Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1991, Vol.

59, No 3, 458-463

Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-006X/9I/S3.00

Communication, Conflict, and Psychological Distance in Nondistressed, Clinic, and Divorcing Couples
Andrew Christensen
University of California, Los Angeles

James L. Shenk
Center for Cognitive Therapy, Newport Beach, California

This study compared communication patterns and conflicts over psychological distance in 25 nondistressed couples, 15 clinic couples, and 22 divorcing couples. Data consisted of questionnaire reports completed independently by husbands and wives. The two distressed groups, compared with nondistressed couples, had less mutual constructive communication, more avoidance of communication, more demand/withdraw communication, and more conflict over psychological distance in their relationships. In addition, the divorcinggroup had less mutual constructive communication than the clinic group and evidenced a trend for more conflict over psychological distance than the clinic group. Consistent with past research, wife demand/husband withdraw communication was more likely across all groups than husband demand/wife withdraw communication. Results are discussed in terms of skills deficits and incompatability models of marital discord.

Marital theorists often implicate communication as a central feature in marital discord (see Baucom & Adams, 1987; Jacobson & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1986; and Christensen's chapter on intervention in Kelley etal., 1983). Behavioral theorists emphasize a deficit in communication skills, particularly problemsolving skills, as a major causal factor in marital distress (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). If couples cannot maintain a mutual, constructive, problem-solving approach to the inevitable differences that arise between them, distress will develop (see Jacobson & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1986; Christensen in Kelley et al, 1983). For example, couples may avoid discussion of conflict areas, which prevents their resolution of these conflicts. Or they may discuss conflict areas i n aversive ways that not only prevent resolution of the conflict but also generate negative affect such as anger and resentment. Rather than communication skills, systems theorists emphasize self-perpetuating patterns of communication within couples. These patterns of communication prevent normal functioning and may maintain certain individual symptoms, such as depression. A frequently noted interaction pattern in distressed couples is that in which one spouse pressures the other with demands, complaints, and criticisms, while the partner withdraws with defensiveness and passive inaction. Various labels have been applied to this scenario, such as the nag/withdraw pattern (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967), the pursuer-distancer pattern (Fogarty; 1976), the rejection/intrusion pattern (Napier, 1978). and the demand/withdraw pattern

(Christensen, 1987, 1988: Greenberg & Johnson, 1986; Wile, 1981). In a series of studies, Christensen and his associates (Christensen, 1987, 1988; Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Sullaway & Christensen, 1983) developed a self-report measure of this interaction scenario, which they called the demand/withdraw pattern, and showed that (a) husbands and wives can agree when reporting independently on this pattern in their relationship, (b) the extent of this pattern is correlated with marital satisfaction in a community sample of married couples, and (c) wives are more likely to be demanders and husbands withdrawers. Although not explicitly addressing demand/withdraw interaction in couples, a number of observational studies have shown that aspects of this pattern, such as withdrawal from conflict (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989), are related to marital satisfaction or to the clinical status of a couple. An important limitation of the communication theories of marital discord, particularly the social skills theory, is that these theories are largely content free. With appropriate skills, couples can presumably face any content issue. Process, not content, is what is important (Broderick, 1983). In contrast, other marital and family theorists have focused on central issues or themes that may arise regularly in close relationships (e.g., Barton & Alexander, 1981; Greenberg & Johnson, 1986; Sager, 1981). A common theme mentioned by these theorists concerns the psychological distance between partners in the relationship. Spouses may seek different levels of autonomy and independence on the one hand and closeness and interdependence on the other (Christensen, 1988; Jacobson, 1989). Extremes of either independence or interdependence in relationships may be pathological, as described in Minuchin's (1974) disengagement or enmeshment patterns. There is plenty of room in the nonpathological middle, however, for different preferences between partners regarding autonomy and closeness. Conflicts about different preferences for closeness and autonomy are seen by clinicians as common in couples seeking marital therapy (Greenberg & Johnson, 1986; Jacobson & Margolin,

Support for this research was provided in part by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Fernald Child Study Center and the UCLA Center for the Study of Women. We wish to thank the Los Angeles County Conciliation Court for their assistance in obtaining participants for this research and to thank Mark Whisman and Gayla Margolin for sharing their data on couples. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew Christensen, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024.

458

COMMUNICATION, CONFLICT

459

1979). In a questionnaire study of a community sample of married couples, Christensen (1987,1988) showed that a measure of conflict over closeness and autonomy was highly correlated with a measure of relationship dissatisfaction. Some theorists have suggested a link between couple interaction and this theme of psychological distance. Christensen (1988) and Jacobson (1989) have suggested that the demand/ withdraw interaction pattern may be a manifestation of conflict over closeness and distance. One spouse seeks greater closeness by pursuing the other, demanding more from the other, and criticizing and complaining that the other does not do enough; the partner, in contrast, seeks greater distance by withdrawal, retreat, defensiveness, and passive inaction. Theorists have also suggested gender links both in conflicts about psychological distance and in the demand/withdraw interaction pattern. For example, Napier (1978) suggests that, due to sex-role conditioning, women are socialized to be affiliative and are thus more likely to seek closeness and to fear rejection and abandonment in relationships, whereas men are socialized to be independent and are more likely to seek distance and to fear intrusion and engulfment in relationships. Christensen (1988) and Jacobson (1989) suggest that these gender differences in desire for closeness lead to gender differences in the roles spouses take in the demand/withdraw interaction pattern. In a questionnaire study of a community sample, Christensen (1987; 1988) found evidence that women wanted greater closeness in the relationship and were more demanding in interaction whereas men wanted greater independence in the relationship and were more withdrawing in interaction. What has been missing in this research is an examination of these patterns across nondistressed and distressed couples. To show a relationship between some pattern of behavior and marital satisfaction in a community sample does not ensure that differences in this pattern of behavior exist between nondistressed and distressed samples (such as clinic or divorcing couples). Nor does data from a community sample indicate the magnitude of differences between nondistressed and distressed samples. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine whether clinic couples seeking treatment and divorcing couples, relative to nondistressed couples, have different levels of these conflicts and interaction patterns. The use of divorcing couples, in addition to clinic couples, is rare in the clinical literature on marriage, but it provides an end point of distress. If some feature of marriage is related to discord, presumably divorcing couples will have this feature as much or more than couples seeking treatment. Thus, in this study we hypothesize that nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples will have (a) decreasing levels of mutual constructive communication, (b) increasing levels of mutual avoidance of communication about problems, (c) increasing levels of the demand/withdraw interaction pattern, and (d) increasing discrepancy between spouses over desired psychological distance. Consistent with previous research, we predict (a) a relationship between discrepancy about desired psychological distance and demand/withdraw interaction, such that the greater the discrepancy the greater the demand/withdraw interaction, and (b) a gender difference in demand/withdraw interaction, with women more likely to be demanding and men more likely to be withdrawing.

Method
Subjects
Three samples of couples constituted the subjects for this research: 22 divorcing couples who had separated within the past 12 months, 15 clinic couples who were seeking marital therapy, and 25 happy couples who had neither separated nor sought marital therapy and who indicated satisfaction with their relationship. These couples were chosen from several different research projects. Consecutive cases within the research project that met the following criteria (and the specific group criteria below) were selected: (a) Both husband and wife participated in the research and completed the measures below; (b) husband and wife were aged 25 to 50 and had been married at least 2 years; and (c) all couples had at least one child aged 6-13 living in the home. Divorcing couples. These 22 couples were obtained through the Los Angeles County Conciliation Court. In California, mediation in Conciliation Court is mandatory for all couples who cannot reach agreement on child custody and visitation. Only couples who had separated in the last year were invited to participate in the research. The average length of time since separation was 7.6 months. Clinic couples. These 15 couples were self-referred for marital therapy: 6 from private practice referrals in Los Angeles and 9 from a marital therapy research project in Seattle. All couples completed the measures below during an assessment period before marital therapy. On the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), a measure of relationship satisfaction, husbands scored a mean of 89.3 (SD = 18.0), and wives scored a mean of 85.2 (SD = 17.8). Nondistre.wed couples. These 25 couples, none of whom were in marital therapy, were recruited from the Los Angeles area through radio, newspaper, and school announcements and through talks at community organizations. Only couples in which both partners scored in the satisfied range on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) were included in this study. This range was defined as greater than 97, which is one standard deviation below the normal mean. Mean Dyadic Adjustment Scale score was 110.2 (SD = 10.0) for husbands and 109.4 {SD = 9.1) for wives. Demographic comparisons between groups. Table 1 presents means and standard deviations on seven demographic variables for the three groups of couples. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated no statistically significant differences between groups on age of wife, education of husband, education of wife, number of children, or socioeconomic status. However, statistically significant group differences were evident on age of husband, F(2, 61) - 5.84, p < ,01, and years married, F(2, 58) = 6.51, p < .01. Newman-Keuls post hoc tests indicated that divorcing men were older than clinic men (p < .05) and nondistressed men (p < .05). Similarly, Newman-Keuls post hoc tests indicated that divorcing couples were married longer than the clinic couples (p < .05) and nondistressed couples (p < .05). To examine the possible erfects of these differences on our dependent variables, we correlated age of husband and years married with each of the 10 dependent variables described below (5 reported by wife and 5 reported by husband). "Years married" was not significantly related to any of the dependent variables. Husband's age was significantly related to 3 of the 10 dependent variables but to none of them consistently (i.e., age of husband was significantly related to 3 variables from wife's data but not significantly related to those same variables from husband's data). The majority of the sample was White, non-Hispanic. However, 19 husbands and 18 wives were from other ethnic groups, primarily Black and Hispanic, and were concentrated in the divorcing and nondistressed samples. A 3 X 2 chi-square comparing the three couple groups (divorcing, clinic, and nondistressed) by two racial groups (White, nonHispanic vs. all others combined) was statistically significant for wives only, x2(2, N = 60) = 10.62, p < .01. To examine the possible effects of

460

ANDREW CHRISTENSEN AND JAMES L. SHENK Table 1 Demographic Variables on Nondistressed, Clinic, and Divorcing Couples Nondistressed couples ( -25) Variable Husband's age (years) Wife's age (years) Husband's education* Wife's education" Years married Number of children SES"
a

Clinic couples ( = 15)

Divorcing couples (n = 22)

M
37.0 35.1 5.4 4.9 12.5 2.5 45.0

SD 4.8 4.4 1.1 1.0 6.2 0.9 11.3

M
37.7 35.6 6.0 5.4 9.5 2.6 51.3

SD
4,3 4.1 0.9 0.8 5.8 1.5 10. 1

M
41.7 38.0 5.3 4.8 16.1 3.1 44.1

SD 5.3 4.6 1.2 1.1 4.4 1.2 12.7

Based on the 7-point Hollingshead (1975) educational scale; scores can range from 1 (less than seventh grade] to 7 (graduate degree). b Based on the Hollingshcad (1975) Four-Factor Index of Social Status (SES, socioeconomic status).

these ethnic differences on our dependent variables, we conducted independent t tests comparing the couples with White, non-Hispanic wives to the couples with ethnic wives on all 10 dependent variables. Only 1 of the 10 dependent variables (husband's report of discrepancy in desired closeness/independence) was significantly related to wife ethnicitv.

Measures
Communication Patterns Questionnaire (Christensen & Sullaway, 1984; Christensen, 1987, 198S). This self-report questionnaire assesses spouse perceptions of communication during three phases of conflict: (a) "when some problem in the relationship arises" (items ask about discussion or avoidance of the issue); (b)"duringadiscussion of a relationship problem" (items ask about behaviors such as blaming, negotiating, criticizing, defending, demanding, and withdrawing); and (c) "after a discussion of a relationship problem" (items asks about behaviors such as withholding and reconciliation and reactions such as guilt and understanding). Some items assess symmetrical patterns ("both members express their feelings to each other") and other items assess asymmetrical patterns ("husband criticizes while wife defends herself "). All items are rated on 9-point scales that range from unlikelv to likely. Three subscales from this questionnaire were used in this study: (a) Mutual Constructive Communication consists of the sum of five items that assess mutual discussion of problems, expression of feelings, understanding of views, negotiation of solutions, and resolution of problems; (b) Mutual Avoidance consists of the sum of three items that assess mutual avoidance of discussion, mutual withdrawing after discussion, and mutual withholding after discussion; (c) Husband Demand/Wife Withdraw Communication consists of three items that assess asymmetrical behaviors in which husband presses wife to discuss a problem and then criticizes, nags, and makes demands on her, while the wife tries to avoid discussion of the problem and defends herself, withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss the matter further; and (d) Wife Demand/Husband Withdraw Communication, which consists of three items identical to the subscale above except that husband and wife are in opposite roles. Previous research has provided reliability and validity data on all of these subscales except Mutual Avoidance (Christensen, 1987, 1988; Christensen & Heavey, 1990: see also Noller & White, 1990). In the present study, Cronbach's (1951) alphas were computed separately for husband and wife reports for each of the subscales. These alphas ranged from .62 to .86, with a mean of .71.

Relationship Issues Questionnaire (Christensen & Sullaway, 1984; Christensen, J9S7,1988). This self-report questionnaire was designed to assess (a) desire for intimacy and (b) satisfaction with the power distribution in the relationship. For purposes of our study, one subscale was used. Discrepancy in Desired Closeness/Independence, which was based on three items. The first item describes a situation in which one partner wants a closer relationship whereas the other wants more independence. Several examples of closeness (e.g., more time together and more sharing of feelings) and independence (e.g., more time alone, more privacy) are provided. The item then asks respondents to rate on a 9-point scale the extent to which this difference characterizes their relationship. The next two items ask respondents to rate the extent to which the man and the woman want more closeness/independence respectively. Each of these two items has closeness and independence at two ends of a 9-point scale, so spouses must choose between the two options. The Discrepancy in Desired Closeness/Independence subscale consisted of the sum of the first item plus the absolute value of the difference between the last two items. Previous research has indicated reliability and validity for subscales similar to this subscale (Christensen, 1987, 1988). In the present study, Cronbach's alphas for Discrepancy in Desired Closeness/Independence were .79 and .86 for husband's and wife's reports, respectively. Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). The DAS assesses satisfaction in a dyadic relationship. Scores range from zero to 151. The mean of married couples is 114.8 with a standard deviation of 17.8.

Procedures
As part of a package of assessment procedures, couples in all three groups were asked to independently complete the Communication Patterns Questionnaire and the Relationship Issues Questionnaire. Clinic and nondistressed couples completed the questionnaire about their current relationship; divorcing couples completed the questionnaire about the last year they were together. Only the clinic couples and nondistressed couples were asked to complete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.

Results
The results were analyzed using either a two-way or a threeway mixed ANOVA design. Type of couple (normal, distressed, or divorcing) was the grouping variable; type of reporter (husband or wife) was the within-subjects variable. For the demand/ withdraw variables, which provided separate information

COMMUNICATION, CONFLICT about husband and wife, an additional within-subjects factor of spousal role in the interaction (husband demand/wife withdraw vs. wife demand/husband withdraw) was included. Two planned comparisons were conducted: The combined clinic and divorcing groups were compared with the nondistressed group, and the clinic group was compared with the divorcing group. Because age of husband differed between groups and was significantly related to 3 of the 10 dependent variables, we repeated the analyses just described using age of husband as a covariate. However, because both types of analysis generated the same pattern of significant results, we will not report the analyses of covariance. Mutual Constructive Communication The two-way ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of group, F(2, 57) = 26.42, p < .001, but no significant effect of reporter or interaction between group and reporter. Planned comparisons indicated that the combined distressed groups had significantly poorer communication than the normal group, F(l , 57) = 40.00, p < .001 , and that the divorcing group had significantly poorer communication than the clinic group, " O I I

461

O WUe demand/ Husband withdraw II Husband demand/ Wife withdraw

00

I , I I
b 35 o
3 3

e *

11

!-g
Nondistressed Couples Clinic Couples Divorcing Couples

Mutual Avoidance The two-way ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of group, F(2, 57) = 13.21, p < .001, but no significant effect of reporter or interaction between group and reporter. Planned comparisons indicated that the combined distressed groups were significantly more avoidant than the normal group, F(l , 57) = 2 1 .28, p < .00 1 . Although the divorcing group was more avoidant than the clinic group, this difference was not statistically significant, F(l, 57) = 2.70, p > .10. Demand/Withdraw Communication A three-way mixed ANOVA yielded a significant group effect, F(2, 59) = 6.99, p < .01, and a significant spousal role effect, F(l, 59) = 5.65, p < .05, indicating that groups were different on demand/withdraw communication and that wife demand/husband withdraw interaction was more likely than husband demand/wife withdraw interaction. There were no other significant main effects or interactions. Planned comparisons indicated that the combined distressed groups had significantly more demand/withdraw communication than the normal group, F(l, 59) = 1 1.78, p < .001, but the divorcing group did not have significantly more demand/withdraw communication than the clinic group, F(l, 59) = 1.12, p > .10. Figure 1 provides a graphic portrayal of these effects. Discrepancy in Desired Closeness/Independence

Figure I. Demand/withdraw interaction in nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples.

group to have greater discrepancies than the clinic group, F(l, 50) =3.28, p < . 1 0 . Relations Between Measures Table 2 presents an intercorrelation matrix between all the dependent measures. Looking first at the relationship between husband and wife data (the values on the diagonal), we note that all correlations are positive and statistically significant, but they are mostly of moderate magnitude. Also, husband data (values above the diagonal) and wife data (values below the diagonal) paint a similar picture of the relationships between variables. As expected, Mutual Constructive Communication was negatively related to the two negative styles of communication (Mutual Avoidance and Demand/Withdraw Communication) and to Discrepancy in Desired Closeness/Independence. Mutual Avoidance was positively related to Demand/Withdraw Communication and Discrepancy in Desired Closeness/Independence. Discrepancy in Desired Closeness/Independence was positively related to Demand/Withdraw Communication, particularly Wife Demand/Husband Withdraw Communication. The two demand/withdraw communication measures were not significantly related to each other. Discussion Some of the current findings are consistent with a communication deficit explanation of marital discord. On the basis of

A two-way mixed ANOVA yielded a significant group effect, F(2, 50) = 12.37, p < .001, but no significant effects of reporter or Group X Reporter interaction. Planned comparisons indicated that couples in the combined distressed groups had significantly greater discrepancies in their desires for closeness or independence than did couples in the normal group, F(\, 50) = 19.53, p < .001, and indicated a tendency for the divorcing

462
Table 2

ANDREW CHRISTENSEN AND JAMES L. SHENK

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between Variables

Variable

1. Mutual constructive
communication 2. Avoidance 3. Husband demand/ wife withdraw 4. Wife demand/ husband withdraw 5. Discrepancy in desired closeness/independence .63'** -.68** -.35**
-.29*

-.61*** 31* .33** .53*** .47***

-.38" .43***

-.37** .40**
.10

-.43*" .37**
.32* .36"
.51"*

.59***
-.02
.22

.44*** .45***

-.45***

Note. Values on the diagonal are correlations between husband and wife reports. Values below the diagonal are based on wives' data; values above the diagonal are based on husbands 1 data. *p<.05. "p<.V\. ***/)< .001.

spouse reports, nondistressed couples evidenced more mutual constructive communication than did clinic or divorcing couples. Furthermore, clinic couples evidenced more of this constructive communication than did divorcing couples. In addition, clinic and divorcing couples evidenced more mutual avoidance of problem discussions and more demand/withdraw communication during problem discussions than did nondistressed couples. Other findings in our study suggest that incompatibility, not just communication, distinguishes distressed from nondistressed couples. The clinic and divorcing couples showed greater discrepancy in their desired closeness/independence than did the nondistressed couples. Furthermore, correlational evidence indicated that the higher the discrepancy in desired closeness/independence, the greater the likelihood of negative communication patterns such as mutual avoidance and demand/withdraw communication, and the less the likelihood of positive communication patterns such as mutual constructive eommunication. Perhaps the distressed couples evidenced poorer communication because they were facing a deeper incompatibility. They were not talking as well as nondistressed couples because they were facing a more serious problem. We propose an alternative model in which incompatibility as well as communication plays a role in marital discord. These two factors are dynamically related such that the greater the incompatibility, the greater the communication skill required to resolve the incompatibility Furthermore, effective communication may minimize incompatibilities and rcinforcecommunication skills, whereas ineffective communication may maximize incompatibility and deteriorate skills. In this model, distressed couples are characterized by deeper incompatibilities or greater communication deficits or both in comparison with nondistressed couples. As they eommunicate unsuccessfully to resolve their differences, these differences may be exacerbated, and their communication abilities further deteriorate. In contrast, the communication abilities of nondistressed couples are sufficient to resolve their differences, and as a result, their differences may be minimized and their communication skills strengthened. Other factors, such as individual psychopathology (Hooley, Richters, Weintraub, & Neale, 1987), external stress (see Levinger's chapter on development and change in Kelley et al, 1983),

and cognitive distortions (Baucom, Epstein, Sayers, & Sher, 1989), obviously influence marital discord. However, they may do so by affecting incompatibility and communication deficiencies. Because individual psychopathology and external stress may increase one's needs while simultaneously reducing one's ability to meet the needs of others, these factors may maximize incompatibility between partners. Because cognitive distortions may lead to blaming and accusation, they may reduce communication effectiveness. Two limitations of this research should be noted. First, the findings were based on self-report data, which is vulnerable to bias and distortion. However, because results were based on two sources (husband and wife) whose independent reports told a similar story (there were no significant effects of reporter, and spouse reports were significantly and moderately correlated), we would argue that the data reflect in large part the objective interaction of the couples. Furthermore, previous research has shown similarity between observations and self-reports of demand/withdraw interaction (Christensen & Heavey, 1990). A second limitation concerns demographic and procedural differences between the groups. Three demographic variables were significantly related to group membership, but none of these variables were consistently and significantly correlated with the dependent variables. Of greater concern were differences in procedures between the two groups. Clinic and nondistressed couples completed the measures regarding their current relationship; divorcing couples completed the measures regarding their last year of married life together. Retrospective accounts of divorcing couples may provide an overly negative view of marriage, perhaps indicating more communication problems and greater incompatibility than actually existed. However, the separate accounts of divorcing husbands and wives painted a similar pattern of results. Furthermore, on most variables, divorcing couples reported no more communication problemsor incompatibility than did clinic couples. Also, methodologically, it is difficult to obtain current data on couples who will eventually separate and divorce because we typically do not know ahead of time who these couples will be. Within its limitations, this study provides evidence consistent with a communication deficit model of marital discord. Clearly, in our samples, nondistressed couples reported more effective communication than did the clinic or divorcing cou-

COMMUNICATION, CONFLICT pies. However, the data complicates a simple view of communication deficit by suggesting that couples differed not only in communication but also in their compatibility over desired psychological distance. The clinic and divorcing couples may have evidenced more serious communication difficulties because they had more serious differences to resolve.

463

References
Barton, C, & Alexander, J. E (1981 ) Functional family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 403-443). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Baucom, D. H., & Adams, A. N. (1987). Assessing communication in marital interaction. In K. D. O'Leary (Ed.), Assessment of marital discord- An integration for research and clinical practice (pp. 139181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Sayers, S., & Sher, T. G. (1989). The role of cognitions in marital relationships: Definitional, methodological, and conceptual issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57,31-38. Broderick, C. B. (1983). The therapeutic triangle: A sourcebook on marital therapy. London: Sage. Christensen, A. (1987). Detection of conflict patterns in couples. In K. Hahlweg & M. J. Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorder: The contribution of family interaction research (pp. 250-265). New York: Family Process Press. Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31-52). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters LTD. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal ojPersonality and Social Psychology. 59, 73-81. Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. Fogarty, T. F. (1976). Marital crisis. In P. J. Guerin (Ed.), Family therapy: Theory and practice (pp. 325-334). New York: Gardner Press. Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47-52. Grcenberg, L. S., & Johnson, S. M. (1986). Emotionally focused couples

therapy. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marital therapy (pp. 253-276). New York: Guilford Press. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four-factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University. Hooley, J. M., Richters, 3. E., Weintraub, S, & Neale, J. M. (1987). Psychopathology and marital distress: The positive side of positive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 27-33. Jacobson, N. S. (1989). The politics of intimacy. Behavior Therapist, 12(2), 29-32. Jacobson, N. S., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1986). Marital therapy: A social learning-cognitive perspective. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marital therapy (pp. 29-70). New York: Guilford Press. Jacobson, N. S, & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principles. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E, Christensen, A., Harvey J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G, McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York: W H. Freeman. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Napier, A. Y. (1978). The rejection-intrusion pattern: A central family dynamic. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 4, 5-12. Noller, P, & White, A. (1990). The validity of the communication patterns questionnaire. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 478-482. Sager, C. J. (1981). Couples therapy and marriage contracts. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 85-130). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38,15-28. Sullaway, M., & Christensen, A. (1983). Assessment of dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 653-660. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study ofinteractional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New \fork: Norton. Wile, D. B. (1981). Couples therapy: A non-traditional approach. New York: Wiley. Received February 28,1990 Revision received December 27,1990 Accepted January 3,1991