sillars - cognition during marital conflict

8/13/2019 Sillars - Cognition During Marital Conflict

1/43

1

Cognition During Marital Conflict:

The Relationship of Thought and Talk

Alan Sillars, University of Montana

Linda J. Roberts, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Kenneth E. Leonard, Research Institute on Addictions and State University of New York at

Buffalo Medical School

Tim Dun, University of Iowa

This research was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grant R01-

AA08128. We wish to thank coders Jennifer Brodsky, Michele Crepeau, Shannon Marr, and

Karissa Reinke, project directors Maria Testa and Tanya Bowen, and experimenters Rachel Levy,

Tom Daniels, Daria Papalia, Jennifer Livingston, John Sabino, and Bill Zywiak. We would also

like to acknowledge Richard E. Heyman and Roberts L. Weiss for their input and advice on the

implementation of the video-assisted recall protocol.

In press, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships


2/43

2

Abstract

This paper describes and analyzes the stream of thought occurring concurrently with overt

communication about marital conflict. The research considers how marital conflicts may be

affected by selective attention to different elements of conflict (different emotions, issues,

interactional behaviors, and background events) and by spontaneous attributions about

communicative intentions and outcomes. One hundred eighteen couples discussed a current

conflict issue, then individually watched a videotape of the discussion and reported thoughts and

feelings experienced during the discussion. Descriptively, the thoughts revealed limited

complexity, infrequent perspective taking, a predominant concern for implicit relationship issues

over content issues, and frequent direct analysis of the communication process. Spouses viewed

their own communication in more favorable terms than their partners communication. Husbands

and wives also viewed the interactions differently, with wives appearing, in certain respects, more

other-directed, relationship-sensitive, and objective. Interaction-based thoughts were especially

subjective in the most severe conflicts, as suggested by a lack of correspondence between

attributions about communication and observer coding of the interactions. Further, in severe

conflicts and dissatisfied relationships, the individuals had more angry, blaming, and pessimistic

thoughts and less focus on content issues.


3/43

3

Inevitably, interpersonal and marital conflicts reflect differences in partners perspectives.

Within intense conflicts and distressed relationships, these differences may be especially

pronounced. Despite some inconsistencies, most studies find lower understanding and

congruence of perception in dissatisfied relationships (Ickes & Simpson, 1997; Noller & Gallois,

1986; Sillars & Scott, 1983), along with an increased tendency to make self-enhancing and

partner-effacing attributions for marital conflict (Fletcher & Fincham, 1991). Divergent

perspectives and thoughts about a conflict are played out in dyadic communication. For example,

partners may attribute hidden implications to ambiguous messages, selectively remember

background information that supports self or contradicts the partner, berate the partners

communicative intentions (Guthrie & Noller, 1986), blame the partner for a failure to resolve

issues, or react strongly to anticipated behaviors and emotional triggers based on private

mulling that has preceded the interaction (Berger, 1992; Cloven & Roloff, 1991, 1993). Thus,

while marital communication has the potential to bring partners perspectives more closely in line,

it can also drive perspectives further apart.

To study perspectives on conflict as they are manifested in interpersonal communication,

we need a means of simulating the in vivostream of thought that occurs during interaction. The

most descriptively rich and realistic simulation yet devised involves the use of video-assisted

recall, in which individuals first interact, then reconstruct their earlier thoughts and feelings while

viewing a videotape of the discussion (Halford & Sanders, 1990; Waldron & Cegala, 1992).

Although this method has been employed in a variety of contexts, its descriptive potential has

scarcely been tapped, much less exhausted.

We find a compelling interest in the form and content of moment-by-moment cognition

during interactions. In the broadest terms, our argument is that the developmental course of


4/43

4

conflict turns on the intersection of subjective thought and overt talk. Simply stated, words and

gestures are ambiguous signals that require interpretation. Further, in interpersonal and marital

conflicts, individuals often interpret interaction in an incongruous manner; at times, dramatically

so. Thus, to appreciate the subtlety and complexity of communication in conflict, it is helpful to

consider what people are thinking as they interact and how their interpretive frameworks might

vary.

In the research reported here, we analyze video-assisted recall and behavioral interaction

data from an observational study of marital conflict. Our primary goal is to document, in some

detail, the spontaneous thoughts that spouses reported while reliving their interactions and to use

these data to identify divergent partner perspectives on marital communication. We compare

husband versus wife perspectives, self-directed thoughts versus partner-directed thoughts, and

insider coding of the interaction versus observational coding. First, however, we elaborate the

rationale for this in-depth analysis of interaction-based thought.

Thoughts During Conflict

We propose that selective perception is a central dynamic in conflict, particularly with

respect to differential monitoring and interpretation of the stream of interpersonal communication.

As we elaborate further on, the nature of this selection process is shaped by ones participation in

the communicative process and thus is difficult to assess with global self-reports about conflict

detached from live interaction. Consider the following example. A couple has a sharp

disagreement relating to the husbands current unemployment. The husband tries to convince his

wife to look for a job. She resists, partly on the basis that the children depend on her and further,

she would like to be asked, not told to look for work. While separately reviewing the videotaped

discussion, they report the following synchronous thoughts.


5/43

5

She thinks...

I feel he...he uh...that it's up to him

first to make up his decision because the

household really revolves around him. So....

He's more or less upset, of course,

that he lost his job, and he's under a lot of

pressure but he's making it sound like it's my

responsibility.

He's more or less telling me, like, get

a job, like, or else...where I don't feel it

should be that way.

I feel again he's using me as a

scapegoat because I know he's hurting inside

and everything...He also feels bad because he

knows that I have someone to go to, to talk

to and he really don't, except me.

There I feel that he felt real bad, that

maybe he was realizing what he was really

saying.

He thinks...

She's just trying to prove a point and

what she's saying really isn't true. She's just

saying that cause I think that's the best thing

that she's got on me.

She's making up another excuse. She

always uses excuses, just to get out of doing

anything. Always somebody else. But never

doing anything for herself.

Can't resolve nothing. She's backed

up in a corner and she just wants to push the

blame off on...most likely me or anybody that

she could at the time....

Now she's backing down and she's

almost ready to give up. She'd walk out if

she got any more pissed off. But I still have

to drive it into her head and she still won't

listen.

I'll just keep pressing, to prove a point

or just until she gives in.

Although there is great diversity in the thoughts that occur to individuals during marital


6/43

6

quarrels, this excerpt illustrates certain typical features. Most obviously, each person constructs

an independent account of the conflict. Even the wifes attempts to empathize with her partners

perspective show little recognition of what the husband is actually thinking and her direct attempt

to anticipate his thoughts (he felt real bad...he was realizing what he was really saying) falls well

short of the mark. The different constructions of the situation reflect disparities at both global and

proximal levels of inference. At a global level, the husband believes that his wife does not want to

face responsibility. From the wifes perspective, her husband is behaving irrationally, due to his

stressful situation and social isolation. These global explanations frame proximal inferences about

communication within the immediate encounter. That is, the husband sees the wifes

communication as diversionary and manipulative, for example, she distorts the truth, makes

excuses, and blames himself and others for her own failure to take responsibility. From the wifes

perspective, the husband pressures and scapegoats her because he feels hurt. Thus, each person

draws very different conclusions about the source of the conflict, the events that feed into the

conflict, and the meaning of their interactional behaviors.

In certain respects, the properties and demands of interpersonal communication contribute

to diverging perspectives on interaction, as illustrated in the preceding example. Participation in

communication presents a demanding cognitive environment that has the potential to increase

divergence of perspectives, particularly when interactions are contentious, stressful, and angry. Of

course, talking about conflict also has the potential to bring perspectives more closely in line by

making assumptions and perceptions explicit, however, there are obvious exceptions in which

communication reinforces divergent thinking (Sillars, 1998). Several considerations help account

for the latter.

First, tremendous selectivity of attention is necessarily involved in interpersonal


7/43

7

communication. Consciously attending to more than a tiny percentage of the inferences and

decisions involved in communication would cause constant disruptions and digressions in the flow

of conversation (Bavelas & Coates, 1992; Kellerman, 1992). As Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson

(1967, p. 95) state, ...a drastic selection process is necessary to prevent the higher brain centers

from being swamped by irrelevant information. But the decision about what is essential and what

is irrelevant apparently varies from individual to individual and seems to be determined by criteria

which are largely outside individual awareness. Thus, it seems plausible to suggest that two

people, despite being engaged in communication with one another, are frequently or even routinely

thinking about different things. For example, while the wife may be concentrating on articulating

her sense of being overwhelmed by housework, the husband may be thinking about his own

demanding work situation, about similar past arguments, her tone of voice, his feelings of being

criticized and under appreciated, or a phone call he is expecting. This simple possibility, that

people attend to different potential objects of perception during communication, partly explains

why they draw different conclusions about who is doing what to whom within the interaction

sequence (Watzlawick et al., 1967).

Second, cognition during an interaction is necessarily concerned with concrete inferences

that relate directly to an individuals participation in communication. In particular, interactants

have a need to understand the stream of communication in terms of the pragmatic intentions of the

other, for example, whether the partner is presumed to be requesting information, criticizing,

changing the topic, apologizing, and so forth. Although these inferences are more concrete and

situationally specific than abstract attributions, they nonetheless represent ambiguous inferences

that are made quite subjectively.

Third, given the need to keep pace with interaction, most inferences are snap judgements


8/43

8

that go unquestioned (Bavelas & Coates, 1992; Fletcher & Fincham, 1991; Kellerman, 1992;

Waldron & Cegala, 1992). Pragmatic inferences, in particular, are made so routinely and

automatically throughout interaction that they are largely experienced as unmediated observations.

Occasionally, an individual may adopt a more reflective and questioning stance toward

communication. However, this usually occurs between interactions, when the immediate pressure

to keep pace is not present. Further, individuals are not likely to reevaluate inferences subsequent

to the interaction once an interpretation has been supplied (Scott, Fuhrman, & Wyer, 1991). Thus,

attributions made during an interaction are characterized by a paradoxical relation between the

inherent ambiguity of communication on one hand, and the subjective certainty of inference on the

other (Sillars, 1998).

Fourth, the disorderly nature of communication during serious relationship conflict invites

even greater selectivity of perception. Ambiguity, disorganization and confusion are basic features

of conflict resulting from several factors (see Sillars & Weisberg, 1987; Sillars, 1998) such as the

following: (a) The source of conflict may be difficult to isolate, since relationship conflicts involve

multiple issues simultaneously and different issues at different levels of abstraction (e.g., core

dissatisfactions pertaining to equity or affection versus concrete issues pertaining to money,

housework and sex). (b) Since core dissatisfactions provoke conflict over many specific issues,

discussions often lose focus and jump from one issue to another. (c) The process of

communication is frequently characterized by vacillation between engagement and avoidance

tendencies, as well as other forms of conversational incoherence, due to the multiple and

conflicting goals that individuals have as communicators. Thus, relationship conflict presents a

complex and confusing stimulus field, which increases the likelihood that individuals will attend to

the interaction idiosyncratically and assign meaning based on a small set of cues that are personally


9/43

9

salient or self-serving.

Finally, it should be noted that many contextual factors, both distal and proximal, may

inhibit or otherwise affect processing during conflictual interactions. Two important factors are

stress and affect. Both stress and intense arousal have a negative impact on processing; they

reduce the complexity of one's thinking (Fincham, Bradbury, & Grych, 1990, Sillars & Parry,

1982). Fincham and colleagues theorize that tension level should decrease the salience of the

partner and increase the likelihood that a spouse will react to the mood or atmosphere. The

atmosphere or affective tone also influences cognition (Fincham et al., 1990). For example, the

salience of memories is contingent on mood (Bradbury & Fincham, 1987; Forgas, 1996). The

influence of mood would cause an angry spouse to be more likely to access negative memories.

Therefore, mood affects both attributions made retrospectively for marital events and the scripts

couples access for the automatic, spontaneous processing that occurs during interaction.

Our research explores the descriptive characteristics of interaction-based thought and

compares different perspectives on the same interaction. We consider the extent to which

individuals attend to specific conflict issues, emotions, expectations for the interaction,

interactional behaviors and strategies, and abstract attributions, as well as meta-perceptions

(Laing, Phillipson, & Lee, 1966) of the partners emotions, expectations, strategies, and

attributions. Further, we examine the nature of inferences made about each spouses role in the

interaction. We expect the thoughts that spouses report during video-assisted recall of interaction

to show a high degree of selectivity and great variability in focus of attention. We also expect

spouses to show considerable awareness and monitoring of the process of communication, a

tendency to rely on snap judgements rather than reflective analysis of multiple possibilities and

perspectives, and relatively little evidence of subjective uncertainty. Beyond this, our research


10/43


11/43

11

BMIP study was to investigate physical conflict in marital relationships. Thus, couples were

recruited for the BMIP in which the husband had either engaged in mild to moderate aggression

toward his wife, or engaged in no aggression at all on the basis of the Conflict Tactics Scale

(Straus, 1979). Of the 118 couples in the current study, 55 of the husbands were classified as

physically aggressive. Couples who acknowledged frequent, severe aggression were excluded

from the BMIP study.

Procedures

Couples visited a family interaction lab decorated to resemble a living room/dining room

combination. Two low-light cameras were hidden behind smoked glass in bookshelf units; couples

were made aware of the placement of the cameras, but videotaping of the marital interactions was

minimally obtrusive. After informed consent procedures and the completion of a series of

questionnaires including the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace,

1959), the Areas of Current Disagreement (ACD, Leonard & Roberts, 1998) was administered by

an interviewer. The interview was used to identify potential discussion topics that represented

current disagreements in the marriage. The couples generated their own list of unresolved

disagreements. The spouses then individually completed a form to indicate any elicited

disagreements they would not be willing to discuss during the lab visit and rated the conflict

severity of each disagreement (the amount of conflict experienced on a 1-100 scale).

Although couples engaged in two problem-solving discussions while at the lab, only the

second discussion was used to elicit thought recall data and it is the focus of the present study. In

this interaction, couples discussed their highest rated disagreement from the ACD for 15 minutes.

The interviewer asked the couple questions designed to prime them for their conversation, (e.g.,

When was the last time you talked about this disagreement?) and then instructed them to talk


12/43

12

about and try to work out your differences on this issue and left the room.

Immediately after the discussion, each spouse went to a separate room to view the

videotape. Spouses were asked to imagine going through the interaction again and to attempt to

re-experience how they felt and what they were thinking during the discussion. Spouses were left

alone while the videotape played. Every 20 seconds the tape paused automatically and the

participants reported (by speaking into a microphone) what they remembered thinking or feeling at

that point in the discussion. The participant could speak up to 20 seconds before the playback

began again. Although participants heard the full audio recording of the interaction, the videotape

only showed their partner, thus modeling the visual perspective they had during the interaction.

The goal of the recall session was to simulate what spouses actually thought and felt as

they interacted. Waldron and Cegala (1992) argue that the contents of working memory of

conversations can be adequately reconstructed from long term memory, provided that a realistic

stimulus is used to probe memory. They recommend the video recall method over other methods

because it does not disrupt natural conversation, uses realistic cues to probe memory, and

generates a large corpus of reconstructed thoughts. The simulation appeared to provide a

successful approximation to in vivo thought. The reconstructed thoughts we collected had a

realistic quality and were remarkably candid. Further, Gottman and Levenson (1985) have

empirically assessed the coherence of couples physiological reactions during an actual interaction

and a recall session and concluded that couples physiologically relived the interaction during the

recall session.

Since the larger aims of the BMIP involved linkages between marital interaction, husband-

to-wife aggression and alcohol effects, the second conversation involved an experimental

manipulation involving alcohol. Prior to the interaction, some of the husbands received drinks of


13/43

13

vodka and tonic. The other husbands received either no beverage or a placebo so that the effects

of alcohol consumption on marital problem-solving could be assessed (see Leonard and Roberts,

1998 for details). A separate forthcoming report will examine the effects of alcohol on

interaction-based thought in aggressive and nonaggressive couples, thus, these factors are not a

focus of the current report. Although the alcohol manipulation raises questions about the

generalizability of results, the manipulation had little impact on descriptive characteristics of the

thought data and other results that are the focus of the current research. In the discussion section

of this report, we elaborate on how the alcohol manipulation and the over representation of

physically aggressive couples in the sample may have affected the results reported here.

Interaction Behavior Coding Procedures

The videotaped interactions were coded using the Marital Interaction Coding System-IV

(MICS-IV) under the direction of Robert L. Weiss (for further details on coding, see Leonard &

Roberts, 1998). The MICS consists of 37 codes that describe both speaker and listener interaction

behavior. To assess the relationship between the thought data and the behavioral data, we created

three summary MICS variables: problem-solving (the combined frequency of agree, compromise,

paraphrase/reflect, mindread positive, and accept responsibility codes); withdrawal (the frequency

of withdrawal, disengage, and not tracking codes); and negativity (the frequency of criticize, put

down, turn off, disagree, deny responsibility, excuse, disapprove, and mindread negative codes).

Thought Data Coding Procedures

The Interaction Cognition Coding Scheme (ICCS) was inductively developed using a

sample of transcribed comments from the recall sessions. Approximately 500 twenty-second recall

segments from 83 participants were included in the development sample. Segments were chosen

to maximize diversity. Longer recall segments were divided into sentence units and then units


14/43

14

were sorted into homogeneous groups. Groups of thoughts were then re-sorted into hierarchical

categories of varying abstractness. This inductive process was performed over several weeks and

involved repeated iterations of sorting, categorizing, and organizing recall statements. The coding

scheme was further refined and finalized during a four-week training period for coders. In

organizing specific codes into higher-order categories, we looked for distinctions consistent with

our research goals. In particular, we were interested in the types of inferences that participants

made about the interaction process and the extent to which participants verbalizations indicated

monitoring of the communication versus attention to other more distal aspects of the situation or

relationship. Since the coding scheme is designed to code subjective accounts of interaction, every

verbalization is treated as a thought or emotion, including references to behavior or descriptive

information.

The final form of the ICCS (Sillars, Dun, & Roberts, unpub., 1999) includes 50 specific

codes that collapse into five primary content categories and several intermediate-level categories.

The coding scheme has a large number of specific codes in order to maximize the descriptiveness

and flexibility of the system. Table 1 lists the codes and summary categories and provides

examples that characterize each code. The five summary content categories are defined as follows:

(a) Emotion is any articulated thought that makes direct reference to an emotional state. (b) Issue

appraisal refers to analysis of the ostensible topic, ideas, and opinions in the discussion. Issue

appraisal codes are concerned with the content level of the interaction, that is, perceptions about

the nature of the situation, what to do, how to allocate resources, and other objectifiable issues

(Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). (c) Person appraisal consists of personal evaluations and perceived

characteristics of the partner, self, or the relationship. (d) Process codes refer to inferences about

pragmatic intentions and communicative strategies (e.g., inferences that the partner was


15/43

15

exaggerating, criticizing, or changing the topic), as well as general evaluations of communication

or interaction behavior. (e) Uncodable/off topic codes are those that do not meet the definitional

criteria of any of the other categories. The uncodable/off topic category is used here only to

determine how easily partners were able to remember their thoughts and stay with the task.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1 here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since process codes refer to the immediate interaction and the process of communication,

they represent insider perspectives on the interaction. Some of the process subcategories

represent attributions of communicative action or intent or what we subsequently call attributed

communication strategies. Three such categories, constructive engagement,

avoidance/detachment, and confrontation, closely parallel a familiar trilogy in the literature on

conflict strategies and tactics (i.e., the distinction between collaboration, avoidance, and

competition; Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). Further, the categories parallel common distinctions in

marital behavior identified in the study of problem-solving marital interactions (e.g., see Gottman,

1998), and may be seen as the insider complement to the three MICS summary categories of

positive problem-solving, withdrawal and negativity. Other process codes, termed process

appraisal, provide a broader appraisal of the nature of the discussion and how it is proceeding, for

example, whether the participant feels understood by the partner or whether the discussion is

moving toward resolution or impasse.

In addition to the content coding of thoughts, units were also coded for focus. This

secondary coding documented both the actor referenced in the thought (self, partner, or both

persons) and whether the thought represented a direct perspective (the participants own


16/43

16

perspective) or a meta perspective (a perspective attributed to the partner).

Transcripts of the thought data were coded by a team of five coders. The data were first

divided into sentence units (i.e., subject-predicate combination plus dependent clauses) and then

each unit was assigned one of the 50 specific content codes and, where appropriate, the focus

modifier codes. A total of 18,724 units were coded. Coders met weekly throughout the coding

period to assess the reliability of unitizing and categorizing. After duplicate transcripts were

independently scored by different coders, the coding team met to compare judgements and resolve

disagreements. Unitizing error (Guetzkow, 1950) was estimated at .08 based on 18 transcripts

independently unitized by two coders. Kappa reliability (Cohen, 1960) was estimated at .70 based

on a sample of 426 units independently coded by 3-5 coders. This reliability estimate may be

considered conservative since the calculation of the kappa coefficient was based on 50 independent

codes whereas the data analyses we report are based on the summary ICCS categories that collapse

functionally similar codes.

Several summary variables were derived by collapsing across specific categories and

converting frequencies to percentages. The following summary variables were defined in this

manner: (1) emotion (percentage of emotion codes), (2) issue appraisal, (3) person appraisal, (4)

self focus (5)partner focus, (6)mutual focus (thoughts that areferred to self and partner

simultaneously), (7) meta focus (percentage of thoughts that were meta-perspectives), (8)

constructive engagement, avoidance, and confrontation strategies attributed to self; and (9) the

equivalent communicative strategies attributed to partner. In addition, three variables were created

to assess negative sentiment toward the interaction. Pessimism refers to negative evaluation of the

communication process. It consists of process appraisal codes that show a negative or pessimistic

outlook (repetitious behavior, foreboding, impasse, and lack of understanding attributed to the


17/43

17

partner) minus those that show optimism (resolution and understanding attributed to the partner).

Blame refers to other-directed blame for conflict, as assessed by several person appraisal codes

(denial/justification, complaint, hostile attribution, and rejection). Anger/frustration refers to direct

references to anger or frustration experienced by the participant.

Results

Descriptive Characteristics of Interaction-Based Thoughts

The distribution of thought codes reveals several basic characteristics of cognition during

marital conflict. The percentages of thought units for each code as well as for the primary summary

categories are indicated within parentheses in Table 1. First, the results document the extent to

which husbands and wives consciously attended to emotions. Although an emotional tone

accompanied many of the thoughts reported, emotional states were primarily latent in other types of

thoughts rather than verbally articulated as a direct object of awareness. Second, about one-fifth

(19%) of the reported thoughts were coded in the issue appraisal category, which reflects

objectifiable issues associated with the content level of conflict. By comparison, the person

appraisal and process categories, which reflect implicit relationship issues associated with the way

the conflict is enacted, combined for about three-fifths (58%) of the reported thoughts. This

comparison lends support to the common observation that interpersonal conflicts are more affected

by underlying relationship issues (i.e., perceptions related to power, affect, blame, respect, etc.)

than surface content (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). Third, about one-third of the reported thoughts

were process codes (34%), suggesting that partners showed considerable awareness of the

communication process. In contrast, 25% of verbalized thoughts were instances of person

appraisal. While both process codes and person appraisal codes reflect implicit relationship issues,

they differ with respect to both level of abstraction and time orientation. Process codes are defined


18/43

18

by inferences about relatively specific events and acts within the interaction, whereas person

appraisal codes reflect more abstract assessments of person and relationship characteristics that

transcend the immediate situation. Thus, individuals were somewhat more consciously attentive to

the interaction process than to abstract person and relationship attributions.

In several respects, the articulated thoughts were characterized by a lack of complexity. For

example, there was very little evidence of relationship-level thinking. Although partners could have

adopted a relationship focus in their thoughts (e.g., Were getting more and more irritated.

Were both acting stubborn.), in practice, very few thoughts were framed in this manner. All

instances of relationship-level thinking (the combination of emotion, process, and person-appraisal

codes with a mutual focus) collectively comprised only 3% of the codable thoughts. This suggests

that partners had little conscious awareness of interdependent patterns of behavior. Similarly, there

were very few meta-perspectives (i.e., thoughts about how the partner was interpreting the

situation) identified in the data (5%). Further, in the few explicit meta-perspectives that did occur,

the perspective attributed to the partner was often undifferentiated and simplistic (e.g., He knows

thats a lie. She knows Im sick of talking about this. He thinks hes right and Im wrong.).

Thus, there was minimal evidence of complex perspective-taking. A similar observation applies to

the general tone of many of the process codes. In general, the verbalizations characterizing these

codes lacked behavioral specificity but were framed with subjective certainty. While a few codes

describe moderately specific communicative acts (e.g., changing the topic or speaking with a

negative tone of voice), most references to the communication process were stated in terms of

broad intentions (e.g., Were compromising. Im trying to make a point. Hes attacking me.).

Yet, even extreme, highly inferential attributions about communication (e.g., Shes lying, He

wants to change the topic because he knows Im right, Shes backed into a corner and just wants


19/43

19

to push the blame off on me) were typically made without any hedging, qualification, or other self-

conscious attention to the possibility of error. In general, the thought coding revealed that partners

had minimal recognition of complexity or uncertainty.

Overall, negative thoughts were more frequent than positive thoughts. This trend is evident

in the emotion, person appraisal, and process categories, where negatively valenced codes (e.g.,

anger/frustration, complaint, rejection, avoidance/detachment) easily outnumbered positively

valenced codes (e.g., positive emotions, admission, constructive engagement). To some extent

more negative thoughts are to be expected given the interaction context (discussion of a divisive

marital issue). Still, the blunt negativity of a considerable proportion of the articulated thoughts was

striking. Further, the negativity of thought seemed to exceed the negativity of talk. Although the

discussions themselves were occasionally quite confrontational, the observed interactions were mild

by comparison to the internal dialogues obtained in the stimulated recall sessions.

Finally, most participants seemed engaged in the recall task and did not show obvious

difficulty reconstructing their thoughts from the videotaped interaction session. This is suggested

by the fact that only 14% of the thought units were uncodable or off topic, including 6% in which

participants stated that they could not remember what they were thinking or feeling earlier (i.e., the

cant remember code).

Contrasting Perspectives on Communication

Husband-wife differences in perspectives. Table 2 displays the average percentage of codes

(excluding uncodable units) for husbands and wives in the primary content, focus, communicative

strategy and evaluative domains. As shown in Table 2, there were several significant differences in

the manner in which wives and husbands attended to the interactions. In general, wives showed

evidence of being more other-directed and relationship-sensitive, whereas husbands focused more


20/43


21/43

21

n.s.). Wives and husbands rarely attributed constructive engagement to the partner or confrontation

to self, as each of these types of thoughts accounted for less than 2% of the codable units.

A further way to assess the congruence between husband and wife perspectives is to

examine correlations between self-attributed communication strategies and partner-attributed

strategies. As shown in Table 3, husband and wife perspectives were somewhat consistent with

respect to avoidance/detachment and constructive engagement but not confrontation. There were

small but significant correlations between avoidance/detachment attributed to wives by wives versus

husbands, avoidance/detachment attributed to husbands by husbands versus wives, and constructive

engagement attributed to husbands by husbands versus wives. However, not only is there a lack of

convergence with respect to confrontation, but the correlations are in the negative direction.

Husbands and wives perspectives on their own confrontive behavior show no relationship to their

partners perspective.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3 here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insider versus observer perspectives. The three MICS variables were compared with the

three attributed communication strategies in order to assess the degree of correspondence between

behavior and thought. If insider perceptions of the interaction are congruent with outside

observers coding of behavior, then the thought codes should correlate with MICS categories that

assess similar constructs (i.e., constructive engagement should correlate with positive problem

solving, avoidance/detachment with withdrawal, and confrontation with negativity). Partial

correlations were computed to control for the total frequency of behavioral interaction codes, thus

eliminating a potential confound between the overall rate of behavioral codes and the frequency of


22/43

22

specific codes.

As shown in Table 4, there were significant associations between insider and outsider

perspectives with one exception; there was no correspondence between husbands self-attributed

strategies and observed behaviors. In contrast to husbands, wives self-attributed avoidance

correlated significantly with wives observed withdrawal and wives self-attributed constructive

engagement correlated with wives observed problem solving. Thus, the results appear to show a

gender difference in the objectivity of self-directed inference. On the other hand, partner-focused

inference was more consistently related to behavior, irrespective of gender. Strategies attributed to

the partner were positively correlated with the partners observed behavior in each test for both

husbands and wives. Partner-attributed strategies thus appear to have at least some objective basis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4 here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We were also interested in whether conflict severity moderated the objectivity of attributed

communication strategies. We tested the hypothesis here that inferences would be more subjective

and idiosyncratic in high severity conflicts, hence, there should be greater correspondence between

attributed communication strategies and observed behaviors in low severity conflicts than in high

severity conflicts. To consider this possibility, the sample was split at the median based on

combined husband and wife ratings of conflict severity. Couples who had a mean rating over 75

(on a 1-100 scale) constituted the high severity group. Again, we computed partial correlations

between attributed strategies and observed behaviors, controlling for the total frequency of

behavioral interaction codes.

The analysis confirmed that there was greater correspondence between attributed strategies


23/43

23

and observed behaviors in low severity than high severity conflicts. However, this conclusion

applies only to the self-attributions of wives. Wives self-attributed engagement correlated

positively with problem solving behavior in low severity conflicts (r=.30, p


24/43

24

anger or frustration and more blaming thoughts. Similarly, conflict severity was associated with

angry/frustrated thoughts and other-directed blame. Dissatisfied couples were also more pessimistic

in their thoughts about communication. On the other hand, satisfied couples had a greater focus on

issue appraisal.

Discussion

Researchers have often assessed attribution processes that occur in response to standard

stimuli, however, the thought processes that occur during marital interactions are more difficult to

assess. Yet, these moment-by-moment thought processes are especially important to our

understanding of communication and the developmental course of conflict. Although talking can

promote reconciliation and problem solving, in other instances, discussion leads to further

entrenchment or escalation of marital conflicts. In the more problematic episodes of

communication, individuals are likely to manifest different interpretive frameworks for interaction,

for example, they may attend to different issues, behaviors, and background knowledge during

interactions and interpret communication in an incongruous manner. We have suggested that these

cognitive trends are shaped, in part, by compelling demands and constraints of communication

during stressful conflicts. Therefore, the qualities of in vivothought during marital conflict are not

necessarily apparent from cognitive processes studied apart from interaction.

Our research makes three in-roads into the complex inter-relationships between thought,

communicative behavior, and marital functioning. First, the research descriptively analyzes the

nature and content of spontaneous thought during marital conflict. Second, it compares alternative

perspectives on interaction, including husband and wife perspectives, as well as insider (participant)

and outsider (observer) perspectives. Third, the research considers how interaction-based thoughts

reflect marital functioning and the severity of conflict.


25/43

25

The topography of thought during conflict interactions. The descriptive analysis of

interaction-based thought showed that thoughts are quite variable in both content and level of

analysis. Since there are numerous potential objects of perception within interaction, attention to

different elements is inevitably selective and to some extent idiosyncratic. A further complication is

that messages themselves are multi-layered and convey different meanings simultaneously (e.g.,

Watzlawick et al., 1967). Thus, individuals may differentially attend to the literal substance of

messages versus the implicit relational implications of communicative acts and the broader context.

Authors in the conflict literature draw an analogous distinction between content and relationship

levels of conflict and they suggest that interpersonal and intimate conflicts are often driven by

relational issues that are not explicitly articulated (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). Our analysis supports

this conclusion, insofar as person appraisal and process thoughts, which reflect underlying

relationship issues (e.g., blame, trust, respect), were far more common than issue appraisal

thoughts, which are concerned with objectifiable issues in conflict (e.g., the amount of money to

spend on groceries).

The video recall data also suggest that partners thoughts are often in the service of

monitoring the interaction process; a large proportion of thoughts draw inferences concerned with

pragmatic intentions and communicative outcomes. Further, a surprisingly high proportion of

thoughts were negatively valenced and there was minimal evidence of attention to the inherent

complexity and ambiguity that exists in the communicative process. Participants showed a tendency

to construe their own and their partners communicative acts as objectifiable behaviors with

unequivocal meaning. Presumably, this is part of the problem that occurs when interaction does not

go smoothly -- people treat their inferences as objective observations. Further, spontaneous

thoughts revealed minimal awareness of interdependent patterns (i.e., thoughts that referred to the


26/43

26

joint behaviors of both spouses) and few explicit meta-perspectives. Although empathic accuracy

and perspective-taking are often seen as necessary components of effective and flexible

communication, in practice, we found few examples of complex perspective-taking during

interaction. The simplicity and certainty of thought is predictable to an extent from demands posed

by an individuals participation in communication. Participation in live interaction does not afford

the opportunity for searching reflection because of the involving nature of communication and the

need to integrate multiple items of information, reconcile conflicting goals, and respond in real time

(Waldron & Cegala, 1992). In addition, the often stressful and disorderly nature of marital conflict

may further limit the capacity and inclination for complex thought.

Convergence and divergence in perspectives. A pattern of husband-wife differences in the

stream of thought emerged from the ICCS coding. Wives focused less than husbands on the

content level of the interaction, less on their own intentions and behavior, and more on the

partners intentions and behavior. This finding is consistent with previous research demonstrating

that women show greater vigilance of relationship issues than men (Acitelli & Young, 1996;

Roberts & Krokoff, 1990; Scott et al., 1991). Further, these trends underlie a phenomena that

appears to be fairly common in marital conflicts. That is, one person tracks communication

primarily in terms of the ostensible topic of discussion (money, housework, etc.), whereas the other

party focuses intently on the process of interaction and the implicit relationship messages contained

therein (e.g., the husband thinks about how his band can only practice on Tuesdays and Fridays,

while at the same moment the wife thinks that he does not listen to her). This phenomena leads to a

type of process-content confusion, in which one person assigns relationship-level meaning to

messages that the other person is not aware of. Elsewhere we elaborate on qualitative

characteristics of this phenomena (Sillars, Roberts, Dun, & Leonard, in press). While the pattern is


27/43

27

not inherently gender-based, the examples in our data tend to involve a husband who is content-

oriented and a wife who analyzes and reacts to his messages in terms of implicit relationship level

meaning.

Both husbands and wives displayed a tendency to view their own communication more

favorably than their partners communication. That is, both spouses attributed negative acts and

intentions (confrontation) to their partner more often than to self, and positive acts (constructive

engagement) more often to themselves. Thus, it appears that ambiguous interaction behaviors are

often interpreted as constructive engagement by the actor and confrontation or avoidance by the

partner. These data suggest that participants perceptions of communication tend to be self-serving

and partner-effacing, paralleling other attribution tendencies within couples (Fletcher & Fincham,

1991; Orvis, Kelley, & Butler, 1976).

Insider and outsider perspectives on the interaction had a small to moderate association in

most cases. This is as would be expected, given the fact that the ICCS thought categories and

MICS behavior categories were only roughly parallel, not equivalent constructs. Further, given the

lack of shared method variance, the amount of convergence in the participant and observer

perspectives is noteworthy. Associations between thoughts and behaviors were generally stronger

for partner-attributed strategies than self-attributed strategies, suggesting that self-reflection on

communicative behavior may be less objectively-based than inferences about the partners

communicative behavior. Notably, wives self-attributed strategies were more congruent with

outside observers assessments of the interaction than husbands self-attributed strategies. None of

the correlations between husbands own attributed strategies and observational codes were

significant. This discrepancy between husbands and wives is consistent with previous research on

gender differences in sensitivity to interpersonal communication and meaning. This research


28/43

28

concludes that women are better decoders and encoders of nonverbal information than men (Hall,

1984; Noller & Gallois, 1986).

Interaction-based thought and marital functioning. The reported severity of conflict

moderated the association between ICCS thoughts and MICS behavior. In more severe conflicts

there was less association between wives self-directed thoughts and the MICS behaviors.

Although this pattern is more specific than we might have assumed, it is consistent with the idea

that individuals monitor interaction more selectively and idiosyncratically in more severe conflict.

As a general working hypothesis, we suggest that issues and events tend to be seen more similarly

and objectively in controlled conflicts, thus, communication is often more focused and concerned

with negotiating details of the conflict. On the other hand, in intense, angry conflicts, perspectives

may be increasingly difficult to reconcile and depict entirely different events from the point of view

of either partner.

Negative sentiment in a more general sense also appears to be a barometer of conflict

severity and marital quality. Angry, frustrated, and blaming thoughts (e.g., She is never on time.

She just totally stays away from my family on purpose. I hate it when she does that.) were more

prevalent in severe conflicts and dissatisfied marriages. Presumably, marital satisfaction reflects the

cumulative impact of many such emotional and evaluative reactions to the partner during past

interactions. In addition, marital dissatisfaction was associated with a pessimistic outlook toward

communication, suggesting that there is little chance of positive change from talking about the

conflict (e.g., I felt like the conversation was lost. Weve been through it a hundred times.

This is going nowhere.). The repetitiveness of communication was a prevalent and especially

poignant theme in this outlook, underscoring the strong sense of futility and frustration articulated

by some individuals. By contrast, satisfied spouses expressed greater optimism toward


29/43

29

communication, reflected in a sense of impending resolution of conflict and faith that the partner is

capable of understanding oneself.

The pessimistic outlook of dissatisfied spouses may accurately reflect certain hard realities

of troubled and incompatible relationships. Still, one can easily see how this pessimism is

potentially self fulfilling. Raush, Barry, Hertel and Swain (1974) observe that spouses may develop

rigid, absorbing schemata for marital conflict that reduce the search for new information and in-

depth processing of the other's messages. The anxiety provoked by marital conflicts and

repetitiousness of marital interaction encourages the tendency to fit the others comments within

existing schemata and limits the capacity to acquire new perspectives or learn from the interaction

(Raush et al., 1974; Sillars, 1998).

Finally, the positive association between marital satisfaction and issue appraisal is especially

interesting since it points to the presence of a constructive thought pattern that can accompany

marital conflict. This finding suggests that issue-oriented thoughts are likely to characterize lower

level conflicts and are less volatile than thoughts about implicit relationship issues. This point is

also confirmed by the significant negative association between issue appraisal and articulated anger

and frustration.

Summary and limitations. In this paper, we have concentrated on descriptive characteristics

and broad trends in our interaction-based thought data in an effort to identify basic theoretical

processes affecting interpersonal and marital conflict. However, the original goals of the research

project were to study the role of alcohol on marital interaction in aggressive and nonaggressive

couples (Leonard & Roberts, 1998) and these goals influenced study procedures. The BMIP

purposively over sampled physically aggressive husbands and their wives; further, some of the

husbands received alcohol or a placebo prior to the second interaction and the video-assisted recall


30/43

30

procedure. (Husbands received either no alcohol, drinks of gin and tonic, or a placebo of pure tonic

water.) Because aggressive group and alcohol condition effects on the thought data are the subject

of a separate, forthcoming report, these effects are not described in detail here. However, there is

an obvious need to clarify how the study procedures might have impacted the generalizability of the

results presented here.

The impact of the alcohol manipulation on interaction-based thought was rather specific and

did not alter the basic trends or conclusions reported here. Surprisingly, there were no overall

differences in thought between the alcohol and no alcohol conditions. The only main effects of the

alcohol manipulation were apparent expectancy effects associated with the placebo condition.

Because some husbands received alcohol and wives did not, alcohol presents an alternative

explanation for the gender differences observed in this research. However, further analyses showed

this explanation to be implausible. If consumption of alcohol by some husbands had created the

observed gender differences, then gender should have interacted with alcohol in predicting thought

frequencies. However, all two-way interactions of gender and alcohol condition were

nonsignificant. Further, alcohol consumption cannot account for the fact that husbands self-

attributed communication strategies did not correlate with observed behaviors. When a further

analysis was conducted excluding husbands who had received alcohol, the partial correlations still

showed no association between communication strategies that husbands attributed to themselves

and the codes assigned by trained observers (these partial correlations ranged from .02 to -.07).

The aggressive status of the couples in the sample has a somewhat greater bearing on the

results presented here, primarily with respect to attributions about communication strategies.

Supplementary analyses revealed that aggressive husbands and their wives had a pronounced

tendency to view their own communication in more favorable terms than the partners


31/43

31

communication. In nonaggressive marriages, the communication strategies attributed to self and

partner were more similar and strategies attributed by different spouses were more congruent.

Thus, the strong overall differences in self-directed versus partner-directed thought were partly a

function of the over representation of aggressive couples in the sample. However, this qualification

primarily applies to attributions about constructive engagement and avoidance. The entire sample

attributed confrontational tactics to the partner at a much higher rate than to self.

At any given moment, there are a myriad of internal and external stimuli that may inform an

individuals interpretation of interaction and shape responses to a partners communication. These

stimuli may represent, for example, specific interactional behaviors, background events, emotional

states, expectations, strategies, or attributions, as well as meta-perceptions (Laing, Phillipson, &

Lee, 1966) of the partners emotions, expectations, strategies, and attributions. Our research

suggests that attention to these stimuli is both selective and at times, idiosyncratic, thus leading to

profound differences in the subjective context that frames the interaction for each individual.

Tentatively, it appears that in more severe conflicts and in troubled relationships, individuals may

assign meaning in an increasingly subjective and antagonistic fashion, presumably contributing to

further escalation and entrenchment of conflict.


32/43

32

REFERENCES

Bavelas, J. B., & Coates, L. (1992). How do we account for the mindfulness of face-to-

face dialogue? Communication Monographs, 59, 301-305.

Berger, C. R. (1992). Goals, plans, and mutual understanding in relationships. In S. Duck

(Ed.), Understanding relationship processes, Vol. 1: Individuals and relationships (pp. 30-59).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1987). Affect and cognition in close relationships:

Towards an integrative model. Cognition and emotion, 1, 59-87.

Bradbury, T. N. & Fincham, F. D. (1991). A contextual model for advancing the study of

marital interaction. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships

(pp. 127-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C.L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the

demand/withdraw patterns of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,

73-81.

Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1991). Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict:

Communicative cures for the mulling blues. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 134-

158.

Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1993). Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict,

II: The effects of communicative intentions on internal dialogue. Western Journal of

Communication, 57, 309-329.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient for agreement of nominal scales. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.


33/43

33

Fincham, F.D., Bradbury, T.N. & Grych, J.H. (1990). Conflict in close relationships: The

role of intrapersonal phenomena. In V. Graham & S. Folkes (Eds.) Attribution theory:

Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict. Applied social psychology.

(pp. 161-184) Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Fletcher, G.J.O., & Fincham, F.D. (1991). Attribution process in close relationships. In

G.J.O. Fletcher & F.D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 7-35). Hillsdale, NJ:

LEA.

Forgas, J. P. (1996). The role of emotion scripts and transient moods in relationships:

Structural and function perspectives. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (1996), Knowledge

structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 275-296). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes

and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of

Psychology, 49, 169-197.

Gottman, J.M. & Levenson, R.W. (1985). A valid procedure for obtaining self-report of

affect in marital interaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 151-160.

Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data.

Journal of clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.

Guthrie, D.M., & Noller, P. (1988). Married couples perceptions of one another in

emotional situations. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspective on marital interaction

(pp.153-181). Clevedon, England UK: Multilingual Matters.


34/43

34

Halford, W. K., & Sanders, M.R. (1988). Assessment of cognitive self-statements during

marital problem solving: A comparison of two methods. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12,

515-530.

Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences communication accuracy and expressive style.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1991). Interpersonal conflict (3rd. ed.). Dubuque, IA:

William C. Brown.

Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (1997). Managing empathic accuracy in close relationships. In

W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 218-250). New York: Guilford.

Kellerman, K. (1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic.

Communication Monographs, 59, 288-300.

Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H. & Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a

method of research. New York: Springer.

Leonard, K. E., & Roberts, L. J. (1998). The effects of alcohol on the marital interactions

of aggressive and nonaggressive husbands and their wives. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107,

602-615.

Lloyd, S. A. (1987). Conflict in premarital relationships: Differential perceptiosn of males

and females. Family Relations, 36, 290-294.

Lloyd, S. A. (1990). A behavioral self-report technique for assessing conflict in close

relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 265-272.

Locke, H.J., & Wallace, K.M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their

reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255.


35/43

35

McLaughlin, I. G., Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1992). Prevalence and distributions of

premarital aggression among couples applying for a marriage license. Journal of Family Violence,

7, 131-140.

Noller, P. & Gallois, C. (1988). Understanding and misunderstanding in marriage: Sex and

marital adjustment differences in structured and free interaction. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick

(Eds.), Perspective on marital interaction (pp. 53-77). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Orvis, B. R., Kelley, H. H., & Butler, D. (1976). Attributional conflict in young couples. In

J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp.353-

386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication,

conflict and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roberts, L. J., & Krokoff, L. J. (1990). A time-series analysis of withdrawal, hostility, and

displeasure in satisfied and dissatisfied marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 95-105.

Scott, C. K., Fuhrman, R. W., & Wyer, R. S. (1991). Information processing in close

relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 37-

67). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sillars, A. L. (1998). (Mis)understanding. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The

dark side of relationships (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sillars, A. & Parry, D. (1982). Stress, cognition, and communication in interpersonal

conflicts. Communication Research, 9, 201-226.

Sillars, A., Dun, T., & Roberts, L. J. (1999). Interaction cognition coding scheme.

Unpublished manuscript, University of Montana.


36/43

36

Sillars, A., Roberts, L. J., Dun, T, & Leonard, K. E. (in press). Stepping into the stream of

thought: Cognition during marital conflict. In V. Manusov and J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution,

communication behavior, and close relationship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sillars, A. L., & Scott, M. D. (1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: An

integrative review. Human Communication Research, 10, 153-176.

Sillars, A. L., & Weisberg, J. (1987). Conflict as a social skill. In M. E. Roloff & G. R.

Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 140-171).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics

(CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Waldron, V. R. & Cegala, D. J. (1992). Assessing conversational cognition: Levels of

cognitive theory and associated methodological requirements. Human Communication Research,

18, 599-622.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication:

A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.


37/43

37

Table 1

Percentages of Occurrence* and Representative Examples for the ICCS Thought Codes and

Categories

CATEGORY EXAMPLE

EMOTION (9%)

positive emotions (2%) So I felt good.

dysphoria (2%) I was starting to feel sad and hurt.

anger & frustration (5%) Mad and frustrated.

ISSUE APPRAISAL (19%)

elaboration (8%) I was thinking that maybe I will have one more child, but notright now.

agreement (3%) That's a good point.

disagreement (8%) It doesn't make sense to me.

solution (1%) What's a solution, good question.

PERSON APPRAISAL (25%)

positive & neutral (9%) I'm glad that he made the effort.

admission (2%) It's probably my fault. denial & justification (2%) I don't think that it's all my fault.

complaint (7%) I just want to be more appreciated.

hostile attribution (2%) All he cares about is himself.

rejection (3%) This guy is a real jerk.

negative relationship It's crazy..like a fatal attraction.

PROCESS (34%)

Constructive Engagement (5%)

collaboration (1%) He's being very cooperative.

disclosure (2%) I liked knowing how open she is .

soliciting & attending (2%) I'm trying to get her to talk about it.

Avoidance and Detachment (9%)


38/43

38

withdrawal (3%) She just wanted to blow the whole thing off and not argueabout it anymore.

topic shifting (2%) He wanted to change the subject.

stonewalling (1%) He's just making a lot of excuses.

censorship (1%) I am just going to have to control what I say.

lying & insincerity (1%) I know he doesnt mean that.

giving in I'm giving in, just like I always do.

Confrontation (5%)

dominating the floor He always cuts me off, which is as usual.

inflexibility (1%) Shes not going to give at all.

exaggeration & distortion (1%) He does make a bigger deal of it than it is.

criticism & verbal aggression (2%) She just wants to verbally attack me instead of talking to melike a human being.

negative voice & appearance(1%) She rolls her eye balls.

other aversive strategies (1%) Heavy guilt trip, coming down.

Neutral and Mixed Strategies (5%)

initiation & termination (1%) Trying to think of something to say.

general talk We were recapping what we had said about Mark.

relationship repair (1%) I was trying to please her.

assertion (3%) Just trying to get my point across.

joking (1%) Trying joking with her.

Process Appraisal (9%)

understanding (2%) I think he realizes how I feel.

not understanding (3%) He's not gonna understand where I'm coming from.

keeping score I was getting back on the upper hand.

unexpected behavior I can't believe he said that.

repetitious behavior (1%) We've been through this a hundred times.

foreboding Oh I started something this time.

resolution (1%) I feel we're finally getting somewhere.

impasse (1%) We're not really resolving this problem.


39/43

39

UNCODABLE & OFF TOPIC (14%)

other people (1%) The baby likes to get in the plants.

can't remember (6%) I don't know what I was thinking.

thinking same as what was said I said what I was thinking then.

not thinking anything Wasn't really thinking anything.

no response (2%) I have no comment.

unintelligible (1%)

intoxication (1%) I could tell that alcohol was starting to influence him.

off topic (2%) I was thinking of my cat.

*In cases where no percentage is reported, the percentage of thought units coded into the category

was less than .5%.


40/43

40

Table 2

Mean Percentage of ICCS Thoughts for Husbands and Wives

Code Categories

Mean Percentage

of Codes t

Husband Wife

Primary Content

Emotion 9.8 11.1 - .9

Issue Appraisal 25.3 19.4 3.7**

Person Appraisal 27.5 28.0 - .3

Process 36.9 40.2 -1.5

Focus

Self 33.8 26.2 3.7**

Partner 26.1 37.7 -6.4** Mutual 3.1 2.9 .4

Meta 3.6 5.8 -3.6**

Attributed Strategy-- Self

Constructive Engagement 5.2 2.6 4.0**

Avoidance and Detachment 3.4 2.8 1.2

Confrontation 1.3 1.6 -1.0

Attributed Strategy -- Partner

Constructive Engagement .9 1.58 -2.7**

Avoidance and Detachment 3.3 8.0 -5.5**

Confrontation 3.6 4.8 -2.1**

Negative Sentiment Anger and Frustration 3.5 5.5 -2.2**

Blame 14.9 16.4 -1.2

Pessimism 4.7 5.8 -1.5

* = p < .05; * = p < .01; two-tailed test


41/43

41

Table 3

Pearson Correlations between Communication Strategies Attributed by Self and Partner

Attributed Strategy

Wifes Self Attribution and

Husbands Partner Attribution

Husbands Self Attribution

and Wifes Partner Attribution

Avoidance/Detachment .19* .17*

Constructive Engagement .10 .19*

Confrontation -.06 -.12

* = p < .05; one-tailed test


42/43

42

Table 4

Partial Correlations Between Observed Interaction Behavior and Attributed Communication

Strategies

Observed

Behavior

Attributed

Strategy

Husbands

Behavior and

Husbands Self-

Attribution

Husbands

Behavior and

Wifes

Attribution to

Husband

Wifes

Behavior and

Wifes Self-

Attribution

Wifes

Behavior and

Husbands

Attribution to

Wife

Withdrawal Avoidance/ -.02 .29** .18* .24**

Detachment

Problem Solving Constructive

Engagement

.13 .17* .22** .17*

Negativity Confrontation .01 .32** .13 .18**

* = p < .05; ** = p < .01, one-tailed test; partial correlations control for the overall frequency of

MICS codes


43/43

43

Table 5

Pearson Correlations Between ICCS Thought Categories and Marital Functioning

Thought

Marital Satisfaction

(Locke-Wallace

Combined Score)

Conflict Severity

Negative Sentiment

Anger and Frustration -.20* .22*

Blame -.27** .24**

Pessimism -.37** .16

Issue Appraisal .29** -.18

* = p < .05; ** = p < .01, two-tailed test

sillars - cognition during marital conflict

Documents