng & Comforting 112-142 B e l i t t l i n g & Blaming 133-136 137 Intrudes,Blocks Restricts Walling Off & Avoiding 223-226 Protesti ng & Withdrawing 222-226 Sulking & Appeasing 233-236 B. Affirming & Understanding 113-116 Helping & Protecting 148 Tells Person What To 217 Asserts Disclosing & Expressing 213-216 Disclosing & Expressing 213-216 Trusting & Relying 243-246 Affirming & Understanding 113-116 Helping & Protecting 143-146 Nurturing & Comforting 112-142 A. = Pursuer B. = Withdrawer FIGURE 5.1 PERFORMANCE MODEL -118-blaming i n turn. While some couples favoured one escalatory pattern, others tended to a l t e r n a t e between 'attack-defend','atttack-withdraw 1 or 'attack-attack'. Information generated from the r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s and a content a n a l y s i s of the performance events suggests that the partners focus i n e s c a l a t i o n i s on representing t h e i r own p o s i t i o n . The pursuer i s often c o v e r t l y or o v e r t l y complaining about something the withdrawer i s or i s n ' t doing . The withdrawer often f e e l s c r i t i s i z e d and inadequate. They are e i t h e r quick to defend themselves against t h e i r partners attacks or are wary of saying anything f o r fear they v t l l only be discounted. Both partners are u s u a l l y f e e l i n g angry, f r u s t r a t e d and unheard. Ue-escalation In the performance models de-escalation occurs as a sequence i n which one partner e i t h e r openly d i s c l o s e s t h e i r experience, or asks f o r what he or she needs. The other partner responds with •affirming and understanding' or 'helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' behavior. Most of the d i s c l o s u r e s or requests occured through the prompting of the t h e r a p i s t . In two of the couples the d i s c l o s u r e or request was accompanied by tears and the withdrawer saw that the angry attacking partner had become vulnerable. As Greenberg and Johnson (1983) suggest one partner brings i n t o f o c a l awareness experiences not p r e v i o u s l y dominant, i e . 'I see and accept my v u l n e r a b i l i t y ' . The other spouse perceives the partner i n a new way and t h i s allows -119-him or her to respond to the partners new behavior, the request f o r reassurance from a p o s i t i o n of v u l n e r a b i l i t y . In two couples the d i s c l o s u r e i s not accompanied by tears and there i s no mention of t h i s partner being perceived as vulnerable. While these partners are not t e a r f u l they are taking a r i s k and expressing t h e i r underlying f e e l i n g s and f e a r s , and t h e i r partners do respond to them by o f f e r i n g reassurance and an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t they are w i l l i n g to l i s t e n to t h e i r experience. In r a t i n g the De-escalation and Mutual Openness Stages on the Experiencing Scale i t was found that the i n t e r a c t i o n s i n De-escalation occured a t a lower l e v e l of experiencing than those i n Mutual Openness. This f i n d i n g i s given f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n i n the dis c u s s i o n of Mutual Openness. In the r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s the i n v e s t i g a t o r f e l t that De-escalation would be entered when one of the partners switched from blaming or defending statements to acknowledging or taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r p a r t i n the negative i n t e r a c t i o n c y c l e . While the i n v e s t i g a t o r s t i l l thinks that t h i s occurs i n two of the four r e s o l u t i o n events at the begining of the De-escalation sequence t h i s phenomenon does not appear on the problem behavior graphs. The two inc i d e n t s of taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y are rated on the SASB as ' d i s c l o s i n g and expressing' and 'helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' . The phenomenon, taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , does not appear on the problem behavior graphs because the SASB does not have a category that would i n d i c a t e such a behavior. There i s a category f o r 'deferring and -120-submitting' behaviors, but t h i s does not f i t because i t implies a p l a c a t i n g or y i e l d i n g stance that i s not congruent with simply accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r p a rt i n the negative i n t e r a c t i o n c y c l e the partner may be acknowledging that there i s some v a l i d i t y to t h e i r spouses complaints but t h i s stems from a new awareness of s e l f and i s not done i n an attempt to placate or appease t h e i r spouse. Accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y involves an open d i s c l o s u r e of one's experience however the SASB category ' d i s c l o s i n g and expressing' i s too broad to dis c r i m i n a t e between accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and the expression of one's f e e l i n g s , needs or wants. I f the i n v e s t i g a t o r was to design a category f o r accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i t would involve taking a s e l f focus and would be both a f f i l i a t i v e and f r e e i n g i n nature. I t would be characterized by a statement of one's part i n an i n t e r a c t i o n c y c l e , such as, 'I see I get- defensive when you are angry and I t r y harder to explain my behavior yet t h i s doesn't help because then you don 11 f e e l heard'. Or 'I quess I am angry now and a l l I am doing i s pushing you f u r t h e r away, I don't want to do that *. Thus taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y involves a metacomment on the partners process and maybe a way of s i g n a l i n g t h i s i s d i f f e r e n t , i t ' s not an attack or a defense. Testing The t e s t i n g sequence follows on the heels of De-escalation. -121-I n i t i a l l y there i s a p o s i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n i n which the withdrawer responds to the pursuer's open expression of f e e l i n g s or needs with, 'helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' , 'nurturing and comforting', or ' t r u s t i n g and r e l y i n g ' behavior. The withdrawers continue to v a l i d a t e t h e i r partners or t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . Rather than t h i s leading to fur t h e r d i s c l o s u r e on the pursuers' p a r t s , the pursuers suddenly switch to ' b e l i t t l i n g and blaming', 'sulking and appeasing' or 'walling o f f and avoiding' behavior. Both the SASB codes and the content of the r e s o l u t i o n confirm the i n v e s t i g a t o r s hunch that the pursuer i s dealing with the issue of t r u s t . The pursuers' having exposed a b i t of themselves, having t e n t a t i v e l y put out a need and having t h e i r partners respond to them, nx-e not sure i f they can t r u s t t h e i r partners' responses as t o t a l l y genuine and l i k e l y to occur c o n s i s t a n t l y . At t h i s time the pursuers speak of t h e i r own 'wariness * or 'guardedness', or complain about times i n the past where they have been vulnerable and then been r e j e c t e d by t h e i r partner. I f the withdrawers defend or counter-attack at t h i s p o i n t the couples moves back to e s c a l a t i o n . However i f the withdrawers maintain a congruent non-escalatory stance e i t h e r expressing continued acceptance or non-hostile challenges, the r e s o l u t i o n process continues. Thus i t i s the withdrawers maintenance of a congruent non-escalatory stance that d i s t i n g u i s h e s Testing from E s c a l a t i o n . -122-Mutual Openness As the SASB process i n d i c a t o r s f o r Mutual Openness and De-escalation are very s i m i l a r the Experiencing Scale was used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e De-escalation from Mutual Openness. In De-escalation one partner openly, d i s c l o s e s h i s or her experience or expresses a need while the other partner responds with 'affirming and understanding' or 'helping and p r o t e c t i n g ' behavior. With Mutual Openness though, the process involves both partners taking turns d i s c l o s i n g t h e i r experience and a f f i r m i n g the other. Ratings on the Experiencing Scale i n d i c a t e that the d i s c u s s i o n i n Mutual Openness occurs on a deeper l e v e l than i t does i n De-escalation. Most of the dialogue i n De-escalation occurs at l e v e l s 2 to 4. The d i s c u s s i o n ranges from an i n t e r e s t e d focus on external events to a s s o c i a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s of personal f e e l i n g s and experiences. In two of the r e s o l u t i o n events one of the partners reaches l e v e l 5, an exploratory focus on f e e l i n g s and personal experiences around problems. However the other partner never responds at l e v e l 5, thus an i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequence at t h i s deeper l e v e l never develops i n De-escalation. In Mutual Openness the couples not only reach a higher l e v e l of experiencing than they reach i n De-escalation, the couples, with the exception of Resolution Event 1, a l s o maintain experiencing l e v e l s of 5 and 6 over i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequences. As w e l l , i n each r e s o l u t i o n event there i s a greater proportion of statements at experiencing l e v e l s 5 and 6 than there i s i n De-escalation. Thus De-escalation -123-and Mutual Openness can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from each other i n the following ways: - both partners complete a. ' d i s c l o s e / t r u s t , r e l y ' and 'affirm/help,protect' sequence i n Mutual Openness whereas i n De-escalation one partner 'di s c l o s e s ' or ' t r u s t / r e l i e s ' and the other partner 'affirms' or 'help/protects' - a l l the couples reach a higher l e v e l of experiencing i n Mutual Openness than they do i n De-escalation - i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequences occur at experiencing l e v e l s 5 and 6 i n Mutual Openness. When a l e v e l 5 of experiencing occurs i n De-escalation only one partner i s expressing at t h i s l e v e l - De-escalation i s characterized by an i n t e r a c t i o n i n which one partner d i s c l o s e s and the other l i s t e n s and responds i n a non-escalatory fashion. In Mutual Openness both partners explore t h e i r p art i n the problem openly while the other partner l i s t e n s and affirms them. Both partners art: f e e l i n g safe enough to explore the problem i n terms of t h e i r underlying f e e l i n g s and experiences rather than t h e i r reactions to the problem or t h e i r partner. While Mutual Openness begins with the t h e r a p i s t helping one partner, u s u a l l y the pursuer, to focus on t h e i r own inner experience, doubts, fears or needs, i n Resolution Event 4 there i s a unique t r a n s i t i o n between Testing and Mutual Openness. In t h i s higher functioning couple the pursuer takes a s e l f focus on her own without being prompted by the t h e r a p i s t . The pursuer admits that she's having d i f f i c u l t y t r u s t i n g her spouse, but then asks f o r what she needs from him. The pursuer then q u i c k l y f l i p s i n t o blaming as she notices her partner looking at h i s watch. Having been vulnerable she i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e to h i s response to her. The t h e r a p i s t then refocuses the session, and prompts the pursuer to r i s k -124-v u l n e r a b i l i t y again and t e l l her partner what she needs. The pursuer does t h i s and Mutual Openness begins. In Resolution Events 1 and 2 t e s t i n g ends with the withdrawer responding to the pursuer's blaming i n a r e a l l y s o f t and reassuring manner. I t may be t h i s s o f t reassurance along with the t h e r a p i s t encouraging the pursuer to focus on t h e i r own experience that f a c i l i t a t e s the pursuer l e t t i n g down t h e i r quard and r i s k i n g openness again. Before concluding the di s c u s s i o n of the Mutual Openness stage i t i s important to note that while the partners may express f r u s t r a t i o n and some n e g a t i v i t y i n Mutual Openness there i s also an earnest attempt to communicate one's experience and understand the experience of the other. A f i f t h step, Resolution, was proprosed i n the r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . This step was thought to be characterized by s o l u t i o n proposals, personal problem s o l v i n g and agreement. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to p inpoint t h i s on the problem behavior graphs. This may be due to a number of f a c t o r s . F i r s t the SASB doesn't have categories f o r s o l u t i o n proposal and problem solving.. Categories that would come c l o s e s t to coding these behaviors are used as process i n d i c a t o r s f o r De-escalation and Mutual Openness. A c a r e f u l review of the content of the performance events however i n d i c a t e s that the couples tend to conlude t h e i r discussions with statements that convey understanding and support f o r the other. Confirmation of the importance of the -125-r e l a t i o n s h i p occurs rather than proposals f o r concrete s o l u t i o n s or negotiations about how t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s w i l l be d i f f e r e n t i n the f u t u r e . In the performance events there i s an emotional r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the partners and a r e a f f i r m a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p but l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l planning or d i s c u s s i o n of future coping with s i m i l a r c o n f l i c t i s sues. Two p o s s i b i l i t i e s e x i s t . Mutual Openness may i n f a c t be the r e s o l u t i o n . Nothing more may be needed at t h i s time than the intimacy that occurs as the partners are both open with each other. Or because the focus i n t h i s therapy i s not on e x p l i c i t problem s o l v i n g but rather the underlying emotional dynamics negotiation and problem s o l v i n g may occur a f t e r the session as the couple p o s s i b l y d r i v e home together and discuss the event. Relationship of Results to Other Research Although no other couples have been studied i n the a c t u a l process of r e s o l v i n g i n session c o n f l i c t some l i t e r a t u r e comparing d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed couples presents r e s u l t s s i m i l a r to those found i n t h i s task a n a l y s i s . Koran (1980) found that couples who were able to resolve t h e i r c o n f l i c t were l i k e l y to show responsiveness and minimize c r i t i c i s m . Distressed couples, on the other hand, were more l i k e l y to r e l y on c r i t i c i s m i n attempts to influence the other's p o s i t i o n . The performance diagrams show that i n the r e s o l u t i o n performances blaming behavior must be -126-abandoned i f the couple i s to enter De-escalatibn. Also there i s l i t t l e i f any blaming behavior once the couple reaches the Mutual Openness stage. By contrast blaming occurs throughout the non-resolution event. As we l l , responsiveness i n the form of a f f i r m a t i o n and v a l i d a t i o n of the partners p o s i t i o n never occurs i n the non-resolution event. When the withdrawer does respond p o s i t i v e l y to the pursuer i n the non-resolution event h i s or her responses tend to f a l l i n the c o n t r o l l i n g rather than f r e e i n g quadrants of the SASB. These r e s u l t s are also consistant with the Revenstorf et a l . (1983) f i n d i n g s that problem e s c a l a t i o n occurs when one partner's statement of the problem i s responded to negatively by the other partner. Problem de-escalaf :on occurs when the problem statement i s accepted or r e i n f o r c e d through a p o s i t i v e response. Gottman et a l (1977) who studied sequences i n d i s t r e s s e d and non-distressed couples found ' v a l i d a t i o n ' loops i n the c o n f l i c t behavior of n o n - c l i n i c couples and 'cross-complaining' loops i n the c o n f l i c t behavior of c l i n i c couples. In a ' v a l i d a t i o n ' loop complaints, information or expressions of f e e l i n g s are responded to with agreement or v a l i d a t i o n . N o n - c l i n i c couples tend to use a • v a l i d a t i o n ' loop as a way of br i n g i n g problems up f o r di s c u s s i o n or exploring i s s u e s . C l i n i c couples, on the other hand, tend to respond to information or f e e l i n g s about a problem or complaints with an expression of t h e i r own f e e l i n g s i n the form of a 'cross-complaint'. The patterns found i n the task a n a l y s i s c l e a r l y show that i n the -127-De-escalation and Mutual Openness stages a f f i r m a t i o n and v a l i d a t i o n of the other's p o s i t i o n i s a c r u c i a l step i n the r e s o l u t i o n of a c o n f l i c t - I f an expression of need or statement of f e e l i n g i s responded to with a statement of the other partner's p o s i t i o n before a f f i r m a t i o n or v a l i d a t i o n occurs e s c a l a t i o n i s l i k e l y to continue. The process and outcome of t h i s study, the task a n a l y s i s and the performance model d i f f e r i n a number of ways from studies of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t that have been completed to date. As has been mentioned, t h i s i s the f i r s t study i n which couples i n t e r a c t i o n s have been r i g o r o u s l y tracked as they resolved personal c o n f l i c t s i n a c t u a l therapy sessions. While other studies have i d e n t i f i e d phases of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t and i n t e r a c t i o n patterns that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i s t r e s s e d from non-distressed couples, t h i s study i s unique i n i t that o u t l i n e s consistant, reoccuring performance patterns or stages that couples move through i n r e s o l v i n g t h e i r c o n f l i c t s . The phenomena of t e s t i n g , o u t l i n e d i n the performance model, i s a discovery of t h i s study and an important a d d i t i o n to our c l i n i c a l knowledge of the process of r e s o l v i n g a pursue-distance c o n f l i c t . Considerations f o r Further Research This study has taken a discovery oriented approach to the development of an i n i t i a l model of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . This model now needs to be tested and r e f i n e d . Some questions remain unanswered. Can taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r one's part i n a negative -128-i n t e r a c t i o n c y c l e be shown to c o n s i s t a n t l y r e s u l t i n De-escalation? What other p o s s i b l e behaviors lead to De-escalation? Is there a Resolution stage separate and apart from Mutual Openness, or i s Mutual Openness a l l that i s needed to produce resolution? How do the partners themselves d i s t i n g u i s h between c r i t i c i s m and the open expression of f e e l i n g s accompanied by a f r u s t r a t e d voice tone? Further process research with more extensive use of Interpersonal Process R e c a l l may lead to answers to some of these questions. In a d d i t i o n f u r t h e r t r a c k i n g of the effects, on outcome of the processes i n the model to see how long the e f f e c t s of ?n i n - s e s s i o n r e s o l u t i o n l a s t as w e l l as what impact t h i s makes on general m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and f i n a l therapy outcome w i l l help i l l u m i n a t e the process-outcome l i n k . -129-References B a t t l e , C , Imber, S., Hoehr-Sanic, R., Stone, A. Nash, E., Frank, J . Target Complaints as C r i t e r i a of Improvement. American Journal  of Psychotherapy, 1966, 20, pp. 184-192. Benjamin, L.S. S t r u c t u r a l Analysis of S o c i a l Behavior. P s y c o l o g i c a l  Review, 1974, 81 (5), pp. 392-425. B i l l i n g s , A. C o n f l i c t Resolutions i n Distressed and Non-Distressed Married Couples. Journal of Counselling and C l i n i c a l Psychology 1979, 47, 2, pp. 368-376. B i r c h l e r , G.R., Webb, L.J. D i s c r i m i n a t i n g I n t e r a c t i o n Behavior i n Happy and Unhappy Marriages. Journal of Counselling and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1977, ^5_, 3, pp. 494-495. Deutsch, M. C o n f l i c t s : Productive and Destrucitve. Journal of S o c i a l  Issues, 1969, 25, 1, pp. 7-41. E l l i o t , R. E. Interpersonal Process R e c a l l as a Research Method f o r Studing Psychological Helping Processes: a research manual. Toledo: U n i v e r s i t y of Toledo, 1979. Eri c s o n , P., and Rogers, L.E. New Procedures f o r Analyzing R e l a t i o n a l Communication. Family Process, 1973, 12^ , pp. 245-267. Feldman, L.B. Dysfunctional Marriage C o n f l i c t : An Integrative Interpersonal Intrapsychic Model. Journal of M a r i t a l and  Family Therapy, 1982, 8, pp. 417-428. Fink, C.F. Some Conceptual D i f f i c u l t i e s i n the Theory of S o c i a l C o n f l i c t . Journal of C o n f l i c t Resolution, 1968, 12_, pp. 412-460. Fogerty, T.F. Emotional Climate i n the Family and Therapy i n Best of  the Family, 1973-1978. Center for Family Learning Publicaions, 1979. G l i c k , B.R., and Gross, S.J. M a r i t a l I n t e r a c t i o n and M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t : a C r i t i c a l Evaluation of Current Research S t r a t e g i e s . Journal of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy, 1975, 8_, pp. 505-512. Gottman, J . M a r i t a l I n t e r a c t i o n : Experiment In v e s t i g a t i o n s . New York: Academic Press, 1979. -130-Gottman, J - , Markman, H., Notarius, C. The Topography of M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t : A Sequential A n a l y s i s of Verbal and Non-Verbal Behavior. Journal of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy, 1977, 39.» 3, pp.. 461-477. Greenberg, L.S. The Intensive A n a l y s i s of Recurring Events from the P r a c t i c e of Gestalt-Therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research  and P r a c t i c e , 1980, 1/7, 2, pp. 143-152. Greenberg, L.S. A Task An a l y s i s of Intrapersonal C o n f l i c t Resolution i n Rice, L. and Greenberg, L.S., Patterns of Change: Intensive  Analysis of Psychotherapy Process. New York: G u i l d f o r d Press, 1984a. Greenberg, L.S. and Johnson S. Emotional Focused Couples Therapy: An Integrated Affective/Systemic Approach, i n Jacobson N.S. and Gurman A.S. eds. The C l i n i c a l Handbook of  M a r i t a l Therapy. New York: G u i l d f o r d Press, i n press. Greenberg, L.S. Task Analysis the General Approach i n Rice, L, and Greenberg, L.S., Patterns of Change: Intensive Analysis of  Psychotherapy Process. New York: G u i l d f o r d Press, 1984b. Greenberg, L.S. and Dompierre, L. The S p e c i f i c E f f e c t s of G e s t a l t Two-Chair Dialogue on Intrapsychic C o n f l i c t i n Counselling. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 1981. Geenberg, L.S. and Johnson S. Therapy Manual: Emotionally Focused  Therapy. Unpublished manual, 1983. Greenberg, L.S. and Safran, J.D. Integrating A f f e c t and Cognition: A Perspective on Change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1984, i n press. Guerin, J.P. The Stages of M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t . Family 1982, 10, 1, pp. 15-26. Guerney, B.G. J r . Relationship Enhancement. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass Publishers, 1977. Humphrey, L.L. A Sequential Analysis of Family Processes i n Anorexia and Bulemia i n New D i r e c t i o n s i n Anorexia Nervosa: Proceedings  from the Fourth Ross Conference on Medical Research, Columbus, Ohio: Ross Laboratories, 1983. Johnson, N. Model B u i l d i n g of G e s t a l t Events. Unpublished major paper: U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., 1980. -131-Johnson S. and Greenberg L.S. The D i f f e r e n t i a l E f f e c t s of E x p e r i e n t i a l and Problem Solving Interventions i n Resolving M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t i n Therapy. Journal of Consulting and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, i n press. Kahn, M. Non-verbal Communication and M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n . Family  Process, 1970, 9 (4), pp. 449-456. K l e i n , M., Mathiew, P., K e i s l e r , D., Gendlin, E. The Experiencing Scale. Wisconsin P s y c h i a t r i c Institute.. Maidson, W i s e , 1969. Koran, P., Carlton, K. Shaw, D. M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t : Relations Amoung Behaviors, Outcomes and D i s t r e s s . Journal of Counselling and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1980, 48_, pp. 460- 468. Margolin, G. and Wampold, B. Sequential A n a l y s i s of C o n f l i c t and Accord i n Distressed and Non-Distressed M a r i t a l Partners. Journal of Counselling and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1981, j49, 4, pp. 554-567. Newell, A. and Simon, H. Human Problem Solving. The State of Theory i n 1970. American Psychologist, 1971. Newell, A. and Simon, H. Human Problem Solving. Englewood C l i f f s : P rentice H a l l Inc., 1972. Pinsof, W,M., Integrative Problem-Centered Therapy: Toward the Synthesis of Family and I n d i v i d u a l Psychotherapies. Journal of  M a r i t a l and Family Therapy, 1983, % 1, pp. 19-35. Raush, H.L., Barry, W.A., He r t e l , R.K., Swain, M.A. Communication  C o n f l i c t and Marriage. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass Publishers, 1974. Revenstorf, P., Halweg, K., Schindler, L., Vogel, B. Ineraction Analysis of M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t i n : Halweg, K. and Jacobson, N.S., (Eds.) M a r i t a l I n t e r a c t i o n : Analysis and M o d i f i c a t i o n . New York: G u i l d f o r d Press, 1983. Rice, L. and Greenberg, L.S. Patterns of Change: Intensive Analysis  of Psychotherapy Process. New York: G u i l d f o r d Press, 1984. Rice, L. and Greenberg, L.S. The C l i n i c a l S c i e n t i s t : Redirecting a  Needed Resource. Submitted for p u b l i c a t i o n 1978. Rice, L. Koke,. C , Greenberg, L.S., Wagstaff, A. A Manual f o r C l i e n t  Voice Q u a l i t y . Toronto: York U n i v e r s i t y . Counselling and Development Center, 1979. -132-Rice, L. and Wagstaff, A. C l i e n t Voice Quality and Expressive Style as Indexes of Productive Psychotherapy. Journal of Counselling  and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1967, 31_, pp. 557-563. Rogers, L.E. and Farace, R.V. R e l a t i o n a l Communication A n a l y s i s : New Measurement Procedures. Human Communication Research, 1979, 5>, pp. 238-246. S a t i r , V. Peoplemaking. Palo A l t o : Science and Behvior Books, Inc. 1973. Spanier, G.B. and Thompson, L. A Confirmatory Analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1982, 44 pp. 731-738. Wile, D.B. Couples Therapy: A Non-Traditional Approach. Wiley Interscience, 1981. -133-APPENDICES I STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR II THE EXPERIENCING SCALE I I I COUPLES INTERACTION SCORING SYSTEM IV TARGET COMPLAINTS SCALE V CONFLICTS RESOLUTION BOX SCALE VI CLIENT VOICE QUALITY SYSTEM 1 5T&UCTU&JQU AK)QIX<><$ oe SOCIAL /Sz+J/tuiOZ 128. S i u n doesn't notice or pay anention to 0 at all. ITS. S neglects 0 , O ' l m t i f t i t i . n n d t 124. S ignores the facts and o l f « i 0 unbelievable nonsense and cratinen. 123. J u n wnen S is ntadad most, S abandon* 0 . leaves O alone with trouble. 1 127. S 'organ ail about O . thair agreements, plans. 128. Without conearn, S Ian O do and ba anytning at ail. 120. S peacefully leaves O compfetety on his or her own. 118. S leaves 0 fraa to do and be whatever 0 thinks is ban . 117. Believing 0 doaa things wall, S leaves 0 to do thftn his or har own way. F R E E I N G A N O F O R G E T T I N G A F F I R M I N G A N O U N O E R S T A K O I N G 122. S angrily iaaws O to go without what O naads vary much even whan S easily could give it to O . 121. S angrily laavas 0 out. S oamptetety refuses to hava anything to do wttn 0 . 130. S murders, kills, destroys and leaves O as a uaaiaas h a a a 131. Looking very mean, S follows 0 and tries to hurt O . 132. S not 0 off, tears, steals, gratia at) ha or the c m from O . 133. S harshly punishes and tortures 0 , takes revenge. 134. S misleads 0 . disguises things, tries to throw 0 off track. 135. S accuses and blames 0 . S tries to get 0 to behave and say O is wrong. 138. S p u n 0 down, tells 0 his or har ways era wrong, and S'I ways are better. 110. S l en 0 speak freely and hears 0 even it tnev disagree. U S . S really hears 0 . acknowledges 0 ' * views even if tnav disagree. 114. S clearly undi intends 0 and likes 0 even wnan tnav disagree. 113. S likes 0 and thinks 0 ts fine i u n as 0 112. S gentry . lovmgry strokes and footnes 0 without esking for anything in return. 111. Full of haoov smiles. S lovingly green 0 i u n as 0 is. 110. Withga mly loving tenderness, 5 connecn sexually O s e a m to want it. 141. S warm ty, cheerfully invites O to oa in touch with 3 as often as 0 wann. 142. S promt Ms-tor, nurtures, takes care of O. 147. and ran g i f s reedy for O's own goo •no* 0 of what should be d d . S checks often o n 0 ana. 148. t eM O a I ha or she really knowa wf xectty what to d o . be, thin a * is b e n for 0. S k. 1 4 a taking c Ma 0 in a matter-of-fact van hergeof everything. r. 3 has the habit of 138. 3 moke* is right 0 foMosv Ma or har rules a* id ideas or what 137. S buns n and takes over, blocks an d n a r c n O . 143. S tovmgiv looks after O ' l interest! and takes tteos to protect 0 . S actively backs 0 UP. 144. With much kindness end good sen se, S figures out and explains things to 0 . 140. 3 gen 0 interested and teaches 0 how to understand and do things. 14ft S pave dose attention to 0 so S a W figure out all af 0*1 naads and take care of everything 228. S is too busy and alone with his or ner ' own thing" to be with 0 . 229. S walls him or herself off from 0 ; doean t haar, doesn't 224. S reacts to what O says or does in Strang unrelated ways. a, unconnected, 223. S bitterly, angnly detaches f rom O and doesn't ask for anything, 3 weeps alone about 0 . 227. T o do hie or her own rhi ng . S does the oppoatta of what 228. S goes his or her own set >er are way apart f rom 0. 22a S freely cornea and goes; teperetefy from 0. does Ma or har <MMI thing • 218. S has a dear sense of wh a ha or aha ia seperataty f rom 0. 217. 3 speaks uo. dearly and separata position. 1 Irmly nates hie or her own A S S E R T I N G A N O S E P A R A T I N G 222. S furiously, angnly, hatefully refuses to accept O's offers to help out. Soiling over with rage and/or fear. S tries to escape, flee, or hide from O. In great oa in end rage, S screams and shout* that O is destroying him or har. 231. S is very tense, shaky, wary, fearful with O. 232. S bitterly, hatefully, resentfully chooses to let O ' l needs and wants count more than his or her own. 221. 230. 233. S whines, unhaooiiv protests, tries to defend him or nersetf from O. 234. Pull of doubts and tension. S tort of goes along with O's views anyway. 235. To avoid O's disapproval, S bottles up his or her rage and resentment noes *na: O «<tw 236. S caves tn to O and does things O't way. but S sulks and Fumes about >i. 216. S is straightforwerd. truthful and clear witn 0 about S*s own position. 215. 3 freely and openly talks with O about his or her innermon self. 214. S expresses rum or herself clearly in a warm and friendly 2 l 3. S is joyful, happy and very open with 0 . 212. S relaxes, lets go. entovs. 'eels wonderlul about being with O. 211. S is very happy, plavlui, loyful. delighted to oe with 0. 210. S loy'ul ly. lovingly, very happily responds to 0 sexually. 241. S warmly, napptly stays around and keeps m touch with O. 242. S warmly, comfort SOW accepts O's heio and caregivmg. 247. S checks with 0 about every little thing bet :ause S cares so much about what 0 thinks. 248. S 'eels, thinks, does, becomes what he or sr ie thinks 0 wants. 240. S gives in to 0 . yields and-submits to O. 238. S mindlessly Obeys O's rules, standards, ide as about now things should be done. 237 S gives up, helplessly does things O's way without letftngs or views of his or her own. 243. S is trusting with O. S com'oneoiv counts on 0 to c o m * through when needed. 244. S willingly accepts, goes alone wit" O's ruasonaoie suggestions, ideas. 2*5. S learns 'rom 0 . comlortamv takes acivice j i a guidance from O. 2*6. S trustingly depends on 0 to meet every need. Q flc£.0t.H><- • 'TV -135-II EXPERIENCING SCALE Stage Content Treatment External events; r e f u s a l to p a r t i c i p a t e Impersonal, detached External events; behavioral or i n t e l l e c t u a l s e l f -d e s c r i p t i o n Interested, personal, s e l f - p a r t i c i p a t i o n Personal reactions to external events; l i m i t e d s e l f -d e s c r i p t i o n s ; behavioral d e s c r i p t i o n s of f e e l i n g s Reactive, emotionally involved Descriptions of f e e l i n g s and personal experiences S e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e ; a s s o c i a t i v e Problems or propositions about f e e l i n g s and personal experiences Exploratory, e l a b o r a t i v e , hypothetical Synthesis of r e a d i l y access-i b l e f e e l i n g s and experiences to resolve p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i g a n t issues Feelings v i v i d l y expressed, i n t e g r a t i v e , conclusive or a f f i r m a t i v e 7 F u l l , easy presentation of experiencing; a l l elements c o n f i d e n t l y integrated Expans i v e , i l l u m i h a t i n g , confident, buoyant -136-I I I COUPLES INTERACTION SCORING SYSTEM VERBAL CONTENT CODES AGREEMENT (AG) 1. D i r e c t Agreement 2- Acceptance of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 3. Acceptance of M o d i f i c a t i o n 4. Compliance 5. Assent DISAGREEMENT (DG) 1. D i r e c t Disagreement 2. Yes - But 3. Disagreement with Rational Supplied 4. Command 5. Non-Compliance COMMUNICATION TALK (CT) 1. Back on Beam #1 2. Back on Beam #2 3. Metacommunication 4. C l a r i f i c a t i o n Request MINDREADING (MR) 1. Mindreading Feelings 2. Mindreading Behaviors PROBLEM SOLVING AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE (PS) 1. S p e c i f i c Plan 2. Non S p e c i f i c Plan 3. Relationship Information 4. Non-Relationship Opinion, F e e l i n g or A t t i t u d e SUMMARIZING OTHER (SO) 1- Summarizing Other 2. Summarizing Both SUMMARIZING SELF (SS) -137-COUPLES INTERACTION SCORING SYSTEM continued VERBAL CONTENT CODES EXPRESSING FEELINGS ABOUT A PROBLEM (PF) 1. Generalized Problem Talk 2. Relationship Issue Problem Talk NON-VERBAL CONTENT AND AFFECT CODES Non-Verbal Channel Face Cues P o s i t i v e Smile Empathic Expression Head Nod Negative Frown F e a r f u l Expression Cry Smirk Angry Expression Disqust Glare Caring S a t i s f i e d Cold Blaming Warm Buoyant Tense S a r c a s t i c S o f t Bubbly Scared Angry Tender Cheerful Impatient Furious Relieved Chuckling Hard B l a r i n g Empathic Happy Clipped Hurt Concerned J o y f u l Staccato Depressed A f f e c t i o n a t e Laughter Whinning Accusing Loving Mocking Laughter Body Touching Distance reduction Open arms A t t e n t i o n Relaxation Forward Lean Arms akimbo Neck or hand tension Rude gestures Hands thrown up, disqust Pointing, Jabbing, S l i c i n g Inattention -138-IV TARGET COMPLAINTS SCALE We are i n t e r e s t e d i n how much the fol l o w i n g issues i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p have changed since you s t a r t e d to program. Please c i r c l e the words describe your p o s i t i o n . (a) worse....same....slightly better....somewhat b e t t e r . . . . a l o t b e t t e r (b> ; worse.... same . s l i g h t l y better....somewhat b e t t e r a l o t b e t t e r (c) worse....same....slightly b e t t e r . . . . somewhat bett e r . . . . a l o t b e t t e r -139-V CONFLICTS RESOLUTION BOX SCALE How resolved do you f e e l r i g h t now i n regard to the concerns you brought i n counselling? Please place a t i c k i n the appropriate box. T o t a l l y resolved Somewhat resolved Not at a l l resolved -140-VI CLIENT VOICE QUALITY SYSTEM The Four Vocal Patterns Focused Aspects Production of accents Achieved with loud-ness and/or drawl more than p i t c h r i s e E x t e r n a l i z i n g Achieved with p i t c h more than loudness or drawl Limited Usual balance f o r E n g l i s h Emotional Not appl i c a b l e Accentuation I r r e g u l a r Regularity of pace Terminal contours Perceived energy Disruption of speech patter n Uneven; us u a l l y slowed but may b«? speeded patches Ragged and unexpected Moderate to high; voice may be s o f t but on p l a t -form No Extremely regular Even pace Highly expected i n r e l a t i o n to the s t r u c -ture of what i s s a i d Moderate to high; may be a b i t above platform but adequate push No Obuaj. pattern f o r E n g l i s h Neither markedly even nor uneven D i r e c t i o n about as usual, but energy tends to peter out, y i e l d i n g a breathy q u a l i t y Voice not r e s t i n g not own platform; inadequate push No Usually i r r e g u l a r Usually uneven Unexpected Not a p p l i c a b l e Yes 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054274/manifest

Comment

Related Items