Relational Communication An Interactional Perspective To the Study of Process and Form 9780805837124, 0805837124, 9781410609656, 1410609650

Citation preview

R e l a t io n a l C o m m u n ic a t io n

E d ite d b y

L. E d n a R o g e rs • V a le n t in E s c u d e r o

R E L A T IO N A L C O M M U N IC A T IO N

LEA’s S eries on P erso n al Relationships

Steve Duck, Series Editor Bennett • Time and Intimacy: A New Science of Personal Relationships Canary/Dainton • Maintaining Relationships Through Communication: Relational, Contextual, and Cultural Variations Christopher « T o Dance the Dance: A Symbolic Interactional Exploration of Premarital Sexuality Goodwin/Cramer • Inappropriate Relationships: The Unconventional, the Disapproved, and the Forbidden Honeycutt/Cantrill • Cognition, Communication, and Romantic Relationships Miller/Alberts/Hecht/Trost/Krizek • Adolescent Relationships and Drug Use Monsour • Women and Men as Friends: Relationships Across the Life Span in the 21st Century Rogers/Escudero • Relational Communication: An Interactional Perspective to the Study of Process and Form

RELATIONAL C O M M U N IC A T IO N An Interactional Perspective to the Study o f Process and Form

Edited by

L. Edna Rogers University o f Utah

Valentín Escudero University o f La Coruna

m 2004

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS Mahwah, New Jersey London

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008. “To purchase your own copy o f this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Copyright © 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other means, without the prior written permission of the publisher. taw rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, New Jersey 07430

Cover Art: “Awakening” by Carl B. Gacono, Ph.D., Austin, Texas

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicatlon Data Relational communication : an interactional perspective to the study of process and form / edited by L. Edna Rogers, Valentín Escudero. p. cm. — (LEA’s series on personal relationships) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-8058-3712-4 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Interpersonal relations. 2. Interpersonal communication. 3. Interpersonal communication—Research. I. Rogers, Lilian Edna, 1933- II. Escudero, Valentín, 1961III. Series. HM1106.R375 2004 302—dc22

ISBN 1-4106-0965-0 Master e-book ISBN

2003060163 CIP

Contents

Series Foreword

vii

Steve Duck Foreword

ix

Janet Beavin Bavelas Preface

xiii

About the Authors

xvii

PART I: RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PERSPECTIVE 1

T heoretical Foundations

3

L. Edna Rogers and Valentin Escudero

2

Observing Relational Communication

23

Valentin Escudero and L. Edna Rogers

3

Analyzing Relational Communication

51

Valentin Escudero and L. Edna Rogers PART II: RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH CONTEXTS

4

Relational Communication Patterns in Marital interaction

83

L. Edna Rogers and Valentin Escudero v

CONTENTS

VI

5

From Dyads to Triads, and Beyond: Relational Control in Individual and Family Therapy

103

Laurie Heatherington and Myrna L. Friedlander 6

Relational Research in Brief Family Therapy: Clinical Implications

131

José Luis Rodríguez-Arias

7

Expressed Emotion and Interpersonal Control in Families of Persons With MentalIllness

149

Anne K. Wuerker 8

Relational Control in Physician-Patient Interaction

179

Denise Wigginton Cecil and Marlene M. von Friederichs-Fitzwater

9

Organizational Relational Control Research: Problems and Possibilities

197

Gail T. Fairhurst PART III: REFLECTIONS ON THE RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 10

Overview and Future Directions

219

L. Edna Rogers and Valentin Escudero Author Index

237

Subject Index

245

Series Foreword Steve Duck, Series Editor University o f Iowa

This series from Lawrence Erlbaum is intended to review the progress in the academ ic work on relationships with respect to a broad array of issues and to do so in an accessible manner that also illustrates its practical value. The LEA series includes books intended to pass on the accumulated schol­ arship to the next generation of students and to those who deal with rela­ tionship issues in the broader world beyond the academy. The series thus not only com prises monographs and other academic resources exemplify­ ing the multidisciplinary nature of this area, but also, in the future, text­ books suitable for use in the growing numbers of courses on relationships. The series has the goal of providing a comprehensive and current sur­ vey of theory and research in personal relationship through the careful analysis of the problems encountered and solved in research, yet it also considers the system atic application of that work in a practical context. These resources not only are intended to be comprehensive assessm ents of progress on particular “hot” and relevant topics, but will be significant in­ fluences on the future directions and development of the study of personal relationships. Although each volume is focused and centered, authors all attempt to place the respective topics in the broader context of other re­ search on relationships and within a range of wider disciplinary traditions. The series already offers incisive and forward-looking reviews and also dem onstrates the broader theoretical implications of relationships for the range of disciplines from which the research originates. Present and future volumes include original studies, reviews of relevant theory and research, vii

viii

SERIES FOREWORD

and new theories oriented toward the understanding of personal relation­ ships both in them selves and within the context of broader theories of fam­ ily process, social psychology, and com munication. Reflecting the diverse com position of personal relationship study, read­ ers in numerous disciplines—social psychology, com munication, sociology, family studies, developm ental psychology, clinical psychology, personality, counseling, women’s studies, gerontology, and others—will find valuable and insightful perspectives in the series. Apart from the academ ic scholars who research the dynamics and proc­ esses of relationships, th ere are many other people whose work takes them up against the operation of relationships in the real world. For such people as nurses, the police, teachers, therapists, lawyers, drug and alcohol coun­ selors, marital counselors, and those who take care of the elderly, a num­ ber of issues routinely arise concerning the ways in which relationships af­ fect the people whom they serve. Examples are the role of loneliness in illness and the ways to circum vent it, the com plex im pact of family and peer relationships upon a drug-dependent’s attem pts to give up the drug, the role of playground unpopularity on a child’s learning, the issues in­ volved in dealing with the relational side of chronic illness, the manage­ ment of conflict in marriage, the establishm ent of good rapport between physicians and seriously ill patients, the support of the bereaved, and the correction of violent styles of behavior in dating or marriage. Each of these is a problem that may confront som e of the aforem entioned professionals as part of their daily concerns and each dem onstrates the far-reaching influ­ ences of relationship p ro cesses on much else in life that is presently theo­ rized independently of relationship considerations. The present volume is a good example of the serie s’ concerns, as it at­ tends to a particular approach to relationships that has been system atically outlined and developed over a num ber of years by a group of dedicated re­ search ers who deal com prehensively with the approach and dem onstrate its potential. The theoretical perspective of the approach is well developed in the opening chapter and the m ethods that support the approach are clearly depicted in later chapters, som e dedicated to the overall approach and som e depicting its specific application to areas such as marital relation­ ships or the therapeutic interactions where it is particularly useful, such as work with families or in organizations. The strength of system atic research within a particular paradigm in ap­ proaching relationships is one of the ways in which research can contribute substantially to an understanding of relationship processes. For theorists, therapists, and the rest of us, this them e is of immense significance and the present collection of thinking on the topic represents one of the best collec­ tions to date.

Foreword Janet Beavin Bavelas University o f Victoria

With this book, Rogers and Escudero have provided the field of relational communication with its first full primary resource, that is, a single, compre­ hensive text covering the past, present, and promising future of the rela­ tional communication approach to the study of relationship. Even readers who work in the field may be surprised by the wide range of relationships and contexts appearing in the studies that are included and integrated here, from organizational to medical to counseling settings. Because of my particular background and involvement, I would also like to emphasize the unique balance of continuity and change in this program of research. The fundamental ideas and principles that gave rise to rela­ tional communication research are preserved here, not by rigid or literal repetition, but instead by growth and development. The best way to honor the past is to select and remain true to its most promising ideas while at the same time transforming them in fruitful ways.

PAST, PRESENT, A N D FUTURE The present book reflects an enduring commitment to three crucial ele­ ments introduced by Bateson’s Naven in 1936. These contributions of the original work remain novel today and hold great promise for the future of the field. The first and most obvious continuity is a focus on the interaction patterns Bateson discovered and called symmetrical (based on similarity or

X

FOREWORD

mirroring) and complementary (based on interdependent differences). Pri­ marily becau se of the long-term program of research summarized here, these relational term s have becom e not only familiar but highly useful for the study of interaction in many diverse settings. Moreover, new dimen­ sions have been added and refined, which should encourage young re­ search ers to carry on even further. Second and even m ore important is the fact that these relational terms have remained firmly located in the observation of moment-by-moment in­ teraction. Thus, like Bateson (1936) when he described “system s of relation­ ship” (p. 176), these contem porary research ers are not making global or vague inferences (m uch less relying on what individuals report about their relationships). Instead, relational com m unication research ers derive gener­ alizations by observing the specific, sequential reactions of one individual to another, and the theory and term inology remain firmly anchored at this immediate level of interaction. This firm anchoring is one that I find m ost in­ tellectually and aesthetically satisfying. In my view, an inductive, bottom-up (and thus well grounded) progress from data to abstraction is the essen ce of the scientific approach, rath er than the deductive, top-down approach that characterizes so much of social scien ce—and is often premature. T he third crucial elem ent in the work d escribed here could easily be overlooked , in part b eca u se of th e infelicitous and fo rg ettable term B ateson originally ch o se to d escribe it: schism ogenesis, which is “a proc­ ess of differentiation in the norm s of individual behavior resulting from cum ulative interaction betw een individuals” (W atzlawick, Beavin, & Ja ck ­ son, 1967, p. 67, italics om itted). Y et in many ways this is the m ost im­ portant proposition, b ecau se it still goes against the grain of typical con­ tem porary work on social in teractio n (including many “relationsh ip " studies). As Rogers and Escudero point out, B ateso n ’s approach was fun­ dam entally relational, not individualistic. Indeed, when one re-reads the definition of schism ogenesis, it is clea r that B ateson was saying that the behaviors of individuals derived from the in teraction—not the reverse. Yet, ironically, the individual rem ains a focus and b asic unit in many con ­ tem porary studies of social interaction, often b ecau se of a m isinterpreta­ tion of the principle of reductionism , which assum es that social interac­ tion can be additively derived from individual behaviors or even selfrep orts (B avelas, in p ress). In my view, the b est way to learn what rela­ tional ultim ately m eans is to do truly relational research . Thus, this collection has not only procedural but broad heuristic value that can take the study of relationships beyond the study of individual ac­ tions or self-reports. Too often, 20th-century com m unication and research remained shaped by a 19th-century psychology of individuals. It is timely to begin the 21st century with a clearly realized vision of an alternative.

FOREWORD

xi

REFERENCES Bateson, G. (1936). Naven. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bavelas, J. B. (in press). The two solitudes: Reconciling social psychology and language and so­ cial interaction. In K. Fitch & R. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

Preface

The study of relationships has long held a fascination for scholars across the social sciences, and this is increasingly so in the area of interpersonal studies. In recent years, not only have relationships become a prominent focus of study, but there is also a growing recognition of the intrinsic, inter­ relatedness of communication and relationships, such that relationships are seen as being creatively performed and shaped through the dynamic in­ terplay of the mem bers’ communicative processes. As the title of the book indicates, the study of process and form is central to the relational commu­ nication perspective for understanding interpersonal relationships. Thus, a primary focus and theme of the present volume centers on the interactive, constitutive nature of communication as it impacts our relational lives. In the development of the relational communication perspective, the in­ terconnection between communication and relationships has been a basic premise. From the beginning, the goal of this approach to the study of rela­ tionships was to focus on the formative, relational level qualities of the communicative process of interrelating with others, guided by the proposi­ tion that the mutually produced, interactional patterns of relationships “do not lie within individual interactors, but rather exist between them ” (Rogers & Farace, 1975, p. 222). As later expressed by Sigman (1988), in emphasizing the consequentiality of communication, “A relationship is, thus, not an en­ tity from which communication emanates, but a location in the ongoing be­ havioral stream. It is communication that produces and sustains a relation­ ship” (p. 52). x iii

xiv

PREFACE

To clarify the relational position, it is important to note that it does not negate the study of the interactor, but rath er provides a different locus of attention. It represents a conceptual shift in thinking from the study of ac­ tion to the study of interaction, from the study of individual m em bers to the study of their jointly constructed relationship. The relational com m unica­ tion perspective recognizes the im portance of the m em bers’ actions, inter­ pretations, cognitive meanings and em otions, and the insights they provide, but it represents a different focus of analysis, with the potential of differing levels of analysis lending a more com prehensive view of interpersonal rela­ tions. Given the different approaches for studying relationships, note that relational com m unication is used here as it was originally to refer to the perspective taken in this book. In the field of com m unication in the 1960s, it was a time of waning satis­ faction with the traditional, monadic models of com m unication and in turn, a time of searching for more process-oriented, system -based models. Fortu­ nately, the influential writings of the m em bers of the Palo Alto Mental Re­ search Institution articulating the interactional view of com m unication ap­ peared in print during this time. In particular, the work of Sluzki and Beavin (1965) and Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) opened the window of ideas emphasizing process, pattern, and context that laid the foundation for the relational com m unication approach, the developm ent of the interaction coding protocol, and the subsequent program of collaborative research. From these beginnings, the relation com m unication paradigm forged a network of scholars and research efforts that over time has resulted in a cu­ mulative series of cross-discipline and cross-cultural relationship studies. In view of these multiple lines of relational research , we felt it was time to bring these research efforts together into one volume. Thus, although the relational persp ectiv e has generated notable resea rch attention, both within and outside the com m unication discipline and the United States, un­ til now no single organizing text on the perspective existed. The goal of the present volume is to fill this void by offering a com prehensive treatm ent of the relational com m unication perspective and its research application. In planning this p roject, our main considerations were to give a full and accessible reading on the perspective’s conceptual and methodological ap­ proach, to draw together in one resource a review of the m ajor program s of relational com m unication research, along with suggested future directions. Furtherm ore, by including specific procedural descriptions and illustrative exam ples, it was also our attem pt to provide a practical guide for th o se in­ terested in carrying out this type of research. In line with th ese concerns, the content of the book is organized into three m ajor parts, with each part designed to provide a system atic unfolding of the relational com munication perspective. Part I of the book opens with a discussion of the theoretical foundation and epistem ological grounding of the perspective, first by pre­

PREFACE

XV

senting a contextual, historical backdrop to relational thinking and second, by giving a closer description of the conceptual evolution of ideas and influ­ ences on the developm ent of the perspective. The discussion then moves to the observational research m ethods involved in applying the perspec­ tive’s interactional approach. Detailed descriptions of the relational coding system , coding procedures, reliability and validity, and related issues are followed by a discussion of the techniques for describing and analyzing in­ teraction data and relational level patterns, based on the application of se ­ quential data analysis procedures. Part II presents a set of program m atic research exem plars that describe the application of the relational com m unication approach in different rela­ tional contexts, from marital to organizational settings. Each of the chap­ ters in this section are written by prominent research ers in their field who have been engaged in sustained programs of relational research. Through their contributions, the conceptual and methodological aspects of the per­ spective com e alive; in addition, the analytical procedures and extensions d escribed in th ese research efforts lend further to the developm ent and utility of the research perspective. Part III offers a reflective overview of the research perspective. In this fi­ nal section of the text, the contributions and challenges of the relational ap­ proach are considered with a view toward future research directions for ex­ panding this approach. With the com pletion of this volume, we are particularly indebted to the authors of the contributed chapters whose research forms an essential and substantive part of the book. We also wish to express our intellectual in­ debtedness to Jan et Bavelas, and our appreciation for her willingness to write the foreword to the book. In moving this volume to publication, the generous support and editorial guidance of Linda Bathgate are m ost genu­ inely and warmly acknowledged. We extend our appreciation to Vincen Quera for his analytical consultation. In additional, the support provided by the research grants from each of our universities, the University of Utah and the Universidad de La Coruña, for the com pletion of this volume is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New mea­ surem ent procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239. Sigman, S. J. (1998). Relationships and communication: A social communication and strongly consequential view. In R. L. Conville & L. E. Rogers (Eds.), The meaning of “relationship" in in­ terpersonal communication (pp. 47-67). W estport, CT: Praeger. Sluzki, C. E., & Beavin, J. (1965). Sim etría y complementaridad: Una definición operacionai y una tipología de parejas. Acta Psiquiátrico y Psicológica de America Latina, 11, 321-330. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics o f human communication. New York: Norton.

A bo u t the Authors

Ja n e t Beavin Bavelas (PhD, Stanford University) is Professor of Psychol­ ogy at the University of Victoria. She has authored or coauthored three books, including Pragmatics o f Human Communication (Norton, 1967) and Equivocal Communication (Sage, 1990), and numerous articles and chapters, primarily on interpersonal communication and research methods. She was previously a research associate at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. Denise Wigginton Cecil (PhD, University of Utah) has held research and teaching positions at Wichita State University. The areas of health communi­ cation and physician-patient interaction represent her primary research in­ terests. Her research has been published in communication and medical journals. She is currently an instructor at Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell, Montana, and a health communication research consultant. Valentín Escudero (Doctorate, University of Santiago) is Professor of Psy­ chology and Director of the Family Intervention Masters Program at the Uni­ versity of La Coruna (Spain). His research interests focus on interaction anal­ ysis, family communication systems, and family therapy process. His work has been published in European and international journals in the areas of counseling, family therapy, marital interaction, and research methods. Gail T. Fairhurst (PhD, University of Oregon) is Professor of Communica­ tion at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include organiza­ xvii

xviii

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

tional leadership, lanaguage analysis, and downsizing. Her work has ap­ peared in the m ajor journals and handbooks in the areas of com munication, management, and organization. She coauthored The Art o f Framing: Man­ aging the Language o f Leadership (Jossey-B ass, 1996), which received the 1997 National Communication Association Organizational Division Book of the Year Award. Myrna L. Friedlander (PhD, Ohio State University) is P rofessor of Coun­ seling Psychology and D irector of D octoral Training at the State University of New York at Albany, w here she recently received the President’s Award for Excellence in R esearch. Her research on the process of counseling and psychotherapy has appeared in numerous journals in counseling psychol­ ogy and family therapy. She has served as clinician, educator, supervisor, and consultant in a variety of schools, counseling centers, hospitals, and community agencies, as well as on several journal editorial boards. She was the 2001-2002 recipient of the Distinguished Psychologist Award from the Psychological A ssociation of N ortheastern New York. Laurie H eatherington (PhD, University of Connecticut) is P rofessor of Psy­ chology at Williams College in Williamstown, M assachusetts. Her research and clinical interests include family therapy and psychotherapy processoutcom e research with a recent focus on the process and m easurem ent of change in clients’ cognitive constructions about family problem s. She has served on several journal editorial boards and has published extensively in the areas of clinical psychology, counseling, and family therapy. Jo sé Luis Rodríguez-Arias (D octorate, University of Salam anca) is pres­ ently a clin ical p sy ch o lo g ist at the M ental H ealth Unit of the V irxe Xunqueira Hospital of Spain. He was previously an associate professor of Psychology and founder of the Family Therapy Clinic at the University of Salam anca. His research interest and publications have focused on interac­ tion p ro cesses and clinical outcom es in brief family therapy. L. Edna Rogers (PhD, Michigan State University) is P rofessor of Communi­ cation at the University of Utah, and a past president of the International Communication Association. Her research has centered on the interac­ tional study of marital and family relationships. She has received several awards including the National Communication Association W oolbert Re­ search Award and Distinguished Faculty Awards from Cleveland State Uni­ versity and the University of Utah. She has served on various com m unica­ tion and relationship journal editorial boards, and co-edited The Meaning o f “Relationship ” in Interpersonal Communication (Praeger, 1998).

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

x ix

Marlene M. von Friederichs-Fitzwater (PhD, University of Utah) is Professor of Communication Studies at California State University, Sacram ento. She is also on the faculty of the Center for Medical Informatics and clinical profes­ sor in the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, and is the founder and CEO of Health Communication Research Institute, Inc. Her teach­ ing and research activities are related to the delivery and outcom e of health care through improved health care communication. She has published in the area of health communication and has presented her research at national and international medical meetings in Europe and Canada. Anne K. W uerker (PhD, University of Maryland) is P rofessor of Nursing at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests in family in­ teraction are integrated with her background in psychiatric nursing, profes­ sional experience as a family therapist, and social science analyst with the National Institute of Mental Health. She has published extensively in the ar­ eas of family therapy and mental health on relational interaction p rocesses of families in therapy and families with a mentally troubled member.

PART

I RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PERSPECTIVE

C H A P T E R

1

Theoretical Foundations L. Edna Rogers University o f Utah

Valentín Escudero University o f La Coruna

Social relationships lie at the heart of our humanness, and in turn, commu­ nication lies at the heart of our relationships. In constructing the social worlds we inhabit, there is an intimate tie between communication and rela­ tionship, with each interwoven in the other. This interconnection repre­ sents an underlying premise of the relational communication perspective. Thus, while it is assumed that our relationships contextualize and influence our lives, it is also assumed that our relationships are constituted and shaped through our communication processes. Communication is seen as the life-giving, social-sustaining essence of re­ lationships, the interactive process by which relationships come into being, take shape, are built up or torn down in the ongoing ebb and flow of their evolutionary course. Viewed from this perspective, communication is not of a singular nature, but a joint, social adventure, with relationships continu­ ally in process, malleable and changeable, tranquil at times, and at times, tenuous. Negotiating relationships, as McCall and Simmons (1966) sug­ gested, is often a “hazardous gamble” (p. 201), with the making and unmak­ ing of relationships in the hands—and hearts—of the makers. Relationships form the “bedrock” of our social existence, yet rest on the “shifting sands” of our communicative behaviors. The basic, constitutive nature of communication was captured, some years ago, in a statement by Duncan (1967), “We do not relate and then talk, but we relate in talk” (p. 249). More recently, Shotter (1993) expanded the idea that “our ways of talking are formative of social relations” (p. 10) by

3

4

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

noting the inherent contingencies of the com m unicative process when he stated, “to talk in new ways, is to ‘constru ct’ new forms of social relation, and, to construct new forms of social relation . . . is to construct new ways of being” (p. 9). Not only do our relationships, but the very essence of our be­ ing, lie within our ways of talking. Among relational scholars, even though guided by different perspectives, there is a growing consensus on the consti­ tutive quality of communication and the social implications of our talk. The once, som ewhat radical notion expressed by B erger and Kellner (1964) that “in a fundamental sen se it can be said that one converses one’s way through life” (p. 4) such that relationships can be viewed as “ongoing conversations” (p. 3), has increasingly gained accep tan ce in contem porary studies of relationships. From the beginning, this idea has been central in the formation of the relational com m unication perspective. Rooted within the influence of system and cybern etic principles, relational com m unica­ tion, both conceptually and empirically, has focused on the formative, con­ sequential p ro cesses of com munication. As the name implies, relational com m unication represents a com m unication-based, interactional approach to the study of personal and social relationships. The relational perspective, also known as the pragm atic (Fisher, 1978) or interactional (Watzlawick & Weakland, 1977) perspective of human commu­ nication, is grounded within an epistem ology that places primary impor­ tance on the study of interaction, or in the words of Bateson (1979), on “the pattern which co n n ects” (p. 8). The relational approach represents a con ­ ceptual and analytical shift from the study of individual acts, per se, to the study of system-level qualities of interactions that evolve from ongoing com ­ binations of com m unicative behaviors into transactional patterns that in turn, com bine into larger patterns of relational form. With this perspective, relationships are viewed as the em ergent social structurings that are created and defined by the relational m em bers’ com ­ munication patterns with one another. Through the process of m essage ex­ change, system m em bers reciprocally define self in relation to other, and si­ multaneously, define the interactive nature of their relationship. In playing out these everyday social dramas of relationships, offered definitions can be resisted, modified, accepted, or ignored. Thus, each m em ber is seen as a n ecessary part of the whole, actively influencing one another with their in­ dividual lines of action, yet the “socialn ess” of the dram a resides in the mu­ tually constructed patterns of relationship. Elaborating on this view, relationships are visualized as unfolding, mov­ ing “art form s,” analogous to a relational dance, creatively shaped by the tem poral patterning of the participants as they flow in and around, toward and against and away from one another via their com m unicative behaviors. When we think of relationships, we think of a coming together, of interrelat­ ing, of acting in aw areness of one another. We often speak of being in­

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

5

volved, of connecting with others, developing common threads, forming so­ cial bonds, of being tied to one another—of being in a relationship, such that a social unity or wholeness is formed that lies beyond the individual mem­ bers. In line with these common ways of speaking, the language of relation­ ships from an interactional perspective is a language of connectedness, tem poralness, patternedness, and em beddedness. The inherent connec­ tive principle of relationships rests on the interdependency of the rela­ tional mem bers and their behaviors, such that each sim ultaneously influ­ ences and is influenced by the other. W hether fleeting or long-term, the m em bers’ interrelatedness is instantiated in the temporal, unfolding flow of communication. The jointly produced and reproduced patterns formed in the ongoing interactional processes characterize and define the mem­ b ers’ relationship. Enactments of the present merge into more encom pass­ ing, contextualizing patterns of relationship that influence future enact­ ments, as well as, remembered pasts. Thus, relationships are continually contextualized by multiple levels of ecological embeddedness of patterns within patterns, which are further embedded within and influenced by the sociocultural contexts in which they take place. Grounded within this lan­ guage of relationships, the relational communication perspective gives pri­ mary attention to the connective principles of process, pattern, and form. This introductory statement on relational communication gives an initial flavor of the perspective’s epistemological stance and sets the scene for the extended discussions of the conceptual and methodological focus of the perspective in the chapters to come. In the present chapter, historical influ­ ences and conceptual underpinnings prominent in the development of the relational approach are considered, first, within the broad strokes of re­ lated social thought, and second, within the finer drawn lines of the found­ ing legacy of relational communication.

RELATIONAL T H IN K IN G : A BROAD V IE W The theoretical foundations of the relational communication perspective are most clearly linked to the writings of Bateson and those of the early mem­ bers of the Mental Research Institute (MRI), Jackson, Watzlawick, Weakland, Bavelas, Sluzki, and others, comprising what became commonly known as the Palo Alto Group. However, before turning to these writings, a limited but illustrative selection of earlier work providing a general backdrop to rela­ tional thinking, is considered. Thus, this section presents a broad overview within which to situate more contemporary thinking about relationships. In a recent essay reviewing historical frames of relational thought, Stew­ art (1998) suggested a philosophical foregrounding of relational thinking is

6

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

evident in the (5th century B.C.) ontological claims of the sophists in con­ trast with those of the m ore established and long privileged, Aristotelean view. This contrast may have provided one of the earliest clash es between viewing “reality” as constructed, relative, and changeable versus objective, ordered, and absolute. T hese fundamental differences, as Stewart and oth­ ers point out, are still evident in current com m unication research and con­ tinue to form the basis of contem porary m etatheoretical and methodologi­ cal debates. However, in tracing a less distant past of socially oriented thought, we move much further up in history (and perhaps, m ore familiar territory) to Feuerbach’s (1843) philosophical view of the essential socialness of human experience. In his critique of Hegelian idealism which held that the mind or spirit ( Geist) was the only true reality, Feuerbach turned Hegel’s ontology of ascending stages of self-consciousness on its head by arguing that the es­ sen ce of our hum anness lies not in the idealistic, higher realm of absolute reason, but in the lived, social relationships of “man-to-man.” Although Feuerbach’s argument was also su b ject to criticism (m ost notably by Marx, 1845, who argued that Feuerbach did not take the thrust of his critique far enough), Feuerbach’s philosophical views represented a pivotal move to­ ward a human experience-based, social ontology (Theunissen, 1984). In op­ position to the prevailing one-sided orientation, Feuerbach argued the al­ ienating nature and m eaninglessness of the socially separated self, and in doing so, emphasized the fundamental em ptiness of the concept of self without the com plem entary other. The social, relationally bound orientation expressed by Feuerbach, im­ plicating the necessary inclusion of “the other,” has been elaborated and extended in a num ber of later writings, including Buber’s philosophical de­ velopm ent of the construct of “the betw een.” Rejecting the traditional one­ fold view, Buber (1958) saw the human world as twofold, of “being-inrelation” with other. He further saw the twofold, human interconnection being located in talk, in word pairs, and argued that language, conceived of as dialogue, is the locus of human reality. In his view, the inherent “one with the oth er” quality of dialogue, rests not in one, nor in the other, but in “the betw een” (Buber, 1965, p. 203). Buber’s view is in close con cert with the recently discovered translinguistic or dialogic ideas of Bakhtin (1986) and Volosinov (1973), in that words express “the one in relation to the o th er” much like a “bridge thrown betw een” oneself and the other (p. 86). Through dialogue, a one-with-other unity of differentiated self and other is sim ultaneously formed. Both of these lines of thought place dialogue at the cen ter of our “inter­ human” relations with others. Each em phasizes the co-constructed, connec­ tive qualities of language. Similar to Buber, Volosinov (1973) clarified the significance of language by stating that it is not found in “the ab stract sys-

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

7

tern of linguistic forms, not the isolated monologic utterance, and not the psychophysiological act of its implementation, but the social event of ver­ bal interaction implemented in an utterance or utterances” (p. 94), which form “the reciprocal relationship betw een speaker and listener” (p. 85). The turn toward viewing com m unication as dialogue is increasingly evident in contem porary work (e.g., Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Cronen, 1995; Raw­ lins, 1992; Shotter, 1993). The foregoing ideas flow easily into th o se of Simmel (1950) and his overriding focus on the com m unicative “form s of sociatio n ” (p. 41). For Simmel, all social phenom ena find their m oorings in the em ergent stru c­ turing of everyday social interaction, w hether taking the form of social play, aesth etics, conflict, group cohesion, or institutional ritual. And at the m ost general level, Simmel (1950) likewise a sserts, it is only through the interactions with oth ers that so ciety itself is possible. Based on this view, Simmel argued that “the d escription of the forms of interaction is the sci­ en ce of society in its stricte st and m ost essen tial s e n se ” (pp. 21-22); thus, interaction was seen as the b asis of social ord er and the legitim ate arena for the study of social relations. Simmel’s wide ranging analysis of social life was marked by a keen sensi­ tivity of the less obvious, yet observable interaction forms which consti­ tuted principles of social unity. To capture these principles, Simmel analyti­ cally distinguished forms of sociation (in teraction) from the content of the interaction. Their com plem entary nature was clear, but so to was the ob ser­ vation that interaction always presents itself in som e form, whereas a par­ ticular form can be enacted in any number of ways of specific content. Thus, in order to develop conceptual level descriptions on which to con­ stru ct theories of social relationships, Simmel argued the necessity of ana­ lytically focusing on the forms of sociation. Not only did Simmel’s distinction betw een content and form prefigure B ateso n’s duality of m essage level meaning, but importantly, Simmel (writ­ ing in the late 1800s, early 1900s) recognized the cybernetic principles of the recursive, multiple-leveled features of interaction. He spoke of the circular­ ity of social life in his descriptions of the sim ultaneous interdependency of the visible and invisible threads that are woven betw een persons in the in­ teraction process. In his words, relationships “develop upon the basis of re­ ciprocal knowledge and this knowledge upon the basis of the actual rela­ tions [interactions]” (1950, p. 309). Simmel (1950) saw this “unity into which both elem ents fuse” as “one of the deep-lying circuits of intellectual life w here an elem ent presupposes a second elem ent which yet, in turn, pre­ supposes the first.” In their alternation, interaction is revealed as “where being and conceiving make their m ysterious unity em pirically felt” (p. 309). Simmel’s approach is not centered on the individual, yet takes into ac­ count the invisible threads, “pictures of each in the other,” that arise out of

8

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

and influence the interaction, nor centered on the heavy hand of society, al­ though its spatial-tem poral influence is recognized, but rather on the so­ cially formed qualities of the interactive processes. And for Simmel, these forms are mutually constructed in the most com mon m anner of all social life, in conversation. Thus, similar to Buber (a student of Simmel’s), the fo­ cal point of Simmel’s work, forms of sociation, resides in the social unity of “the betw een.” Simmel’s influence has been extensive, both in Europe and the early de­ velopm ent of American sociology and the Chicago School. In particular, his ideas were evident in the work of the Sch ool’s early founders, Park, Bur­ gess, Thom as, and Mead, among others, and their theories of human con ­ duct, urban ecology, family relations, and notably, sym bolic interaction with the locus of the self rooted in interaction. As articulated by Mead (1934), “selves must be accounted for in term s of the social process, and in term s of com m unication” (p. 49). Further, Simmel's insights into the dynam­ ics of relationsh ips—dyadic, triadic, and larger group d ifferences, the unique vulnerability of intimate relations, the strain toward totality, coali­ tion formation, to name but a few—have also found a prominent place in later work, including Coffman’s (1959, 1967) interaction studies of social or­ der, McCall and Sim m ons’ (1966) role-identity model, C oser’s (1956) theory of conflict, Caplow’s (1968) coalition analysis, and as well, relational com ­ munication. While recognizing the breadth of social thought that could be called upon to exemplify relational thinking, for this overview, a final consider­ ation of earlier work is W eber’s classic delineation of the basic elem ents of social relationships, stemming from his distinction betw een social action and social interaction. W eber (1947), a contem porary of Simmel, who at times, was both an advocate and critic of Simmel, but nevertheless influ­ enced by him, defined the term social relationship as: the behavior of a plurality of actors in so far as . . . the actions of each takes account of that of the others; the social relationship thus consists entirely and exclusively in the existence of a probability that there will be, in some mean­ ingfully understandable sense, a course of social action, (p. 118) In W eber’s view, the defining criteria for speaking of a social relationship re­ quire “at least a minimum of mutual orientation” betw een the actors which “can and usually will have consequences for the course of action and the form of the relationship,” and a probability of continuing social interaction, “which constitutes the ‘existen ce’ of the social relationship” (p. 119). McCall (1970), in his work on relationships, drew specifically on W eber’s definition in stating that “a relationship is at base, the existen ce of a sub­ stantial probability of interaction betw een two persons” (p. 4), with the

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

9

type of social bonds uniting the m em bers influencing the “form the interac­ tion will likely assum e” (p. 4). McCall (1970, 1988) and McCall and Simmons (1991) viewed relationships as forms of social organization and argue the necessity (and difficulty) of taking into account the multiple levels of analy­ sis in studying relationships. In their “role-identity” model (McCall & Sim­ mons, 1966), they include both interpretive and behavioral dim ensions in explicating the negotiated, interactional dynamics of relationships. Although W eber is typically not cited, contem porary studies that provide a definition of relationship (which is somewhat rare) commonly include defi­ nitional features outlined by W eber. For instance, Hinde (1997) described a relationship as involving “a series of interactions between two people, involv­ ing interchanges over an extended period of time” which involve “som e de­ gree of mutuality, in the sense that the behaviour of each takes som e account of the behaviour of the other” and there is “som e degree of continuity be­ tween the successive interactions” (pp. 37-38). A relationship “is not a static entity but a process in continuous creation through time” (Hinde, 1987, p. 38). Hinde (1997) distinguished, as did Weber, a fleeting, singular encounter from a relationship which is based on a series of interactions. “A relationship ex­ ists only when the probable course of future interactions between the partici­ pants differs from that between strangers” (p. 38). As additional definitional illustrations, Kelley et al. (1983) defined close relationships as the interconnections betw een two people’s interactions that are based on “strong, frequent, and diverse interdependence that lasts over a considerable period of tim e” (p. 38). In contrast, weakly connected, infrequent, limited and fleeting interactions characterize distant relation­ ships. Wilmot’s (1995) description of a relationship builds on, at base, a mu­ tual recognition of being perceived (Level 1) to the cumulative interactions of the participants (Level II) which shape future interactions. In W ilmot’s words, “A relationship em erges from its history and continually reem erges and transform s over time . . (p. 3). Or more simply put, Gottman (1982) stated, “a relationship con sists of the tem poral forms that are created when two people are together” (p. 943). Although phrased differently, core defini­ tional features identified by W eber are evident in these more contem po­ rary, conceptual definitions of relationships. By taking a broad view, we find, with even this brief excursion into past lines of social thought, a history of relational thinking that has been longer in the making than often realized, and one that richly contexualizes and in many ways com plem ents, present relational views. Much of the work cited has had its particular influence felt in our thinking about how to study rela­ tionships relationally. Clearly, ideas rarely, if ever, stand alone, but are em­ bedded within other ideas. With this thought, and a broader historical view as background, we now turn to a more closely tied set of influences on the developm ent of the relational com m unication perspective.

10

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

R E L A T IO N A L C O M M U N IC A T IO N : A CLOSER V IE W The legacy on which the relational com m unication perspective rests is the movement from an epistem ology of o b jects to an epistem ology of pattern, from a focus on “things,” to a focus on relationships. This paradigmatic shift has been the result of multiple, evolving lines of influence. To borrow from the title of B ateson’s 1972 volume, slightly rephrased, this movement repre­ sents steps to an ecology of form, with each of the steps representing a recalibration of thinking, based in large part on a stream of ideas brought into aw areness with the advent of general system s theory, information the­ ory, and cybernetics. Traditionally, theoretical con cern s and research p ractices in communi­ cation were firmly entrenched within the established epistem ology of ob ­ jects, a way of knowing which accord s primary im portance to the study of singular events or individual entities. In the interpersonal area of study this was notably the ca se with many of the early com m unication models bor­ rowed from psychology. In contrast, the relational perspective is founded on an epistem ology of form, an approach that gives prom inence to interac­ tion patterns over individual acts, and interrelationships over unilateral cause. In describing these differences, Dell (1983) noted that with a shift in attention to “shapes, forms and relations” (p. 251), ob jects becom e insepa­ rable from the pattern within which they are embedded, and thus, of sec­ ondary interest while pattern becom es primary. Dell also points out that the word real , rooted in the Latin word res meaning thing, is com m only asso­ ciated with an object-focused perspective, such as the idea of a “real” real­ ity. Again in contrast, with a relational perspective realities are seen as punctuated and constructed, and when viewed within different frames, readily changeable. In title and text, Watzlawick’s (1976) book, How Real Is Real?, underscored the idea of multiple realities, and cautions against the com mon delusion “that there is only one reality” (p. xi). The developm ent of a relational view necessitated not simply a modifica­ tion of traditional m odes of thought, but a fully reform ulated line of thought. Bateson (1972), early on criticized the behavioral scien ces for be­ ing tied far too long to the wrong half of the ancient su b stance-form dichot­ omy. In modeling classical physics, the central focus of study has been on substance, but in B ateso n’s view “mental process, ideas, com munication, organization, differentiation, pattern and so on, are m atters of form rather than su b stan ce” (p. xxv). Thus, Bateson (1951) argued that a reversal in thinking was necessary for a “new order of com m unication” to em erge (p. 209). With a focus on form, em phasis is placed on the centrality of commu­ nication behavior, interactive processes, em ergent patterns and evolving, multileveled orders of pattern. An ecology of form based on patterns that

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

conn ect was fundamental to what Bateson (1972) term ed ecological wis­ dom, “knowledge of the larger interactive system ” (p. 433). Within this epistem ological frame, a relationship is seen, in the m ost pri­ mary sense, as “a connective principle” (Ellis, 1981, p. 220), based on the in­ terrelated ness of difference. Differences com e into being by drawing dis­ tinctions (Spencer-Brown, 1973); relationships com e into being by drawing distinctions together. Only in term s of how distinctions “stand in relation” to one another, can we speak of relationship. The relationship lies in the connection. System ic thinking which underlies an epistem ology of form, is “premised upon the differentiation and interaction of parts” (B ateson, 1979, p. 100). Thus, by drawing com m unicative enactm ents together in more en­ com passing patterns, m ore of the holistic quality of the relationship com es into being. What Bateson (1979) labeled “double description,” he saw as necessary for depicting relational pattern. In typical style (o r perhaps this is a pat­ tern), Bateson by analogy illustrates this process. It is correct (and a great improvement) to begin to think of the two parties to the interaction as two eyes, each giving a monocular view of what goes on and, together giving a binocular view in depth. This double description is the relationship, (p. 142) As two eyes in com bination generate a binocular view, com bined actions generate pattern and relationship. Double description involves the com bin­ ing of a unit of action or interaction with another unit to form a more en­ com passing unit of pattern description. With the interweaving of successive levels of double description, m ore global patterns evolve. The formulation of the basic con structs of sym m etry and com plem en­ tarity by Bateson in the early 1930s, were based on double descriptions of interaction. B ateso n’s early career was spent doing anthropological field work among the Iatmul and Balinese on a research p roject investigating cul­ ture contact and change. From the beginning, Bateson resisted the ac­ cepted research strategy of the time of using a priori categories for d escrib­ ing culture in term s of basic social institutions. He sought a m ore grounded approach based on diachronic behavioral descriptions of cultural practices as an alternative to the procedures outlined by the research granting com ­ mittee. His 1935 writing of “Culture Contact and Schism ogenesis” represents an interesting mix of a younger sch olar’s deference and yet fully articulated resistan ce to the sponsoring Social Science R esearch Council’s approach. B ateso n’s suggestion was to study the problem (of acculturation) first, since “the problem itself remains vague” (p. 178), and then attem pt a rea­ soned answer based on the conceptual schem es that em erge from detailed

12

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

behavioral observations, rather than apply a predetermined framework onto behaviors. Bateson (1935) pointed out that a priori strategies overlook the holistic, overlapping nature of cultural systems; he argued the question­ able, if not fallacious, assumption that cultural traits can be classified under a single social institutional category, as indicated in the following quote.

o u r c a te g o rie s “relig io u s, e c o n o m ic ,” e tc , a re n o t re a l su b d iv isio n s w h ich are p re se n t in th e c u ltu res w h ich w e stud y , b u t a re m ere ly a b s tr a c tio n s w h ich w e m ake fo r o u r ow n c o n v e n ie n c e w h en w e s e t out to d e s c r ib e c u ltu re s___ In hand ling su ch a b s tr a c tio n s w e m ust b e ca refu l to avoid W h iteh ea d ’s “fallacy of m isp la ce d c o n c r e te n e s s ” . . . (p. 179)

It was in this 1935 article that Bateson first described the process of schism ogenesis and the concepts of symmetry and complementarity as a way of differentiating behavior patterns within and between culture groups. With the publication of Naven (1936), Bateson’s analytical attention moved away from group-based differentiation of cultural configurations toward a more dyadic application of these concepts focused on the “reactions of in­ dividuals to the reactions of other individuals,” with schism ogenesis refer­ ring to the potential process of increased differentiation “resulting from cu­ mulative interaction between individuals” (1936, p. 175). (See Rogers, 1981, for details on the evolution of these concepts.) Bateson (1979) identified symmetry as “those forms of interaction that could be described in terms of competition, rivalry, mutual emulation, and so on,” and complementarity as “interactional sequences in which the actions of A and B were different but mutually fitted each other (e.g. dominance-submission, exhibition-spectatorship, dependence-nurturance)” (p. 208). In depicting symmetrical pat­ terns the participants’ communicative behaviors mirror one another, such as in exchanges of boasting/boasting, opposing/opposing, agreeing/agree­ ing. With complementary patterns, the participants’ behaviors are maxi­ mally different, for example, assertion/submission, question/answer, giving/ receiving, and so on. In these early writings, Bateson also introduced the initial idea of “higher” orders of pattern by combining patterns with patterns, as illus­ trated with his application of the concept of reciprocity. One form of reci­ procity, termed reciprocal complementarity, refers to the sequential rever­ sal of the participants’ position in a complementary pattern; another form described by Bateson, refers to the pattern combination of symmetry and complementarity which Lederer and Jackson (1968) later termed a “paral­ lel” pattern of relationship. In either case, Bateson (1935) indicated that a pattern of reciprocity checks the progressive tendency toward schism o­ genesis by being “compensated and balanced within itself” (p. 182). Keeney

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

13

(1983) cited an analogy given by Bateson using the marital system as an ex­ ample of this self-regulating process in which Bateson suggested: If th e m arriag e b e c o m e s to o co m p le m e n ta ry , y o u ca n put th em on a te n n is c o u rt and th e y ’ll feel b e tte r. O r if it b e c o m e s to o sy m m etrica l o r riv alrou s, you ju s t w ait fo r o n e o f th em to sp ra in an a n k le and th en th e y ’ll b o th feel b e tte r, (p . 4 0 )

Although Bateson’s original formulation of these interaction concepts was at a time prior to the onset of the cybernetic “revolution,” his processbased analysis of pattern was in that direction; as Bateson (1972) reflected, “The writing of Naven had brought me to the very edge of what later be­ came cybernetics” (p. x). Bateson credited the series of Macy Conferences held during the 1940s and early 1950s on cybernetics as being highly influ­ ential on his subsequent thinking (Bateson & Mead, 1976). The period following World War II was a time when the influx of ideas from cybernetics, along with information theory and general systems the­ ory was being felt across the sciences, from biology to mathematics, and as well, in communication. The confluence of these related perspectives ush­ ered in a heightened period of paradigmatic rethinking of prior modes of thought. The fundamental reordering of conceptual and analytical concern was the movement from substance to organization, from energy to informa­ tion. Systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968) provided a general set of organ­ izing principles which could be applied to any system including social sys­ tems. These principles centered on the integration of interdependent component parts into patterns of multileveled, unified wholes, which can­ not be reduced to, nor explained by the separate, individual parts. Systemic thinking views “the world in terms of relationship and integration” (Capra, 1982, p. 266), where “form becom es associated with process, interrelation with interaction, and opposites are unified through oscillation” (p. 267). From cybernetics (Wiener, 1948) and information theory (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) came new insights into how information processing occurs within systems, and importantly, their implications for human communica­ tion systems. The cybernetic principle of self-organizing processes imma­ nent in maintaining system wholeness rests on the ongoing oscillations of stability and change, a dialectic of oppositions in which each promotes the other, creating a potential state of system flux. The interplay of these sys­ tem dynamics are governed through the flow of feedback information oc­ curring within the system. Thus, in terms of the cybernetic processes of self-regulation, a system is continually informing itself about itself through recursively ordered, feedback loops of “messages-in-circuit” between and among the system components. As with systems theory, the generalized na­ ture of cybernetic principles allows their application across systems.

14

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

For instance, in the study of family system s, Jackson (1965) saw the value of a cyb ernetic approach and proposed that the family be viewed as a “self-regulating system ” guided by family rules. Kantor and Lehr (1975) in their conceptual model of the family, d escribed the family as “prim arily an inform ation processing sy stem ” with “d istance regulation” being the basic information processed. In their view, families, as all social system s, are con ­ tinually informing their m em bers through the com m unicative process of in­ teraction as to “what constitutes a proper and optimal d istance” (p. 222) both within and outside the family boundaries, along a multiple of rela­ tional dim ensions, emotional, ideological, spatial, tem poral, power, etc. The application of a sy stem ic-cy bern etic approach significantly alters the mod­ eling of com m unication p rocesses, with unidirectional ca u se-effect models replaced by cyclic models of patterned interaction. With this reframing, dif­ ferent types of questions arise, such as those suggested by Bavelas and Segal (1982) which ask: “What circles are happening in this family? Are there behaviors that lead to other behaviors that lead back to them selves?” (pp. 103-104). The contributions of information theory are readily apparent in the devel­ opment of communication technology (Rogers, 1994) and early m essage models (Berio, 1960), but as well in other developments in communication. Building off the concept of entropy (uncertainty), information theory (Shan­ non & Weaver, 1949) is noted for the mathematically derived method of meas­ uring the amount of information of a given m essage in relation to the level of redundancy within the communication system. Redundancy is equated with the degree of organization (i.e., predictability) exhibited in the system . By considering the level of redundancy of a system over time, information the­ ory provided a basic approach for analyzing communication system s as sto­ chastic processes in terms of the probability of a system moving to a given state (pattern) from a prior state (Parks, Farace, Rogers, Albrecht, & Abbot, 1976). The utility of the Markov chain model of analysis is dem onstrated in the research chapters in Part II. The sequential analysis of interaction, criti­ cal for describing relational patterning, was a formidable challenge in the 1970s when few options existed. Fortunately, a number of techniques for ana­ lyzing sequentially ordered data have since been developed (see chap. 3). An additional asp ect of the work on information theory, although per­ haps less well recognized, is that it provided the context for B ateso n’s for­ mulation of levels of m essage meaning. Based on the type of information (d ata) utilized by different com puter system s, com m unication engineers distinguished three types of information transform ation, identified as digi­ tal, analogic, and formal relation codifications. The levels of abstraction in­ herent in these distinctions prom oted a clearer recognition of the different forms and functions of m essage behavior, and importantly, that m essages sim ultaneously “give off” meaning at multiple levels.

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

15

In term s of these codified differences, Bateson (1951) shaped his concep­ tual distinctions of m essage meaning levels. In B ateson’s words, “W hatever com m unication we consider, be it the transm ission of impulses in a neural system or the transm ission of words in a conversation, it is evident that ev­ ery m essage in transit has two sorts of meaning” (p. 179). He also intro­ duced the more general, global term of metacommunication, defined as “com m unication about com m unication,” which he further described as “all the exchanged cues and propositions about (a ) codification and (b ) rela­ tionship betw een the com m unicators” (p. 209). Using the language of infor­ mation theory and cybernetics, Bateson referred to the informational or content meaning of a m essage as “report,” and the contexualizing instruc­ tional or relational meaning of a m essage as “com m and.” Thus, the report (co n ten t) level of meaning provides representational, digital information which is sim ultaneously contextualized by the presentational, analogic form of information provided by the command (relational) level of meaning. It is at the higher, m eta levels of relational meaning that participants in a com m unication system present and negotiate definitions of one another and their relationship, and where, in interpersonal and intimate relation­ ships, these co-defined patterns m atter the most. As Bateson (1972) later emphasized, what we humans care m ost about are our patterns of relation­ ship, “where we stand in love, hate, dependency, trust, and similar ab strac­ tions vis a vis som ebody else. This is where it hurts us to be put in the wrong” (p. 470). The concept of relationship implies a m eta distinction. Bateson (1972) drew on Russell’s theory of logical types to further frame the meaning of m eta level distinctions, which he described as “the relation between classes of different logical type” (p. 307). However, rath er than viewing logical types as a d iscrete hierarchy of classes, Bateson (1979) later and m ore appropri­ ately referred to logical typing as “orders of recursiveness” (p. 218). This view, in line with cybernetic thinking, led to his description of the ecologi­ cal patterning of com m unication as a dialectic of process and form, with en­ com passing levels of pattern emerging from the cyclic movement from p rocess to form and back to process, creating circling spirals of m eta level patterns. (It should be noted that Bateson did not use the theory of logical types as an injunction against paradox, as did Russell, but rather built on the paradoxical nature of com m unication for developing theories, for exam ­ ple, of play, learning, and double bind.) Reflecting on his work, Bateson (1979) indicated that “my procedures of inquiry were punctuated by an alternation betw een classification and the description of process. I had proceeded, without conscious planning, up an alternating ladder from description to the vocabulary of typology” (p. 209). He refers to this “back and forth” movement, from descriptions of p rocess to classifications of form, as a recursively ordered “zigzag ladder,” with

16

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

each diagonal step em bedded within the ascending levels of description and classification of p ro cess and form. Thus, in the process of com m unica­ tion, descriptions of actions form categories of action, actions com bine into interactions which form patterns (classifications) of interaction, and so on, with patterns combining into broader descriptions of relational form. Simul­ taneously, process shapes form and form shapes process. In this manner, the participants’ interactions create the defining qualities of their relation­ ship, and these qualities influence the ongoing defining interactional proc­ esses in a continuous dialectic of process and form. From the breadth of ideas put forward by Bateson, the most fundamental in the developm ent of the relational perspective were: the primary focus placed on com m unication, the m eta level conceptual distinctions of content and relational m essage meaning, the dialectic of process and form, double description and the formulation of sym m etrical and com plem entary pat­ terns of interaction. Yet, for com m unication and relational scholars, Bate­ son ’s ideas remained out of view, and in a sense, lay dorm ant for many years. For example, the time lapse between B ateson’s original formulation of sym m etry and com plem entarity (w hich are now com mon fare in commu­ nication texts) and any reference to these constructs by com m unication re­ search ers was approxim ately 35 years. It wasn’t until B ateso n’s association with m em bers of the Palo A ltobased Mental R esearch Institute (MRI) during the 1950s, when working on a research p roject in Menlo Park, that his ideas began to receive wider atten­ tion among family research ers and therapists, and this aw areness cam e largely through the writings of m em bers of MRI. (See Wilder-Mott and Weakland, 1981, for a history of this period.) And it wasn’t until the writing of The Pragmatics o f Human Communication by Watzlawick, Beavin, and Ja ck ­ son (1967) that com m unication scholars becam e more aware of these ideas. The Pragmatics volume has had a pronounced influence not only on in­ terpersonal com munication, but on the discipline of com m unication as a whole. Since its publication, it has been one of the m ost widely cited texts in the field of com munication. From the beginning, it served as a catalyst for a qualitative shift in thinking about com m unication and relationships. Draw­ ing on a wide range of resources and illustrations in expanding B ateson’s work, the authors of Pragmatics provided an accessible, integrated commu­ nication perspective for studying human relationships. This text becam e and remains the best know treatise on the conceptual foundations of the re­ lational com m unication perspective. The pragm atic perspective offered an alternative view of com munication to the one traditionally taken, and that was to focus on com m unication it­ self, in other words, to focus on the observable behavioral p ro cesses of in­ teraction, rather than on the cognitive, intrapsychic aspects of the individu­ als involved. The goal was not to supplant the value of individual-based

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

17

theories, but to treat the interactors’ behaviors as primary data and the lo­ cus of com m unication-based theories. In actuality, behavior is the basic sou rce of data. As Sigman (1998) noted, “All there really is (for us as hu­ mans to experience and for us as research ers to study) is com m unication behavior” (p. 66). In taking an interactional stance, the perspective prof­ fered a fundamental change in the unit of analysis and thus, the basis of ex­ planation, from the inferred attributes of the individuals to the observable properties of their interaction. This seemingly sim ple idea, analogous to a figure-ground reversal (Bavelas & Segal, 1982) of bringing the relationship up-front as figure with the individuals receding into the background, was nevertheless profound in its implications. The crux of these im plications are presented in Watzlawick et al.’s (1967) axiom atic propositions, which form the central core of the pragm atic per­ spective. Although these were put forward as tentative propositions, in large part these well-known and oft-cited axiom s have stood the test of time. Perhaps one reading of this is the fact that the axiom s continue to spark debate on fundamental issues, such as the question of com m unica­ tion intentionality (Bavelas, 1990; Motley, 1990), but m ore solid evidence is provided by the programs of research described in the second part of the present volume. Each of the five axiom s involves a contextual frame, and each is interre­ lated with the others. To review briefly, the first underscores the social con­ text of com m unication in that not all behavior is com m unicative in nature, but behavior “in an interactional situation has m essage value, i.e., is com ­ m unication,” that is, reciprocally influence others (Watzlawick et al„ 1967, pp. 48-49). The second axiom refers to the “report/com m and” levels of m es­ sage meaning, in which the m eta level of relational meaning contextualizes the content meaning. In a related manner, the “digital/analogical” axiom re­ fers to the duality of m essage codes, such that the digital is always contextualized by the analogical mode. Yet, the com plexity is double-fold, in that the digital mode, while always analogically contextualized, can also “com m ent on” and thus, serve as a m eta level contextualization of both the digital and analogical asp ects of m essages. The proposition that the nature of the relationship is contingent on “punctuation” takes into account that how an ongoing sequ ence of com m unicative behavior is framed or organ­ ized influences the m essage meaning. And the final axiom, proposes that sym m etry and com plem entarity, based on the similarity or difference of the com m unicational interchanges, represent two general patterns of relation­ ship. Through the extended explication and illustration of these basic axi­ oms, the Pragmatics volume provided a window into how one might, research-w ise, put a pragm atic, relational perspective into effect. Based on these conceptual prem ises, a m ajor part of the early work in re­ lational com m unication was the developm ent of a transactional language of

18

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

relationship and a m ethodology for indexing com m unication p ro cesses at this level. For, as Jackson (1965) stated, “It is only when we attend to trans­ actions between individuals as primary data that a qualitative shift in con­ ceptual framework can be achieved” (p. 4). The constructs of sym m etry and com plem entarity, in particular, served as prototypes of the necessary para­ digmatic shift from single m essage variables to transactional level m eas­ ures. A full explication of these methodological procedures is taken up in the following chapter. The main theoretical guide for relational communication research has been the general principles of system s theory and cybernetics which empha­ size the interdependency of relational mem bers and the cyclic informative p rocesses by which mem bers establish, maintain, modify or redefine their re­ lationship. A major theoretical supposition is the relational functionality of relatively flexible patterns of interaction which simultaneously rest on and encourage a dialectic interplay along the various dimensions of interrelating. Applied to interpersonal relationships, this proposition holds that viable, re­ lations will manifest patterns of communication that offer sufficient confirma­ tion and acceptance of the m em bers’ reciprocal relational definitions for pro­ ducing relatively predictable pattern configurations, yet at the sam e time allow sufficient pattern modification and alternation to fit fluctuating rela­ tional dynamics and changing contexts and circum stances. In contrast, it is predicted that overly redundant patterns of interaction will contain less po­ tential for negotiating accom m odation and change and will be associated with negative relational evaluations and outcom es. It is also assumed that in­ sufficient patternedness (i.e., chaos) will likewise be related to negative rela­ tionship consequences. As Bateson suggests, patterns of extrem es are al­ ways toxic. Thus, it is proposed that optimal or adequately functioning system s develop and maintain patterns of connected ness, but not over amounts of chaotic p rocesses nor interactional redundancy. Yet there is always present the potential movement toward what Bate­ son called the “tyranny of pattern,” as illustrated by patterns of escalating sym m etry and rigid com plem entarity. Escalating sym m etry results in unset­ tled relational definitions and instability whereas rigid com plem entarity leads to oversettled, stifling stability. Relational p ro cesses contain within them selves the potential seed s of their own dem ise, what builds them up may com e like a can cer to tear them down (Simmel, 1950). Recurring pat­ terns and the resulting cumulative differentiation, as described earlier, have schism ogenetic tendencies (B ateson, 1936). Over time, there is a pro­ gressive potential to move toward “m ore of the sam e” (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). This tendency toward m ore of the sam e and the diffi­ culty in counterbalancing this process are further projected to be more likely the m ore intimate the relationship. W orkable relationships are theo­ rized to evidence the dialectic fluidity of self-correcting cybernetic proc­

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

19

esses that counter the tendencies toward schism ogenesis and overly re­ dundant patterns of interaction.

C O N C L U S IO N The goal of this chapter was to provide an historical and conceptual con­ text within which to place the developm ent of the relational com munication perspective. In tracing the movement of relational thinking, we find in both earlier and m ore contem porary thought a decided turn toward a social, com m unication-centered approach to the study of human relationships. The unfolding of the ideas put forward in this review, which form the foun­ dational roots of relational com munication, each in their own way say som ething about the social, system ic, tem poral, circular, reflexive, multi­ leveled com plexities of com m unication. The general confluence, or coming together of these conceptual influences converge on the central ideas of p rocess and form. The relational com m unication perspective offers an interactional ap­ proach for studying these constitutive and formative aspects of relation­ ships. Although it is one thing to argue the im portance of studying interac­ tion, it is quite another to put the argument into action. The next two chapters address the methodological and analytic procedures involved in putting into action the research application of the relational com m unica­ tion approach.

REFERENCES Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bateson, G. (1935). Culture, contact and schism ogenesis. Man, 35, 178-183. Bateson, G. (1936). Nauen. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bateson, G. (1951). Information and codification: A philosophical approach. In J. Ruesch & G. Bateson (Eds.), Communication: The social matrix o f psychiatry (pp. 168-211). NewYork: Norton. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology o f mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books. Bateson, G., & Mead, M. (1976). For god’s sake, Margaret. Coevolution Quarterly, 10, 32-44. Bavelas, J. B. (1990). Behaving and communicating: A reply to Motley. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 593-602. Bavelas, J. B., & Segal, L. (1982). Family system s theory: Background and implications. Journal of Communication, 32, 99-107. Baxter, L., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press. Berger, P., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the m icrosociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 46, 1-25.

20

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

Berio, D. (I960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Buber, M. (1958). / and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Scribner’s & Sons. Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Macmillan. Caplow, T. (1968). Two against one. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Capra, F. (1982). The turning point: Science, society and the rising culture. New York: Simon & Schuster. Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press. Cronen, V. E. (1995). Coordinated management of meaning: The consequentiality of communica­ tion and the recapturing of experience. In S. J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of communi­ cation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dell, P. (1983). Researching the family theories of schizophrenia: An exercise in epistemological confusion. In D. Bagarozzi, A. Jurich, & R. Jackson (Eds.), Marital and family therapy: New per­ spectives in theory, research and practice (pp. 236-261). New York: Human Sciences Press. Duncan, H. D. (1967). The search for a social theory of communication in American sociology. In F. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory (pp. 236-263). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ellis, D. (1981). The epistemology of form. In C. Wilder-Mott & J. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagi­ nation: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 215-230). New York: Praeger. Feuerbach, L. (1843). Grundsätze der philosophie d er zukunft [Principles of the philosophy of the future]. Zurich: Zurich & Winterthru. Fisher, B. A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York: Macmillan. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books. Gottman, J. (1982). Temporal form: Towards a new language for describing relationships. Jour­ nal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 943-962. Hinde, R. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hinde, R. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press. Jackson, D. D. (1965). The study of the family. Family Process, 4, 1-20. Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. New York: Harper & Row. Keeney, B. (1983). Aesthetics of change. New York: Guilford Press. Kelley, H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L.t & Peterson, D. (1983). Close relationships. New York: Freeman. Lederer, W. J., & Jackson, D. D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New York: Norton. Marx, K. (1956). Theses on Feuerbach. In T. Bottomore & M. Rubel (Trans.), Karl Marx: Selected writings in sociology and social philosophy (pp. 67-70). London: Watts «St Co. (Original work published in 1845) McCall, G. (1970). The social organization of relationships. In G. McCall (Ed.), Social relationships (pp. 3-34). Chicago: Aldine. McCall, G. (1988). The organizational life cycle of relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of per­ sonal relationships (pp. 467-484). New York: Wiley. McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1966). Identities and interaction. New York: Free Press. McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1991). Levels of analysis: The individual, the dyad and the larger social group. In B. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 56-81). New York: Guilford Press. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Motley, M. (1990). On whether one can(not) not communicate: An examination via traditional communication postulates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 1-20. Parks, M., Farace, R., Rogers, L. E., Albrecht, T., & Abbot, R. (1976, April). Stochastic process analy­ sis of relational communication in marital dyads. Paper presented at the International Commu­ nication Association meetings, Portland, Oregon.

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

21

Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. Haw­ thorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Rogers, E. M. (1994). A history of communication study. New York: Free Press. Rogers, L. E. (1981). Symmetry and complementarity: Evolution and evaluation of an idea. In C. Wilder-Mott & J. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 231-251). New York: Praeger. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sigman, S. J. (1998). Relationships and communication: A social communication and strongly consequential view. In R. L. Conville & L. E. Rogers (Eds.), The meaning of “relationship” in in­ terpersonal communication (pp. 47-67). Westport, CT: Praeger. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. Wolff, Trans.). New York: Free Press. Spencer-Brown, G. (1973). Laws o f form. New York: Bantam Books. Stewart, J. (1998). Historical frames of relational perspectives. In R. L. Conville & L. E. Rogers (Eds.), The meaning of "irelationship” in interpersonal communication (pp. 23-46). Westport, CT: Praeger. Theunissen, M. (1984). The other: Studies in the social ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Buber (C. Macann, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Volosinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller. Watzlawick, P. (1976). How real is real? New York: Random House. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton. Watzlawick, P., & Weakland, J. (Eds.). (1977). The interactional view. New York: Norton. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and prob­ lem resolution. New York: Norton. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilder-Mott, C., & Weakland, J. (Eds.). (1981). Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson. New York: Praeger. Wilmot, W. (1995). Relational communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.

C H A P T E R

2 Observing Relational Communication Valentín Escudero University o f La Coruna

L. Edna Rogers University o f Utah

The basic issue in implementing the present research program was how to apply the principles of the pragmatic perspective to the study of human in­ teraction. With a view that communication is much more than a simple ex­ change of information, that it involves a continuous, interactive process of defining and redefining relationships, the methodological challenge was one of transforming these conceptual ideas into a commensurate research approach. In line with the perspective’s emphasis on the formative process of communication and the guide of earlier work, an interaction-based, ob­ servational approach was taken for operationally defining and analyzing the temporal, relational qualities of communication. In the following sec­ tions, we describe the development and application of the Relational Com­ munication Control Coding System (RCCCS), the contributions of other rela­ tional researchers, and the issues of reliability and validity.

DEVELOPMENT OF OPER A TIO N AL PROCEDURES The initial procedures for indexing relational communication were outlined by Sluzki and Beavin (1965, 1977) in their development of a dyadic typology based on Bateson’s (1958) concepts of symmetry and complementarity and the progressive movement of relationships toward symmetrical or comple­ mentary schism ogenesis. In this landmark work, Sluzki and Beavin (1977) formalized a methodology for identifying communicative patterns of inter­ action, and based on a dyad’s cumulative, prototypical interaction “each

23

24

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

dyad could be classified according to its main (m ore repetitive) type of in­ teraction” (p. 74). Two types of m essage “positions” (Haley, 1963) were used to indicate the relational definitions com prising these patterns; “one-up” m essages defined the speaker in a position of being in charge in the rela­ tionship and “one-down” m essages defined the speaker in a position of sub­ mission. With this perspective focused on pattern formation, single mes­ sage behaviors were viewed as having no relational value individually, but only acquired relational value in the context of transactions (th e relation­ ship between two m essages interchanged by the interactors). Hence, Sluzki and Beavin (1977) established their operational definitions of sym m etry and com plem entarity “according to the structural sim ilarity or dissim ilarity (re ­ spectively) of the reciprocal com m unicative behaviors of the m em bers of a dyadic system ” (p. 75). In identifying the structural similarity or difference of m essage transac­ tions, these authors proposed that contiguous speech turns in a dyadic inter­ action be analyzed in terms of how the m essages are contextually structured (e.g., affirmations, instructions, negations, extensions, acceptances) and by their grammatical form (questions, statem ents, and commands). This initial set of operational procedures established a solid grounding for the subse­ quent development of relational coding system s. In later developments, the original premises that m essages take on relational meaning in the sequen­ tially ordered context of m essage exchange and that the grammatical form and response modes of the combined m essages allow the identification of different types of transactional patterns, have remained central. In the evolution of different procedures for indexing relational control, the direction of these efforts, with each system building on the previous de­ sign, has been toward the inclusion of additional coding specifications and the expansion of the different relational contexts studied. Table 2.1 outlines the m ajor contributions in the developm ent of relational com m unication coding system s. Utilizing the basic procedures proposed by Sluzki and Beavin, Mark (1971) elaborated a m ore structured coding schem e. In this system , each speech turn is categorized in term s of three aspects: speaker identification, the gramm atical format of the m essage, and the relational style of response of the m essage to the previous m essage. Based on the possible com bina­ tions of formats and response styles, Mark identified three types of mes­ sages: one-up, one-down, and sym m etrical. Although beneficial in design, the problem atic asp ects of this system included a lack of definitional clarity and exclusivity of the format and response style categories, and the con ­ ceptual confusion created by defining individual m essages as symmetrical. The coding system developed by Rogers (1972a), also described in Ericson and Rogers (1973) and Rogers and Farace (1975), synthesized features of previous system s with added modifications and the addition of a one-across

TABLE 2.1 Salient Contributions in the Development of Relational Communication Control Coding Procedures Studies Sluzki & Beavin (1965)

Mark (1971)

Ericson & Rogers (1973); Rogers & Farace (1975)

Ellis et al. (1976)

Folger & Sillars (1980)

Rogers-Millar, Millar (1979); Rogers, Courtright, & Millar (1980); Courtright, Millar, & Rogers (1983)

Heatherington & Friedlander (1987)

Main Contribution First operational definition of sym­ metrical and complementary inter­ action based on grammatical form and metacommunicative aspects Creates a formal categorization, de­ fines “format” and “response mode” categories of coding Relational communication control coding system (RCCCS). Defines clear rules of coding, re-defines the “format” and “response mode” di­ mensions to increase their internal consistency. Creates new oneacross (-» ) control code. Defines clearly the three relational control directions ( t , I , and -») and the three types of transacts (com ple­ mentary, symmetrical, and transi­ tional) Designs a relational control coding system with 5 control codes: domi­ nance ( Í + ), structuring ( t ) , equiva­ lence (->), deference ( i ) , and sub­ missiveness (4.) Comparing the earlier procedures, raises useful questions on how some types of control messages are perceived by naive observers; does not offer new coding proce­ dures. The indexes of domineeringness and dominance are empirically tested. A measure of control intensity is created: intensity values from 1 to 50 are assigned to each type of control code. A Variation Coeffi­ cient (CV) is defined as a standard­ ized index of the overall redun­ dancy of the control pattern. Expansion of Rogers-Farace proce­ dures to analyze family interaction (FRCCCS). Defines procedures to code triadic sequences as coali­ tions and other relevant aspects of indirect communication.

Field of Application Couples and other dyadic interaction

Couples’ interaction

Marital interaction

Small group interac­ tions

Social perception of re­ lational control

Marital interaction

Family therapy process research

( Continued)

25

26

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS TABLE 2.1

(Continued) Studies Wichstrom & Holte (1988)

Fairhurst (1990)

Siegel, Friedlander, & Heatherington (1992)

Main Contribution

Field of Application

Modification of earlier coding sys­ tems to focus the analysis on communicational disconfirmations. Defines a new control code (oneout, «-) related with paradoxical communication. Modifies specific coding categories to capture particular aspects of man­ ager-subordinate interactions Adds nonverbal relational control coding procedures to the FRCCCS

Communication in fami­ lies with a schizo­ phrenic member

Interpersonal communi­ cation in organiza­ tional context Family therapy process research

control direction for providing a clearer specification of message control im­ plications. Since its development, the Relational Communication Control Coding System (RCCCS) has been widely utilized in an array of research stud­ ies and has been the basis of coding procedure extensions for application in specific contexts, for example, in family therapy (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987; Wichstrom & Holte, 1988). In the Rogers system (1972b), the cod­ ing unit is a speech turn; each speech turn is coded with a three-digit code which first identifies the speaker of the message, second, the message format (assertion, question, successful or unsuccessful talk-over, noncomplete and other), and third, the relational response mode relative to the prior message in an interaction stream (support, nonsupport, extension, answer, instruc­ tion, order, disconfirmation, topic-change, self-instruction and other). With this system, a speech turn can be double coded when a message has two well-differentiated relational functions. For example, the same speech turn may begin with a submissive response to the previous message and end with a challenging question. In such cases, a double code is applied to index the different relational implications. The coding system’s format and response mode categories are summarized in Table 2.2. Based on the three-digit code, each of the possible format and response mode combinations of a message (e.g., assertion/support, question/exten­ sion, etc.) is assigned one of three control codes, according to the relational definition of the message vis-à-vis the other interactor. An attempt to assert a definition of the relationship, represents a one-up movement (T); a re­ quest for or acceptance of the other’s definition of the relationship, indi­ cates a one-down movement (4-); a nondemanding, nonaccepting, leastconstraining, leveling movement refers to a one-across maneuver (->). The matrix in Table 2.3 indicates the message control direction of the 50 format and response mode combinations.

27

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

TA BLE 2.2 B rief D escrip tio n of th e B a s ic “F o rm a t” and “R e sp o n se M o d e” C a teg o rie s of th e R o g e r s -F a r a c e C od ing S y stem

Format ASSERTION : A ny c o m p le te d re fe re n tia l s ta te m e n t e x p re s s e d in e ith e r th e d e c la r a ­ tiv e o r im p era tiv e form . QUESTION: Any m e ssa g e th a t ta k e s an in ter­ ro g a tiv e form (v e r b -n o u n o rd e r, risin g of v o ic e , e tc .). TALK-OVER: A ny in te rru p tio n o r v e rb a l in­ te rv e n tio n m ad e w h ile a n o th e r p e rso n is sp eaking .

Response Mode SU PPO RT: Any m e ssa g e th a t o ffe rs o r s e e k s a g re e m e n t, a s s is ta n c e , a c c e p ta n c e , a n d /o r a p p roval. NONSUPPORT: Any m e ssa g e th a t im p lies d isa g re e m e n t, re je c tio n , d em an d , r e s is ­ ta n c e , a n d /o r c h a llen g e . EXTENSION: A ny m e ssa g e th a t c o n tin u e s th e flow o r th e m e o f th e p re ce d in g m e ssa g e . ANSW ER: A ny m e ssa g e th a t is a definitive

T a lk -o v e rs c a n b e c o d e d a s “SUCCESS­

re s p o n s e to a q u e s tio n th a t h a s su b ­

FUL” o r “UNSUCCESSFUL” d e p en d in g on

s ta n c e a n d /o r co m m itm en t.

w h eth e r th e first sp e a k e r re lin q u ish e s th e floor. NONCOMPLETE: A ny u tte r a n c e th a t is initi­ a te d b u t n o t c o m p le te d (w ith o u t a c le a r fo rm a t, o r re s p o n s e m o d e). OTHER: A ny u tte r a n c e th a t is in d istin g u ish ­ a b le o r g ra m m a tica lly u n c la ssifia b le .

INSTRUCTION: A ny re g u la tiv e m e ssa g e th a t is a q u alified su g g estio n involving clarifi­ c a tio n , ju stific a tio n , o r ex p lan atio n . ORDER: Any m e ssa g e th a t is an unq u alified co m m an d w ith little o r no exp la n a tio n , u su ally in th e im p era tiv e form . DISCONFIRMATION: Any m e ssa g e th a t ig­ n o re s o r b y -p a sse s th e re q u e s t (w h e th e r ex­ p licit o r im p lic it) o f th e p re v io u s m essa g e. TOPIC CHANGE: A ny m e ssa g e th a t h a s little co n tin u ity w ith th e p re v io u s m e ssa g e b u t n o re s p o n s e c o n tin u ity w as re q u e ste d . SELF-INSTRUCTION: A ny m e ssa g e th a t r e ­ fle c ts b a c k o n se lf a b o u t w h at an d how se lf sh o u ld d o an d feel. OTHER: A ny m e ssa g e th a t h a s an u n clear, u n c la ssifia b le re s p o n s e im p lication .

By combining the con trol co d es of contiguous m essages, three inter­ actional o r transactional categories are created . With com plem entary tran s­ acts, the definition of the relationship offered by one in teracto r is a ccep ted by the other; the control directions are opposite ( t i or 41s). In symmetrical tran sacts, the control directions are the sam e ( i t , o r 1 1 ); each in teracto r behaves tow ard the oth er as the oth er behaved tow ard them . In transitory tran sacts (->4s l~ > , - > t , o r T ->), the con trol directions are differ­ ent with one of the in teracto rs expressing a neutralizing, minimally con ­ straining, one-across m essage. Table 2.4 show s the nine types of relational transactional p attern s identified by the coding system , resulting in two forms of com plem entarity, three forms of sym m etry, and four types of tran ­ sitory tran sacts. The following interaction, cod ed accordin g to the RCCCS p roced u res de­ scribed earlier, is a small fragment extracted from a couple’s discussion

NJ

00

TABLE 2.3 Control Code Assignment for the Message Code Categories

Response Mode Format Assertion Question Successful Talk-Over Nonsuccessful Talk-Over Noncomplete Other

Support

Nonsupport

Extension

Answer

Instruction

Order

Disconfirmation

Topic Change

Self-Instruction

Other

I I I l l i

t t t Î Î Î

-»

t t t t T t

T

t

T

t

->

t

-» >1 t -» ->

i Î -» -»

î

t

î T

î t

T Î

î

t

Î

T t Î Î

T

t

T

t

Î -» ->

29

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

TABLE 2.4 Types of Relational Control Transacts Control Direction of Consequent Message Control Direction of Antecedent Message

One-up t

One-down I /V

/-»

Competitive Symmetry*

Complementarity

Transition

One-down I

Complementarity

Submissive Symmetry

Transition

One-across -»

Transition

Transition

Neutralized Symmetry

One-up Î

One-across

concerning their vacation time and the possibility of changing the tradition of visiting the husband’s parents. As observed, this segm ent represents a brief episode of com petitive sym m etry that is “d eactivated ” by one-down or one-across control m essages.

Format

Response Mode

H: If you don’t agree on visiting them this year, you should have said so before. How are they going to take it, now that they are expecting us, to tell them that we aren’t going!

Assertion

Nonsupport

W: For years I have been telling you that I am sick and tired of spending these holidays with them. You knew that, so don’t come to me with that!

Assertion

Nonsupport

H: [You have always complained, and I’ve always told you that we would do whatever you wanted, but you have never said no. And now it’s all my fault!]

Talk-over

Nonsupport

W: Fault? We’re pretty grown up, you just have to tell them we have other plans, that’s all.

Assertion

Order

H: Could you tell them, please?

Question

Support (asking)

W: Come on, they are your family. I think you should tell them. Go on, please, I beg of you. It won’t be such a big deal.

Assertion

Support (asking)

H: They are going to get really upset; you know how they are. And these things really affect them now.

Assertion

Extension

Verbal Interaction of a Couple

Control Code & Transacts

30

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

One of the extensions of the coding procedures developed by Rogers, Courtright, and Millar (1980) is the m easurem ent of message control inten­ sity. This m easure is based on the implicit intensity continuum which under­ lies the coding system . For m ost analyses, the m essage codes (indicating the format and response mode categories) are grouped into three general control categories ( t , or ¿ ) for describing the interaction control dy­ namics and the resulting transactional patterns, but in doing so, as is al­ ways the case with categorization, specific information is lost concerning the regulative influence of different m essage forms. Thus, a m essage giving an order in an assertive format constrains the relational response options of the other interactor m ore intensely than a m essage expressing disagree­ ment in a question format, even though both m essages are coded as one-up ( t ) . Following the logic underlying the coding procedures, Rogers et al. (1980) proposed a scale (from 1 to 50) to index the relative intensity of the 50 types of m essage codes, with a noncom plete/support m essage repre­ senting the lowest level of intensity and a talk-over/disconfirm ation, the highest level. Although the assigned m essage intensity weights are logically constructed and as yet lack sufficient em pirical validity, the research re­ sults based on this m easure have allowed m ore discrim inatory descriptions of couple interaction and have provided evidence of the m easure’s predic­ tive utility of specific relational patterns (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers, 1980; Rogers et al., 1980). With this scale, an expanded set of descriptive m easures are possible, including the range and average m essage control intensity of an inter­ acto r or the dyad, the mean d istance of intensity betw een contiguous m es­ sages in a dyadic interaction, and in addition, an index of the “Coefficient of V ariation” (CV) (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers, 1983) defined as the result of dividing the standard deviation of the control intensity sc o re s by the mean of th e se sco re s. T he CV indexes a dyad’s interaction flexibility; a high CV value indicates a high level of fluctuation in th at the intensity sco re s of the m essages deviate widely from the mean, while a low CV value indicates a narrow range of m essage intensity fluctuation and thus low level of interaction flexibility. In a less com plex manner, the coding system fashioned by Fisher and colleagues (Ellis, Fisher, Drecksel, Hoch, & W erbel, 1976) incorporates an in­ tensity dim ension in the categorization of m essage codes. With this coding schem e, five types of m essage control positions are defined. The categories are identified as Dominance ( t + ) , a strong one-up; Structuring (T - ) , a weak one-up; Equivalence (-» ); D eference (4--), a weak one-down; and Submis­ siveness ( i + ) , a strong one-down. The added intensity distinction is a posi­ tive feature of this system . The research by Folger and Sillars (1980) on the perception of interper­ sonal dom inance focused attention on the coding of different forms of ques­

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

31

tions. In this study, the authors contrasted their coding of a sam ple of m essages using the Rogers system, with the control scores assigned by an untrained group of students to the sam e set of m essages. Each m essage was scored on a 5-point scale, from very submissive to very dominant. Although the mean dominance rating reported were “in many cases consistent with the control codes” (p. 326), based on the students’ perceived control implica­ tions of different question formats, Folger and Sillars emphasized the func­ tional differences of open, closed, and fed questions. In the Rogers system , what would be considered open questions although not labeled as such, are identified as requ ests seeking help in a subm issive m anner or seeking information in a neutral manner, and are coded in the first case as onedown and in the second, as one-across, while closed and/or fed questions are identified as constraining, disagreeing, demanding and/or challenging questions, and are coded as one-up control m aneuvers. N evertheless, the distinctions posited by Folger and Sillars provided useful clarification of these question forms. In later work, Heatherington and Friedlander (1987) included sep arate open and closed question codes in their relational cod­ ing system . W ichstrom and Holte’s (1988) research on therapeutic system s provided a further developm ent in the study of relational com m unication. The cod­ ing procedures designed by th ese research ers include an additional control code to the three control codes (one-up, one-down, and one-across) of the RCCCS. In particular, this system expands the identification of disconfirmation and disqualification of equivocal or ambiguous com m unication (self­ disqualifications, disqualifications of the other, noncom prom ising evasive responses, etc.). T hese coding procedures were developed in the context of studying families with a schizophrenic member, a setting in which these types of com m unication are m ore likely to occur. The coding innovation offered by the W ichstrom and Holte (1988) sys­ tem is a category of relational con trol called one-out (« - ) which encom pass “m essages, often paradoxical, w here the person tries to escap e from the question of control altogether. The m etam essage is: we do not relate in this system ” (p. 7). This coding system also integrates different levels of control intensity, by subdividing the m essage cod es into th ree control in­ tensity levels. In spite of the fact that the com plexity of this coding system is much greater than that of previous system s, th ese re sea rch ers report satisfactory levels of reliability in its application (Holte, W ichstrom , Erno, & Kveseth, 1987). For the different research settings in which relational com m unication has been studied, certain com m unicational phenom ena may be of specific or special relevance in th ese contexts, as in the previous case. In other cases, m essage types identified within a particular context may only in­ volve slight m odifications of the coding procedures. For example, in the in­

32

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

vestigations of relational control in an organizational setting, Fairhurst (see chap. 9) included a “backchannel” category that record s expression such as, “mm-hmm,” “yeah,” “OK,” etc., interjected into the stream of discourse to indicate that the speaker is listening. The use of this m essage code al­ lows a clear regulative distinction of these com mon conversational fea­ tures, coded as extensions, from those that indicate agreem ent or approval.

From Dyadic to Triadic Interaction Analysis A major contribution in the developm ent of relational coding procedures is that of Heatherington and Friedlander (1987) who designed a system that expands the application of the RCCCS m ethods to interactions of three or more people. Their Family Relational Communication Control Coding Sys­ tem (FRCCCS) emerged from the study of relational com m unication in the context of family therapy. With three or m ore interactants, there are vari­ ous m essage dynamics, often with indirect definitional implications, that do not occu r in dyadic interaction. The FRCCCS procedures allow the coding of a num ber of triadic p ro cesses and thus, significantly extends the utility of the relational approach. The contributions of Heatherington and Friedland­ er which are briefly described here, involve the designation of m essage tar­ gets, additional m essage code categories, and the coding of specific triadic interactions. (See chap. 5 for a com plete description.) In family or group interactions there are direct and explicit targets of m essage behavior, but there are also many occasions when the m essages are neither direct nor reciprocal, that is, a m essage can also have an indi­ rect target. For this reason, the coding rules of the FRCCCS include the iden­ tification of direct and indirect m essage targets, with the later referring to m aneuvers in which an interactor has not been specifically addressed, but is clearly implicated by the m essage expressed to another person. When the m essages are direct, and represent a reciprocal exchange be­ tween two m em bers of a larger group, the coding procedures applicable to a dyad are employed, but when, for instance, a m essage is clearly directed to one m em ber but responded to by another member, this represents an interference in the initiated exchange betw een two m em bers by a third. For indexing this type of triadic event, a m essage format category, interception, was added to identify this form of m essage maneuver. An interception is essentially an interruption on behalf of a third person of the dyadic ex­ change taking place. The FRCCCS, as indicated earlier, also includes sep a­ rate format codes for open and closed questions. In the context of the ther­ apeutic interview, where questions play a prominent role, this distinction is useful for specifically identifying the different control functions of the ques­ tion format.

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

33

Within a larger group, in com parison with dyadic interaction, the identifi­ cation of m essages categorized as “disconfirm ation” is also expanded via different forms of triadic interactions. A type of interpersonal disconfirm a­ tion coded with the FRCCCS occu rs when the person addressed (i.e., the di­ rect target of the m essage) ignores the requ est being made by a speaker by using the strategy of addressing a third person. A central feature of the FRCCCS is the categorization of different forms of triadic interaction sequ ences, in which a speaker defines their relationship with two other people sim ultaneously. Although these procedures have largely been applied in the context of family therapy (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990a, 1990b; Friedlander, Heatherington, & Wildman, 1991) w here many theoretical constructs of family dynamics are closely tied to triadic com m unication m ovem ents, it is equally beneficial to capture these types of relational dynamics in other interactional settings involving three or m ore participants. Three types of triadic sequ en ces that are opera­ tionalized by the application of the FRCCCS are illustrated below, using ex­ amples from a recent study of everyday family discussions (Escudero, Lopez, & Platas, 1998). Simple Triadic Sequences are defined as occurring when a m essage is given to at least two people at the sam e tim e and the m essage is coded as a neutral (leveling -» ) control m ovem ent to eith er one or both of the re­ cipients. M o th er:

( t o h e r s o n ) S to p m ak in g n o is e ! D ad an d 1 c a n ’t s p e a k w ith s o m u ch

Son:

R rrrrrru u h h h , it’s th e p la n e; s e e it s to p p e d . T h a t’s it. (lo w e rin g h is

c o m m o tio n go in g on! [ t o r d e r to th e b o y ] v o ic e ) [ i o b e d ie n t r e s p o n s e to h is m o th e r’s o rd e r] F a th e r:

In 10 m in u tes y o u h a v e to p u t th e p la n e a w ay an d g o d o y o u r h o m e ­ w o rk w h ile M om an d I c o n tin u e sp e a k in g . [Sim ple Triadic M ovement A -» w ith th e fa th e r ’s m e s s a g e a T in s tru c tio n to th e s o n , an d -» n eu ­ tra l r e s p e c t to w a rd th e m o th e r]

[N o te: T ria d ic m e s s a g e s a r e r e p r e s e n te d w ith tw o c o d e s , th e first in re la tio n to th e d ir e c t ta r g e t an d th e s e c o n d , s e p a r a te d w ith a d o t, in re la tio n to th e indi­ r e c t ta rg e t, in th is c a s e a s (T .- > ).]

Parallel Triadic Sequences are configured by a one-up or one-down m es­ sage that is concurrently given to two or m ore interactors. Thus, these m es­ sages sim ultaneously define the sam e type of control in relation to the im­ plicated m em bers. F a th e r:

(t o h is s o n ) M o v e s o m e w h e r e e ls e s o I c a n h a v e m o re ro o m to w ork

Son:

(m o v in g to a n o th e r p la c e ) Y e s , D ad. [ I r e s p o n s e to th e fa th e r]

a t th e ta b le ! [T o r d e r to so n ]

34

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

Mother:

Look at the time! it is very late and the two of you are wasting time as always! [A-71 Parallel movement, with t to both father and son]

Coalition Sequences refer to m essages that define the sp eaker’s control position in an opposite way for each of the other two interactors, one-up control with one of them and one-down with the other. Thus, the m essage sim ultaneously exp resses one control function for the direct recipient and an opposite control function for the indirect recipient. Mother:

Don’t touch the vase and come play over here so that Dad and I can speak! [ t to the son]

Son:

(doesn’t obey, continues to play with the vase) [nonverbal t to mother] Let me see how you pick up that vase! Bravo, you look like a muscle man! Very good! (applauding) [ s C o a l i ti o n movement with the message 4- support for the son, but t resistance for the mother, with the father joining the son in ignoring the mother’s order]

Father:

T hese exam ples dem onstrate the ability of the FRCCCS to index noted com plexities of interaction p ro cesses that occu r within three person or larger group settings. A further expansion of this work is a procedure for coding nonverbal behavior.

Nonverbal Relational Control With the developm ent of relational coding guided by Sluzki and B eavin’s (1965) focus on the “audible-linguistic” a sp ects of com m unication, th ese system s have essentially been based on the categorization of verbal b e­ haviors and accom panying paralinguistic featu res (e.g., tone of voice, in­ flections and pitch, pauses, m essage length, laughter, etc.). Practical con­ sid erations in term s of the preferen ce for gathering interactional data in the p articip an ts’ natural setting and the earlier lim itations of video te ch ­ nology w ere also involved in this choice. Even so, the relevan ce of nonver­ bal behavior was recognized and viewed as an im portant future develop­ m ent, esp ecially sin ce th e founding work of W atzlawick, Beavin, and Jack so n (1967) posits that the inform ation offered via this m ode is largely relational. The integration of the nonverbal m ode in the operational pro­ cedu res of relational control is a logical extension. Also, the p resen t ease of obtaining and analyzing video recordings using current multimedia technology is far m ore facilitative for including nonverbal behaviors in the analysis of relational com m unication. Along these lines, Siegel, Friedlander, and Heatherington (1992) devel­ oped a set of procedures for coding nonverbal relational control behaviors

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

35

in conjunction with the FRCCCS codes. Th ese procedures for identifying and relationally defining a group of nonverbal behaviors that com m only ap­ pear in interactions have dem onstrated interjudge reliability as well as cri­ terion validity. In this system , the coding of nonverbal relational control is based on: (a ) specific nonverbal behaviors that concurrently occu r with verbal m essages, or (b ) nonverbal behaviors that signal a m essage on their own without any sim ultaneous verbal expression. The following relational response modes have been categorized by non­ verbal behaviors: Support-agreement, which indexes nonverbal actions that clearly indicate an acceptance response to a prior statem ent or request, such as nodding in agreement, or carrying out a suggested behavior (e.g., closing a door, turning off the stereo, etc.) as asked or instructed without saying any­ thing after receiving the message; Nonsupport-Disagreement, which includes nodding in disagreement, rejection through body movements such as turning one’s back or ignoring another’s message, specific gestures indicating an in­ sult or sarcasm , attack such as hitting, or marked incongruence between the nonverbal and verbal behaviors; Answering-questions, nodding and other spe­ cific gestures that serve to give a clear answer to a previous question; and Ordo—Instruction, which refer to nonverbal gestures of prohibition or that or­ der a behavior such as be quiet, change chairs or leave the room. One of the several advantages of coding both verbal and nonverbal relational communi­ cation behavior is that it allows the study of congruencies and incongruen­ cies between these two modes of expression. To exemplify the com bined coding procedures for indexing triadic se ­ quences and nonverbal behaviors, we return to the earlier exam ple of the couple arguing about the tradition of visiting the paternal family on vaca­ tions. Actually this interaction was recorded in the couple’s hom e in the p resen ce of their young son. In the following, longer segm ent of their dis­ cussion we see the son becom ing involved in the argument. By taking into account the relational com m unication of the th ree (father, m other, and son ) and their nonverbal com munication, we can observe in Table 2.5 a greater level of coding com plexity then in the prior dyadic example. As investigators of relational com m unication expand the facets and ana­ lytical capacity of coding system s, their research ability to incorporate m ore of the com plexities, as well as the subtleties, of the interaction proc­ ess increases. But the time needed to train coders, code the interactions, and process the large amounts of data is also increased. R ecent technical advances in com puter-based, multimedia analysis system s, however, mini­ mize these difficulties and offer research capabilities that before, with the traditional m ethods of transcribing, coding, and data analysis were consid­ erably more taxing. Different technical system s now exist that can be adapted to the study of relational com m unication. Of those examined for analyzing interaction, a

TABLE 2.5 Example of Coded Interaction With Triadic Sequences and Nonverbal Control Codes

Verbal Interaction F.- If you don’t agree on visiting them this year, you should have said so before. How are they going to take it, now that they are expecting us, to tell them that we aren’t going! M.- For years I have been telling you that I am sick and tired of spending these holidays with them. You knew that, so don’t com e to me with that! F.- (You have always complained, and I’ve always told you that we would do whatever you wanted. but you have never said no. And now it’s all my fault!)

Relational Control and Transacts

Salient Nonverbal Observations The boy is quietly playing, assem ­ bling and disassembling pieces of a small plastic car.

T

Both parents raise their voices. t

The boy approaches his parents with his little car, sitting on the floor very close to the arm­ chairs where his parents are.

t

M.- Fault? We’re pretty grown up, you just have to tell them we have other plans, that’s all.

T

Facial expression of the husband indicating resentm ent.

F.- Could you tell them, please?

i

The boy starts to move his toy and som e pieces over to the arm rest of his m other’s armchair.

M.- Come on, they are your fam­ ily. I think you should tell them. Go on, please, I beg of you. It won’t be such a big deal.

I

StS Looks intensely at his parents, af­ ter starts making noise, (al­ though without raising his voice at all) imitating the motor of his car.

F.- They are going to get really upset; you know how they are. And these things really affect them now. S.- I’ll tell them.

T Interception

t

The boy increases the noise of the m otor and looks at his fa­ ther, who returns the com pla­ cent look.

T

Emphatically faces his parents with a negation movement of the head.

S'S* F.- What are you saying? Go play with Maria. S.- NON-VERBAL: Clear "no” with movement of the head.

(Continued)

36

TABLE 2.5 ( Continued)

Verbal Interaction

Relational Control and Transacts

M.- That’s it, tell Maria that you and she can play with your car.

Î.4- Parental Coalition

S.- Mom and Dad don’t want to go this year.

t.T Parallel

Salient Nonverbal Observations

M.- We do want to go! S.- NON-VERBAL: Negation with exaggerated movement of the hand and head. F.- Of course we want to go. S.- Are we going?

Exaggerated negation movement with his hand and head.

t.vl Parental coalition

I

M.- It’s just that we would also like to do other things, the bike trip we had planned, remember? F.- Right, rem em ber the trip?

The parents look at each other and smile. I . - * Simple T.T Parellel

S.- Well, I told Grandfather about the trip and he liked the idea. M.- Really?

Both parents express surprise and liking.

S.- Yeah F.- We could go for two days, and then from there we could go on the bike trip and stop on our way back to tell them how it went.

The boy once again takes pieces from his toy and begins to dis­ assem ble parts of the car.

S.- Fine, I’ll tell them! M.- No, we’ll tell them.

Very enthusiastic tone of voice, does not stop touching the toy pieces.

S.-1 will, I will. F.- No, we will, you heard your mother, and now go to play with Maria. S.- NON-VERBAL: OBEYS

T .i Parental coalition

S'S Picks everything up and goes out running toward the other room where his sister is.

37

38

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

computerized system found to be particularly suited for observational re­ search is The Observer Video-Pro instrument (Noldus, Trienes, Hendriksen, Jansen, & Jansen, 2000). This system has a number of positive features, such as, its compatibility with many video formats (digital as well as analog videotapes), its efficacy in analyzing nonverbal aspects of interaction, and its flexibility in transferring data to other analysis programs. The system can be used to record, organize, analyze, and present observational data. The Observer Video-Pro provides continuous time recording of the inter­ action and the versatility for combining different coding systems in the same study. The system is capable of integrating specific software with time codes and multimedia hardware com ponents, which allow a re­ searcher to edit, code, and revise coded messages and images of previously recorded videotaped interactions. During the coding process, coders can display the video image, the code categories, a timetable, and the VCR con­ trol functions, on separate windows on the computer screen. The software summarizes the coding results in graphical and multimedia formats. For ex­ ample, a time-event plot of the coded process can be easily created. Figure 2.1 shows the screen of the computer with the main application windows during an observation session using the RCCCS. This system not only facilitates but optimizes the options available for coding relational communication, the training of coders, as well as, con­ ducting quantitative and qualitative investigations. The inclusion of the re­ cording of time that allows the synchronized coding of relational control with other observation system s, including nonverbal com m unicative codes, spatial or other contextual features, offers new possibilities in rela­ tional research.

RELIABILITY A N D V A LID IT Y ASSESSMENT The application of coding system s to study relational communication bears a series of methodological questions common to all observation proce­ dures of interaction. These questions include a number of interrelated is­ sues, such as: To what extent does the analysis of interaction represent the relational qualities of communication? Are the coded descriptions repre­ sentative of the shared cultural meaning or perceptions of system mem­ bers? Are the more subtle or ambiguous aspects of communication suffi­ ciently taken into account? What degree of coder agreement is necessary to indicate the reliability of a coding system? Are there ways of assessing if the coding rules are consistently being applied? How does one demonstrate the validity of a coding system for studying the theoretical domain of inter­ est? Many of the questions concerning the reliability and validity of coding procedures are addressed in the chapters describing the different research programs in this volume. Our goal here is to provide a general discussion of

39

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

5 T lit Ofcpcwvr IB* 'Tit R ra u d lif f i t

¡» U â lu e c if»

j

1

C .*tlù

fa n k

1- \7 \

J

V ^ ik u

'CftAuW

____ _ J

ö *Ip

•■■Mr i N M H

l-tisband * hj :

Wita ■ »«it f E*hûvior]

_AnsjQos ■ AnC A/itjO pon • Anû DilCOflfl • DIS Extensio - Eîd hst_Ûth • InÛ

re

:

r j 7 i « & 7 8 S ID 11 12 t3 14 15

r iM t 00 0000 2 DO QQ 3 0 Q » (» < 1 7 ttttV .S m am d m a*. 3 * 3 »0157 6 PCKLSne 1 c n a ;-4 o ^ doo? î û b OQ M J J j 0 dq< & ?3 2 D O a3 .2 S 7 000357 4 0 0 0 4 )1 1

A C TO R

BEHAVIOR

W é* H u ib en tf W ieH u tto n d W i* H u ita n â W ie H u & tfid W i# MijU>sn3 W it HutLAini W 3» M«iibanc

M a n u a lp M onvupo WOfriMX* E r t r r .i i E«m » E rto n td E tfa n a o 5 14* .« ! fcjC W tl k « t jW i

Non&Mpp " W#p

- n ri - J MQWF1ER 1 ChMLQ ¿ -= » r C to w d .Q A is e «

Crder • C^ô Suppart - Sup

Top_ChrtQ • Teil [Fcfrnal] Asmrl • Ast

¿jrr«r“ A «M A ss« A ittf ! *Vr=*r A m «« ¿ ¿ s e t: A a*tf! Axaw* O p c n jfc *

Ooçed.Û -C_û KQftCOit-f.»l ■ Ncp Cpcn J J ub * 0_Q TVOv Su • Tks T*qQyJJn ■ Tfcju

>ïimCanid « CMsp;*i

ÎO W *(•

" ■

► • » I e- 1

-

ft*« p e c d

4HL*m |

c,Él

|

Mm » I

FIG. 2.1. The Observer Video-Pro computer screen during a coding session us­ ing the RCCCS.

th e m eth od ological issues involved in in teraction al re s e a rch , by taking up th e reliability issu es first, w hich lead into a d iscu ssion of validity.

R e l i a bi li ty M easu rem en t co n siste n cy is th e fundam ental issue underlying reliability. Thus, for stu d ies ca rrie d out using sy ste m a tic o b servation al p ro ce d u re s, re-

40

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

liability is based on the degree to which the same sample of communicational behavior analyzed independently by trained coders, using the same coding system, will give similar results. Interaction coding rests on clear, mutually exclusive, code category definitions and the application of a stan­ dardized set of coding rules. The reliability of a coding system is operation­ alized as the level of agreement among the coders in the application of the system. Reliability assessm ents are typically carried out, both in the train­ ing process and during the investigation process. The agreement among the observers has two requirements: first, that their agreement has a mag­ nitude that guarantees that the observers interpret the coding rules in an unambiguous and appropriate manner, and second, that the level of inter­ coder agreement remains stable over the coding process. That is, the agreement level should not undergo fluctuations (reliability decay) during the time the interaction samples are being coded for a study. Coder consis­ tency is required for both the unit being coded and the application of the code categories to these units. For systems in which the unit coded is clearly identified, such as the speech turn in the case of relational control coding, unitizing reliability is rarely problematic and typically results in a high degree of coder reliability. A statistical index frequently recommended in the literature on interac­ tion analysis for computing the reliability of coder agreement (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986) is Cohen’s kappa (1960). The kappa value represents the agreement among observers relative to chance agreement estimated for the data sample analyzed. Thus, kappa is a conservative estimate of reliabil­ ity and is defined as:

kappa =

Po-Pc 1 - Pc

(1)

where Po is the agreement observed in the data and Pc is the chance agree­ ment estimation for these data. Kappa varies from zero, indicating no agree­ ment, to one, indicating perfect agreement. In general, kappa values be­ tween .60 and .75 are considered good, and values above .75 are judged as excellent estim ates of reliability (Fleiss, 1981). The chance agreement esti­ mation depends on the number of observational categories of the system, and on how the code frequencies are distributed among these categories. For this reason, extra care must be taken in the interpretation of kappa when there are only a few code categories and the simple probabilities of the codes are skewed (Bakeman, McArthur, & Quera, 1996). To illustrate the application of kappa, a matrix resulting from a compari­ son of the RCCCS coded results of independent observers coding each speech turn in an interaction is shown in Table 2.6. For the relational coding

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

41

system , the com putation of kappa is carried out on the sep arate or com ­ bined code categories identifying the speaker (FRCCCS also includes the speaker’s direct and indirect target), the m essage format, and the response m ode of the m essage. It is also possible to com pute a reliability estim ate based on the control direction of the m essages, how ever in this case, the caution concerning the use of fewer cod e categories must be recognized. The research exam ple given in Table 2.6, presents an agreem ent matrix on which the com putation of kappa is based, in this case, for the response m ode of the RCCCS. The intercoder frequencies on the diagonal indicate coding agreem ent, while the frequencies off the diagonal indicate disagree­ m ents, as well as, the categories in which they occur. Similar m atrices, but considerably expanded, are used to com pute kappa values for cod e com bi­ nations. As can be observed, the construction of agreem ent m atrices pro­ vides a useful sou rce of information for identifying particular coding diffi­ culties and thus, for the training of coders. These m atrices also provide a basis for evaluating a coding system and/or procedures in term s of the distribution of the observations across the code categories. In the application of a coding schem e to different research set­ tings, it may be the case that som e categories are more frequently used in som e contexts and less so in others. This is not in itself necessarily problem­ atic, rather it may reflect com parative behavior differences in different so­ cial-cultural contexts, or between different participants’ interaction within the sam e setting. However, it may suggest a refinement of the coding proce­ dures for identifying specific communication behaviors of interest within a particular context. Nevertheless, even when the application of a coding sys­ tem has been modified, the possibility remains that the distribution of the coded behaviors may still be skewed. In these cases, if the researcher consid­ ers that certain disagreements or inconsistencies in the coding are more crit­ ical than others, there are adjustments in the computation of interobserver reliability that can be applied, in particular, Cohen’s (1968) weighted kappa, which specifies a procedure for weighting coded disagreements differently, or Hawkins and Dotson’s (1975) calculation, which focuses exclusively on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of certain categories. For carrying out observational research, cod er reliability is an obvious requirem ent, both in term s of the utility of the system and as a precondi­ tion for establishing the validity of the system . The relational control cod ­ ing procedures have satisfactorily dem onstrated intercoder reliability in studies conducted over several decades based on different sam ples from various interactional contexts, for example, in counseling (Lichtenberg & Barke, 1981; Tracy & Miars, 1986), television dramas (B arbatsis, Wong, & Herek, 1983), couple typologies (Fitzpatrick, 1983), school consultation (Erchul, 1987), employment interviews (Tullar, 1989), teach er supervision

.u K)

TABLE 2.6 Example of Intereoders' Agreem ent/Disagreem ent Matrix for RCCCS R esponse Mode Codes

Coder B Coder A Support Nonsupport Extension Answer Instruction Order Disconfirm. Topic Change Self-Instruction Other

Support

Nonsupport

Extension

Answer

Instruction

Order

Disconfirmation

Topic Change

Self-Instruction

Other

34 1 9 0 0 0 0

0 22

4 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 2

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

0 1 0

1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

Observed agreem ent = 0.82; Chance agreem ent = .20; Kappa = .78.

1 0 7 1 0

1 0 0 1 4 0

0 1 0

0 0 0

0 0 4 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

43

(Brouillet & Deaudelin, 1994), medical settings (McNeilis & Thompson, 1995; O’Hair, 1989), and in the marital, family and organizational settings reported in this volume.

Validity A reliability issue that overlaps with validity is intercoder assessm ent link­ ing observer agreement with observer accuracy (Suen, 1988). This type of assessm ent implies there is a correct standard by which to judge coder reli­ ability, which in turn suggests that observer agreement should be based on some “real” or “true,” infallible criteria. Obviously, such criteria do not ex­ ist. In reference to relational phenomena, there is no way of knowing, in an absolute sense, their real or correct definition reflecting the notion that re­ lational control is a theoretical construct. Establishing validity is, likewise, a theoretical issue. Thus in assessing validity, rather than pose what is the correct standard, the question becom es what are the appropriate stan­ dards by which to judge if an instrument, in this case observational coding, measures what it claims to measure, or phrased differently, if a coding sys­ tem appropriately identifies (i.e., empirically maps) the theoretical domain under study. Validation of a relational control measurement system involves the task of examining to what extent the coding procedures, apart from being used in a reliable way, identify the control aspect of relational communication in a way that is logically consistent with its conceptual definition. The issue of validity is closely related to the theoretical and epistemological perspective from which the observation of communicational behavior is carried out. Folger, Hewes, and Poole (1984) classified three observation modes that have been helpful in clarifying issues of coding system validity: the experi­ enced, experiencing, and experiencer modes. From the experienced mode, the interaction is studied essentially from a theoretical perspective; a lack of correspondence between the external ob­ servations and the individual perceptions of the participants is not equiva­ lent to a lack of validity. From this perspective, the main goal is to demon­ strate evidence for face and construct validity, as well as predictive validity. The experiencing mode of observation is concerned with the correspon­ dence between the descriptions obtained using a coding system and the cul­ turally shared meaning of the construct being studied. From this point of view, a coding system should be compared with the interpretation individu­ als, belonging to the same culture group to which the scheme is applied, have of that interaction, thereby assessing the system’s “representational va­ lidity.” And finally, from the experiencer mode, validity is related to the corre­ spondence between the coding of the investigator and the participants’ idio­ syncratic perceptions or intentions of the interaction behaviors. This

44

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

approach relies more heavily on the researcher’s interpretive skills than the other two modes and is the most difficult for making validity claims. The focus of relational com munication, as seen from its theoretical foun­ dations (chap. 1), is basically aligned with the experienced mode of ob ser­ vation. Even so, som e authors consider representational validity (experi­ encing m ode) as the fundamental criterion for relational com m unication schem es (Folger et al., 1984; Folger & Poole, 1982). Although the develop­ ment of the coding system s was clearly attentive to the com monly held meanings of language use and how speech acts, the main purpose was to sequentially capture how behavior means rath er than what the perform er m eans (Scheflen, 1974) or intended to mean by their m essage behavior. The relational perspective exam ines the system ic, contextual meaning of inter­ action patterns; with this theoretical focus, the interpretive meaning of mes­ sage behavior of individual participants or cultural m em bers, is relevant and valuable information, but represents a different locus of meaning (Rog­ ers & Millar, 1982). Both the relational study of the regulative meaning of contextually configured transactional patterns and the meaning of commu­ nicative behaviors by language users are important, but as Folger et al. (1984) indicated, “all coding procedures are employed to provide insights that step beyond su b je cts’ knowledge” (p. 155). A num ber of studies assessing the validity of relational coding have been conducted including the early effort of Ayers and Miura (1981). T hese au­ thors com pared six coding procedures of relational com munication, Sluzki and Beavin (1965), Mark (1971), Rogers and Farace (1975), Ellis et al. (1976), Folger and Sillars (1980) and Folger and Puck (1976), in a study designed to examine the construct and predictive validity of these system s. For evaluat­ ing predictive validity, Ayers and Miura analyzed the ability of each coding system to predict the classification of 29 dyads identified as “com patible or incom patible.” The results showed that the R og ers-F arace system stood out from the others in its capacity to discrim inate betw een the com patible and incom patible dyadic interactions through the coding of sym m etrical ex­ changes. In another similar effort, Bohn and Bock (1980) used discriminant analysis for evaluating the R og ers-F arace sch em e’s ability to predict a dif­ ferent set of com patible and incom patible dyads. Besides the three types of sym m etrical exchanges, they also found additional transactional pattern evidence supportive of system ’s predictive validity. Ayers and Miura, in their assessm ent of construct validity, analyzed the convergence of the six coding system s in their operationalization of basic relational constructs. Based on the results, con struct validity was dem onstrated for all system s, although this was evidenced more soundly for the coding of com plem en­ tary in teractio n than for sym m etrical in teractio n . An exam ination of discriminant validity also found the coding system s better able to discrimi­ nate com plem entarity than symmetry.

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

45

O’Donnell-Trujillo (1981) com pared the Rogers-Farace system with the Ellis et al. system . The correspondence of the two system s based on the dis­ tribution of the control codes was mixed, but with the code category and coding procedure differences, the lack of correspondence was not unex­ pected. In com parison to the Rogers-Farace coding system, the Ellis et al. system includes two types of one-up control and two types of one-down con­ trol, does not use double codes, nor grammatical format m essage codes, in­ cluding talk-overs, among other differences. These prior know unitizing and coding differences obviously contribute to the lack of comparability. An additional set of research has been conducted for assessing the valid­ ity of the Rogers system (RCCCS) and the closely related Heatherington and Friedlander’s family relational coding system (FRCCCS). Among these inves­ tigations is a study by Heatherington (1988) who evaluated the representa­ tional validity of the RCCCS based on the experiencing m ode described ear­ lier. In a carefully constructed study, a total of 242 undergraduates forming 10 different groups listened to one of five audiotaped interactions desig­ nated as occurring betw een a husband and wife or a counselor and client. Each group listened to an audiotape that contained a high proportion of one of the five types of com plem entary ( T i , i t ) or sym m etrical ( t t , i i ) patterns, intermixed with the four transitory patterns (-»T , t- > , -»A, 4->), included in the interaction, but not as a prominent pattern. After lis­ tening to the tapes, the students rated the interactors’ actual and at­ tempted influence, as well as the predominant relational pattern. The per­ ceptions of the students were congruent with the interaction coding of the RCCCS, except for the data related to the one-down/one-up com plem entary interaction, based on a large num ber of questions and answers. This finding motivated the modification included in the FRCCCS regarding the format­ ting of questions as open and closed, described earlier. An investigation by Tracey and Miars (1986) of th erap ist-client interac­ tion examined the validity of the RCCCS by com paring the dom inance index derived from this system based on the proportion of one-up/one-down com ­ plem entary transacts, with another m easure of dominance based on a pat­ tern of “topic initiation versus topic following” (TI/TF). A m oderate conver­ gence was found betw een the two m easures of dominance, however, the TI/ TF, topic determ ination m easure, indicated that the therapist was m ore of­ ten in the control position than did the RCCCS measure. In the context of brief psychotherapy, Beyebach and Escudero (1997) com pared the TI/TF (Tracey, 1988) coding procedures for indexing symme­ try and com plem entarity and the coding procedures of the FRCCCS in an analysis of the therapeutic interactions of clinical ca ses in which the client continued or discontinued therapy. The TI/TF coding did not show relevant interaction differences betw een the therapy sessions of clients who stayed in therapy or th o se who dropped out of therapy. However, based on the re­

46

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

suits of the FRCCCS coding, theoretically congruent differences in the pat­ terns of relational control were found betw een the two groups. A further validation study by Gaul, Simon, Friedlander, Heatherington, and Cutler (1991) com pared the FRCCCS coding of two family therapy video­ tapes, constructed to include relevant triadic interaction sequ en ces, with the perceptions of 25 experienced family therapists. The results of the study showed a significant correspond ence betw een the therap ists’ percep­ tions and the coding rules of the FRCCCS (for details, see chap. 6). In addition to the studies that have directly examined issues of reliability and validity of the relational control coding system s, there are other stud­ ies that have shown the predictive and/or discriminating ability of these procedures, thus, providing indirect evidence on the validity of these cod­ ing system s. The research reviewed in later chapters of this volume reflect the capacity of the RCCCS and the FRCCCS to discrimination between differ­ ent types of interaction system s (clinical and nonclinical couples, organic and m echanistic organizations, etc.). Overall, substantial evidence of valid­ ity has been obtained.

C O N C L U S IO N In tracing the evolution of the coding system s for observing relational com ­ munication, the influence of the operational approach of Sluzki and Beavin (1965) is clearly evident. Building off this original work, later coding sys­ tem s have progressively refined and expanded our ability to tap more com ­ plex asp ects of the interactive p ro cesses of com m unication. Furtherm ore, the established reliability and validity of these observational procedures give cred ence to the utility of this approach for capturing the relational qualities of interaction. Hopefully, the descriptions and illustrated applica­ tions of these coding procedures have dem onstrated and given life to how these patterned qualities com e into being in the ongoing, mutual adapta­ tions of relational m em bers to one another.

REFERENCES Ayers, J., & Miura, S. Y. (1981). Construct and predictive validity of instruments for coding rela­ tional control. Western Journal o f Speech Communication, 45, 159-171. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bakeman, R., McArthur, D., & Quera, V. (1996). Detecting group differences in sequential associa­ tion using sampled permutations: Log odds, kappa, and phi compared. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 446-457.

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

47

Barbatsis, G. S., Wong, M. R., & Herek, G. M. (1983). A struggle for dominance: Relational commu­ nication patterns in television drama. Communication Quarterly, 31, 148-155. Bateson, G. (1958). Naven (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Beyebach, M., & Escudero, V. (1997). Therapeutic interaction and dropout: Measuring relational communication in solution-focused therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 19, 173-212. Bohn, E., & Bock, D. G. (1980, November). A study of the predictive validity of the relational control paradigm. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association convention, New York, NY. Brouillet, M., & Deaudelin, C. (1994). Étude écosystém ique d’un entretien de supervision de stage [Ecosystem ic analysis of a supervisory practice meeting]. Revue des Sciences de i Éducation, 20, 443-466. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreem ent for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa nominal scale agreem ent with provisions for scales disagree­ ment of partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213-220. Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1980). Message control intensity as a predictor of transactional redundancy. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 199-216). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1983). A new m easure of interactional control pat­ terns. Communication, 12, 47-68. Ellis, D., Fisher, B. A., Drecksei, G. L., Hoch, D., & Werbel, W. (1976). A system for analyzing rela­ tional communication. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Erchul, W. P. (1987). A relational communication analysis of control in school consultation. Pro­ fessional School Psychology, 2, 113-124. Ericson, P. M., & Rogers, L. E. (1973). New procedures for analyzing relational communication. Family Process, 12, 245-267. Escudero, V., Lopez, S., & Platas, L. (1998). Discusiones familiares en el hogar: Los ninos en el contexto de la rivalidad y el conflicto [Everyday family discussions: Children in a context of com petition and conflict]. In J. A. Rios (Ed.), El malestaren la familia (pp. 51-86). Madrid: Edi­ torial Centro de Estudios Ramôn Areces. Fairhurst, G. T. (1990). Supplemental coding rules and modification of the relational control coding scheme. Unpublished manuscript. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1983). Predicting couples communication from couples’ self-reports. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 49-82). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley. Folger, J. P., Hewes, D., & Poole, M. S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (pp. 115-161). New York: Ablex. Folger, J. P., & Poole, M. S. (1982). Relational coding schem es: The question of validity. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 235-247). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Folger, J. P., & Puck, S. (1976, April). Coding relational communication: A question approach. Paper presented at the International Communication Association convention, Portland, OR. Folger, J. P., & Sillars, A. (1980). Relational coding and perceptions of dominance. In B. Morse & L. Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal communication: A relational perspective (pp. 322-333). Minneapo­ lis: Burgess. Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Wildman, J. (1991). Interpersonal control in structural and Milan system ic family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 395-408. Gaul, R., Simon, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Cutler, C. (1991). Correspondence of family therapists’ perceptions with the FRCCCS coding rules for triadic interactions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 379-394. Haley. J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton.

48

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

Hawkins, R. P., & Dotson, V. A. (1975). Reliability scores that deluce: An Alice in Wonderland trip of the misleading characteristics of interobserver agreem ent scores in interval recording. In E. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior analysis: Areas of research and application (pp. 359-376). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Heatherington, L. (1988). Coding relational control in counseling: Criterion validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 41-46. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family Relational Communication Control Coding System. Unpublished manuscript, Williams College, Williamstown, MA. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990a). Applying task analysis to structural family ther­ apy. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 36-48. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990b). Complementarity and symmetry in family ther­ apy communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 261-286. Holte, A., Wichstrom, L., Erno, K. 0 ., & Kveseth, K. (1987). Confirmatory feedback in families of schizophrenics: Theory, methods, and preliminary results. In K. Hahlweg & M. J. Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding mental disorder: The contribution of the family (pp. 139-155). New York: Family Process Publishing. Lichtenberg, J. W., & Barké, K. H. (1981). Investigation of transactional communication relation­ ship patterns in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 471-480. Mark, R. A. (1971). Coding communication at the relational level. Journal of Communication, 21, 221-232. McNeilis, K. S., & Thompson, T. L. (1995). The impact of relational control on patient com pliance in dentist/patient interactions. In G. Kreps & D. O’Hair (Eds.), Communication and health out­ comes (pp. 57-72). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Noldus, P. J. J. L., Trienes, R. J. H., Hendriksen, A. H. M., Jansen, H., & Jansen, R. G. (2000). The Ob­ server Video-Pro: New software for the collection, management, and presentation of timestructured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods, Instru­ ments, & Computers, 32, 197-206. O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1981). Relational communication: A comparison of coding schem es. Com­ munication Monographs, 48, 91-105. O’Hair, D. (1989). Dimensions of relational communication and control during physician-patient interactions. Health Communication, 2, 97-115. Rogers, L. E. (1972a). Dyadic systems and transactional communication in a family context. Unpub­ lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Rogers, L. E. (1972b). Relational Communication Control Coding System. Unpublished manual. (Available from L. Edna Rogers, Department of Communication, 255 S. Central Campus Drive, Rm 2400, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112) Rogers, L. E., Courtright, J. A., & Millar, F. E. (1980). M essage control intensity: Rationale and pre­ liminary findings. Communication Monographs, 47, 201-219. Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New m eas­ urement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239. Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: A transactional view. Human Communication Research, 5, 238-246. Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1982). The question of validity: A pragmatic response. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 249-257). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Scheflen, A. E. (1974). How behavior means. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Siegel, S. M., Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1992). Nonverbal relational control in family communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 117-139. Sluzki, C., & Beavin, J. (1965). Simetría y Complementariedad: Una definición operacional y una tipología de diadas [Symmetry and com plementarity: An operational definition and a typol­ ogy of dyads]. Acta psiquiátrica y psicológica de America Latina, 11, 321-330. Sluzki, C., & Beavin, J. (1977). Symmetry and com plementarity: An operational definition and a typology of dyads. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds. & Trans.), The interactional view (pp.

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

49

71-87). New York: Norton. (Reprinted from Acta psiquiátrica y psicológica de America Latina, 1965, 11, 321-330) Suen, H. K. (1988). Agreement, reliability, accuracy, and validity: Toward a clarification. Behav­ ioral Assessment, 10, 343-366. Tracey, T. J. (1988). Topic following/not following as a measure of com plementary/sym metrical communication. Journal of Communication Therapy, 4, 37-57. Tracey, T. J., & Miars, R. D. (1986). Interpersonal control in psychotherapy: A com parison of two definitions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 585-595. Tullar, W. L. (1989). Relational control in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychol­ ogy, 74, 971-977. Wichstrom, L., & Holte, A. (1988). The relationship control coding system manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

CHAPTER

3 Analyzing Relational Communication Valentín Escudero University o f La Coruna

L. Edna Rogers University o f Utah

To explore patterns of relational communication, it is obviously important to use analytical procedures that are not at odds with the theoretical para­ digm of this approach. In other words, it would not make sense to theorize that the relationship is the focus of relational communication, and then pro­ ceed to base the analysis solely on individual behavior. Although this type of information may add to the overall analysis, the primary objective is to study sequentially patterned interaction (Rogers, Millar, & Bavelas, 1985). Thus, this chapter focuses on analytical techniques that enable us to exam­ ine the emergent structure and pattern of interpersonal relationships. We begin with an introductory description of pattern identification, followed by a detailed discussion of relational communication data analysis procedures and illustrative research examples. A basic understanding of these procedures is relatively simple if we start by describing the type of relational information obtained from our observa­ tions. Any behavior emitted by one interactor in an interpersonal context can potentially affect the subsequent behavior of the other interactor and at the same time be affected by the other’s preceding behavior. In a situa­ tion where a given behavior limits the response options of the other it is easier to predict what the response will be. For example, if a person gives what is considered an appropriately expressed order, a likely response is that the other person will obey this order. When this sequence is highly probable within a relationship, that is, when it is relatively easy to predict that a message giving an order tends to be followed by compliance, the con­

51

52

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

junction of these two behaviors (an order-com plian ce interchange) offers specific relational information. Based on this type of information, the inter­ acto rs’ relationship can be characterized and defined in term s of the se­ quential association of their interactive exchange of behaviors. The identifi­ cation of p attern d oes not imply a cau sal relatio n sh ip betw een the observed behaviors, but a probabilistic one. Although it may be the case that certain behaviors are more likely to fol­ low other behaviors in a given interpersonal setting, it is also possible to find other behaviors that are not sequentially associated with any type of preceding behavior. In other words, the occu rrence of a given behavior does not tend to vary as a function of prior, antecedent behaviors. With this type of interchange, the relational information obtained from the study of observed behaviors is obviously different than in the previous situation. For instance, one may find that the probability of a com pliant response of one person, following an order given by another, does not deviate from the probability of responding with com pliance to any other type of prior behav­ ior (instruction, request, suggestion, etc.). The result does not differ, then, from what is term ed unconditional probability, or from a randomly ex­ pected com pliant response. The relational information, in this case, indi­ cates that an order-com plian ce pattern of com plem entarity, is not a defin­ ing ch aracteristic of the relationship. Based on these considerations, Gottman (1979) defined relational infor­ mation in term s of probability estim ates, such that a specific behavior of an interactor provides relational information if it reduces the uncertainty of the behavior of the other person. More specifically, the probability of a be­ havior following the behavior given in a previous sp eech turn (o r lag), is re­ ferred to as the transitional probability. If for instance, the behavior of a wife, categorized as one-up (T), has a greater probability of occu rren ce when it is preceded by a one-up (T ) behavior by her husband than when it is not pre­ ceded by this behavior, a type of constriction in the interactional sequence is observed. In this case, the constriction provides information regarding the sym m etrical (TT), com petitive nature of the relationship. Thus, event-based transitional probabilities provide an operational iden­ tification of pattern based on the detection of sequential association, such that the probability of a given behavior of one m em ber increases signifi­ cantly (with resp ect to the unconditional probability) when preceded by a particular behavior by the other mem ber. However, in applying this ap­ proach, a series of conditions need to be taken into account for identifying a pattern as being relevant (i.e., significant) rather than a randomly occur­ ring event. These conditions are related to the system of codification used, the number of behaviors observed, and the m anner in which the sequential dependence of these behaviors is com puted. Of the available research op­ tions, the analytical approach taken here utilizes a set of procedures de­

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

53

signed by Bakeman and Quera (1995a) that are particularly well suited for d escribing the sequential association of relational com m unication m essage codes and conducting different types of com parative analysis. Before taking up these procedures, two general issues are noted regard­ ing the analysis of relational com m unication. First, as described in the pre­ vious chapter, the d atabase consists of coded accounts of m essage behav­ ior derived from the perspective of trained, external observers. Thus, the analysis and the interpretation of relational patterns rest on and are limited to an outsider view of the com m unication behaviors as seen through the lens of the relational coding system . Second, appropriate interpretations of the relational information recognize that certain patterned results may be associated with particular interaction contexts and not others. For exam ­ ple, a com petitive pattern might characterize the participants’ discussions in one context, and not be ch aracteristic of other areas of discussion. Un­ less the research is designed to com pare interaction patterns acro ss differ­ ent com m unication or relational contexts, caution needs to be taken to not overgeneralize the results beyond the interpretative boundaries of the re­ search. Given th ese considerations, we turn to a description of relational com m unication data analysis procedures. T hese analytical procedures rep­ resent a relatively straightforward, progressive set of m ethods that are de­ scribed, step by step, from the recording of codified behaviors to the types of analysis that allow us to answer questions about com plex interaction patterns.

FIRST STEP: T H E R EPRESENTATIO N OF R E LA TIO N A L C O M M U N IC A T IO N SEQUENCES As previously discussed, the operationalization of relational com m unica­ tion is based on coding each speech turn according to the format and re­ sponse mode categories in term s of their function within the relational con­ text created by the preceding m essage. The possibility of a speech turn being double coded was also indicated. With this coding system , interac­ tion seq u ences are typically represented as chains of m essage cod es re­ corded in the sequential order in which they occur. T here are, however, a num ber of different ways of representing interactional events. An important m ethodological consideration is to establish a standardized system for clearly delineating the alternative forms for recording the sequential data used in interaction research. This type of standardization facilitates the clarification and com parison of studies by different research ers in different contexts, and thus, the potential synthesis of research results. A proposal for meeting th ese concerns is the Sequential Data Inter­ change Standard (SDIS), a system developed by Bakeman and Quera (1992)

54

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

for formatting different forms of sequential data. The usefulness of SD1S is reinforced by the fact that the language for representing different types of code sequences is coordinated with a computer program, the Generalized Sequential Querier (GSEQ; Bakeman & Quera, 1995a), which allows for the analysis of sequential data (expressed in SDIS) that is flexible, efficient, and easy to use With this approach, interaction sequences can be expressed in one of the following five modalities: 1. Event Sequences. This modality refers to sequences that consist of a series of codes that are recorded in the order of occurrence; the behavioral codes are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but the duration of the events are not taken into account. This form is usually used in recording relational control codes based on the RCCCS in which each speech turn is considered a coded event independent of the time length of each event. 2. M u ltie v e n t Sequences. Behavioral sequ ences can also be repre­ sented as multievents when various events occur simultaneously. For ex­ ample, the three RCCCS types of code categories can be represented in a multievent format with the speaker, format, and relational response codes occurring simultaneously in each speech turn. 3. S tate Sequences. With this modality one or a series of categories that represent behavioral states and the transition from one state to another are recorded according to the onset and offset of the coded behavioral states. This mode has rarely been used in the analysis of relational communication since the definition of relational control is based on verbal interchange codings characterized as discrete events constituting the dialogue. 4. T im ed Event Sequences. In this format, the events are represented with the duration or time of momentary occurrence by either the onset, or onset-offset recorded times of each event. The categorized events do not need to be mutually exclusive, and importantly, this format allows the anal­ ysis of different, co-occurring types of behavioral codes. Although this mo­ dality has been infrequently used in relational communication research, it opens up the possibility for more comprehensive, integrated forms of anal­ ysis in future research. An example of this modality is the combined inter­ action analysis of relational control and nonverbal affect (Escudero, Rog­ ers, & Gutiérrez, 1997). This type of sequential representation, however, requires the use of an electronic time recording system such as The Ob­ server Video-Pro system described in chapter 2.

5. In te rv a l Sequences. This format is based on a series of successive timed intervals to which one or more codes are assigned. The time sam­ pling procedure for this mode is not readily compatible with the opera­

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

55

tionalization of relational control by RCCCS or FRCCCS, becau se these cod ­ ing system s use the context of the m essage or chain of previous m essages as the principal reference point. Given the different sequential modalities, the first step in the analysis of relational com m unication is to identify the type of representation of the re­ corded data. For example, the format may be based on the three codes rep­ resenting the speaker, m essage format, and response mode categories as m ultievents or the transform ation of the these codes into control direction codes. Figure 3.1 shows the data file of a sampled interaction betw een a m other (M O) and her adolescent daughter (DA) represented as multievent sequ ences in the SDIS format, with the separation of the speech turns indi­ cated with a dot. For each sp eech turn, the three types of observations coded by the FRCCCS are sim ultaneously categorized according to the speaker, format, and response mode. Obviously, the codes could also be represented as single events; for example, MOASRSUP would represent a speech turn with the m other (MO) expressing an assertive (ASR), support (SUP) m essage. Note, this m other-d aughter exam ple is used to illustrate the data analysis procedures throughout the chapter. The use of a single dyad is only for the purpose of simplifying these presentations; a full scale research study would obviously be based on a larger sam ple of relation­ ships (dyads or groups) and m ore extended sets of interaction data for each of the units studied. The inclusion of event time, as suggested earlier, provides a more com ­ plete representation of the interaction; it not only allows the concurrent coding of different aspects of the com m unication process, but also ideo­ graphic descriptions of interaction patterns as well as different group com ­ parison designs. And if desired, time data can easily be converted to dis­ crete events autom atically with current data processing programs. Figure 3.2 presents the sam e m other-daughter data as in Fig. 3.1, but transform ed into the FRCCCS relational control direction codes, with the initial time for each speech turn indicated in the SDIS format.

SEC O N D STEP: IN F O R M A T IO N BASED O N T H E SIMPLE FR EQ U EN C Y OF BEHAVIORS Although the relational focus is based on the notion of sequence, it is often informative to base a first analysis on the observed frequency of individual relational control codes. As an example of this type of information, Table 3.1 presents a com parison of selected types of one-up m essages of the m other and daughter and the average control intensity of these m essages. As observed, the daughter gives off nonsupport and disconfirming m es­ sages, while the m other uses three regulative types of one-up m essages (o r­ der and instruction) plus disapproving (nonsupport) m essages. In accor-

% Data from coding the dyadic interaction between a Mother and her adolescent Daughter % Coding System: FRCCCS. Codes are used instead of digits. % Each speech turn is represented as a raultievent code: % The Speaker: Mother (MO), and Daughter (DA) % The Format: Assertion (ASR), Open Question (OQU), Closed Question (CQU), % Successful Overtalk(SOT), Unsuccessful Overtalk (UOT), Incomplete (INC), % and Interception (INT) % The Relational Response Mode: % Support (SUP), Nonsupport(NSP), Extension(EXT), % Answer to Open Question (AOQ), Answer to Closed Question (ACQ), % Instruction (INS), Order (ORD), Disconfirmation (DCF), Topic Change (TOC) Multievent ($SPEAKER= MO DA) ($FORMAT* ASR OQU CQU SOT UOT INC INT) ($STYL3=SUP NSP EXT AOQ ACQ INS ORD DCF CTO); MO CQU INS. DA ASR NSP. MO CQU NSP. DA ASR NSP. MO OQU EXT. DA ASR NSP. MO OQU EXT. DA ASR AOQ. MO ASR EXT. DA ASR EXT. MO ASR EXT. DA ASR SUP. MO ASR NSP. DA ASR DCF. MO ASR INS. DA ASR NSP. MO OQU EXT. DA ASR SUP. MO OQU EXT. DA ASR AOQ. MO ASR SUP. DA ASR EXT. MO ASR NSP. DA ASR EXT. MO ASR NSP. DA ASR NSP. MO ASR NSP. DA SOT NSP. MO UOT NSP. DA UOT NSP. MO ASR NSP. DA ASR DCF. MO ASR ORD. DA ASR DCF. MO ASR EXT. DA ASR EXT. MO ASR EXT. DA OQU SUP. MO ASR SUP. DA ASR EXT. MO ASR EXT. DA ASR EXT. MO ASR SUP. DA ASR EXT. MO ASR SUP. DA CQU EXT. MO ASR ACQ. DA CQU EXT. MO ASR ACQ. DA ASR NSP. MO ASR SUP. DA ASR SUP. MO ASR SUP. DA ASR EXT. MO ASR SUP. DA ASR SUP. MO CQU SUP. DA ASR SUP/

FIG. 3.1. Example of a SDIS file representing relational control interaction as multievent sequences.

% Data from coding the dyadic interaction between a Mother and her adolescent Daughter % Coding System: FRCCCS. Relational control codes % Each speech turn is represented as SDIS State format. % The Speaker: Mother (MO), and Daughter (DA) % Control codes: oneup, onedown, and oneacross. State ($MOTHER= MOoneup, MOonedown, MOoneacross) ($DAUGHTER= DAoneup, DAonedown, DAoneacross); MConeup,00:00 DAoneup,00:11 MOoneup,00:32 DAoneup,00:35 MOonedown,00:44 DAoneup,00:48 MOonedown,00:51 DAoneup,00:54 MOoneacross,00:58 DAoneacross,01:59 MOoneacross,02:15 DAonedown,04:09 XOoneup,04:12 DAoneup,04:20 MOoneup,04:26 DAoneup,04:30 MOonedown,04:42 DAonedown,04:46 MOonedown,04:51 DAoneup,04:57 MOonedown,05:20 DAoneacross,05:28 MOoneup,06:40 DAoneacross,07:02 MOoneup,C7:15 DAoneup,08:02 MOoneup,08:12 DAoneup, 09:11 MOoneup,C9:20 DAoneup,09:22 MOoneup,09:25 DAoneup, 10:12 MOoneup,10:18 DAoneup,10:30 MOoneacross,10:34 DAoneacross,12:02 MOoneacross,12:23 DAonedown,15:10 MOonedown,15:16 DAoneacross,15:30 MOoneacross,15:56 DAoneacross,17:40 MOonedown,18:36 DAoneacross,18:38 MOonedown,19:02 DAoneup,19:31 MOonedown,19:35 DAoneup,19:41 MOoncdown,19:44 DAoneup,19:47 MOonedown,19:51 DAonedown,20:23 MOonedown,20:34 DAoneacross,21:50 MOonedown,22:52 DAonedown,23:31 MOonedown,23:35 DAonedown,23:52 ,23:54/

FIG. 3.2. Example of a SDIS file representing relational control codes with on­ set and offset times.

56

57

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION TABLE 3.1 Frequency and Control Intensity for Selected Types of One-Up M essages of M other and Daughter

High Intensity One-Up Control Codes

Frequency

M other Disconfirmation Mother Order Mother Instructions M other Nonsupport M other's Control Intensity Average

0 1 2 7 28.00

Daughter Disconfirmation Daughter Order Daughter Instructions Daughter Nonsupport Daughter’s Control Intensity Average

3 0 0 8 31.27

dance with the m easure of control intensity (Rogers, Courtright, & Millar, 1980), the one-up control style of the daughter is slightly m ore intense than that of her mother. A com mon objective in much of the research on relational com m unica­ tion is the com parison of relational control differences betw een groups, for example, betw een clinical and nonclinical couples engaged in sim ilar types of discussions (Escudero et al., 1997), or the control behaviors of therapists and clients during therapy sessions (B eyebach & Escudero, 1997). In gen­ eral, when those com parisons are based on the frequencies of individual control codes, standard param etric tests (e.g., t tests or analysis of vari­ an ce) are adequate if the usual param etric precautions, such as the normal distribution of scores, are taken into account. The simple estim ation of the relative frequency of the three types of con­ trol directions defined by the RCCCS, provides indexes that have been of utility in different kinds of research (M illar & Rogers, 1987; Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983; Rogers-Millar & Millar, 1979). One of these indexes, labeled domi­ neeringness, is based on the num ber of one-up attem pts by an interactor to assert control in a relationship. The calculation of dom ineeringness is sim­ ply the relative frequency of a participant’s one-up ( t ) m essages (i.e., the num ber of one-up m essages of an interactor with resp ect to total num ber of m essages em itted by that interactor in the interaction sam ple analyzed). In the sam e way the relative frequency of one-down (4-) behaviors provides an index of “subm issiveness,” and the relative frequency of the one-across (-» ) behaviors, an index of neutrality or “levelingness.” Thus, based on these m easures of relative frequency, interactors can be com pared in different situations, contexts, or groups. An initial question concerning th ese indices of relational control is: What is the relationship betw een the dom ineeringness of an in teractor

58

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

and receiving an accepting, subm issive resp on se from the oth er interac­ tor? This question leads to relating the frequency with which an in teractor displays one-up behaviors with the frequency with which th ese behaviors are sequentially followed by subm issive one-down behaviors. T he pattern of one-up/one-down com plem entarity rep resen ts this type of interchange in which dom ineering behavior ( t ) is a ssociated with an a ccep ta n ce/a p ­ proval resp on se ( ¿ ) . This interactional index is referred to as dominance ( U ) . Domineeringness and dominance are independent indexes; each rep­ resen ts a different level of d escription, m onadic, and dyadic. T able 3.2 show s how dom ineeringness and dom inance are com puted based on the m o th er-d au gh ter interaction. In this exam ple, although a third of the m other’s m essages are one-up, none are followed by a subm issive re­ sponse. For the daughter, a clea r difference is noted; m ore than half of her m essages are one-up, with alm ost half receiving a one-down resp on se by the m other. Taking into account the time duration of the m essages exchanged pro­ vides another of the possible ways of describing and com paring the com ­ municative behaviors of the individual participants of an interaction. With the use of an autom ated time registration instrument, a research er can track the time duration of each speech turn allowing an expanded descrip­ tion of the interactors’ m essage control behavior. Computer programs of sequential analysis such as the General Sequential Querier (GSEQ; Bake­ man & Quera, 1995a) autom atically provide the type of information shown in Table 3.3. Along with the frequency and duration of each control cate­ gory, this table includes information on the relative frequency and rate (fre­ quency in relation to unit of tim e), relative duration (with resp ect to total time of recorded interaction), and the average duration of each type of con ­ trol m essage. For example, with this type of information, we see that al­ though one-across m essages are low in occu rrence, their average duration is much greater than that of one-up or one-down m essages, and that the mean duration of the m other’s m essages is greater than that of the mes­ sages of the daughter.

TABLE 3.2 Domineeringness and Dominance for M other-Daughter Interaction M other’s Domineeringness

.34

(relative frequency o f MO?) M other’s Dominance

.00

(probability o f DAs, given MO? ) Daughter's Domineeringness

.53

(relative frequency of DA?) Daughter’s Dominance

(probability o f MO^, given DA?)

.46

59

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION TABLE 3.3 Frequency and Time Measures for the Mother-Daughter Interaction

RELControl Codes MOt MOi M0-> DAT DAJ. DA-»

Frequency

Relative Frequency

Rate

Duration (seconds)

Relative Duration

Average Duration

1U 14 5 15 6 8

.17 .24 .08 .26 .10 .14

.42 .58 .21 .63 .25 .33

215 243 534 121 31 290

.15 .17 .37 .08 .02 .20

21.50 17.36 106.80 8.07 5.17 36.25

T H IR D STEP: EX A M IN IN G THE EXISTENCE OF RELATIONAL STRUCTURE Although indices based on individual codes offer basic, and often relevant information, with this step we move increasingly toward the analysis of in­ teraction sequences, beginning with transactional interchanges. The first step in analyzing these interchanges is to com pose transition tables based on the control direction of the behaviors observed. The observations re­ corded in the mother-daughter interaction example (Fig. 3.2) can be organ­ ized in terms of two types of transition tables, depending on whether or not the speaker order of contiguous messages is taken into account. Table 3.4 represents all types of sequential interchange without considering the speaker designation of the interactors. When the speaking order of the interactors is of interest, the table en­ tries are organized by the antecedent (prior) or consequent (subsequent) position of each interactor at the moment their behaviors are recorded. Therefore, to explore the types of interchange between the mother and daughter based on speaker order, two tables are composed, one with the mother in the antecedent position as show in Table 3.5, and one with the daughter in this position as presented in Table 3.6.

TABLE 3.4 Contingency Table for Relational Control Codes

Consequent Antecedent One-up ( t ) One-down (T ) One-across (->) Totals

One-Up ( V

One-Douin ( I )

15 7 2 24

8 5 20

1

One-Across (-*)

Totals

3 4 6 13

25 19 13 57

60

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS TABLE 3.5 Contingency Table for Relational Control With Mother as Antecedent and Daughter as Consequent Speaker

Consequent Antecedent M other One-up ( t ) M other One-down ( t ) M other One-across (-» ) Totals

Daughter One-Up (\)

Daughter One-Down ( I )

Daughter One-Across (-*)

Totals

9 6 0 15

0 4 2 6

1 4 3 8

10 14 5 29

TABLE 3.6 Contingency Table for Relational Control With Daughter a s Antecedent and Mother as Consequent Speaker

Consequent

Antecedent Daughter One-up (T ) Daughter One-down (T ) Daughter One-across (-* 0 Totals

Mother One-Up (TJ

Mother One-Down ( I )

Mother One-Across (-*)

Totals

6 1

7 4 3 14

2 0 3 5

15 5 8 28

2 9

In examining these tables, the first question con cern s whether or not se­ quential association exist in the table. For example, does the relational re­ sponse of the daughter tend to vary depending on the previous relational m essage of her m other? If we find that the behavior of relational control of the daughter is associated with the control behavior of the mother, we can state that for this interaction, relational structure exists. Once an associa­ tion is established, the specific patterns of relational control that are re­ sponsible for or ch aracteristic of this structure can be examined. We are also able to com pare these patterns in different contexts in order to test specific research hypotheses. An appropriate statistical method used to test the global existen ce of as­ sociation betw een antecedent and consequent relational control behaviors in the interaction is Pearson’s chi-square statistic. For the analysis of con­ tingency tables like those of our example, this statistical test indicates if a significant association exists betw een the behaviors represented in the rows and the behaviors represented in the colum ns. Thus, with the analysis based on the whole table, this statistic is defined as:

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

x2=X

m D -U O J)]2

;

61

cd

Although chi-square offers an estim ate of the sequential association and therefore, evidence of relational structure, a note of caution is needed in in­ terpreting the resulting degree of association, as this value increases with an increasing sam ple size (total number of recorded codes). Another im­ portant asp ect to keep in mind is that the calculation of chi-square is based on an estim ation of the expected frequencies ( 4 rp) of the contingency table studied. These expected frequencies are estim ated from the marginal fre­ quencies of the table, assuming no association betw een rows and columns. When the codes can be repeated sequentially, the expected frequencies are defined as:

go

When it is not possible for two sim ilar cod es to be recorded consecutively, a procedure called “iterative proportional fitting” (Bakem an & Quera, 1995b) can be used. However, the tables com monly produced with the rela­ tional control coding procedures (as shown in Tables 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6) are based on repeatable cod es (a one-up code, for example, can follow another one-up code). It is also the case that the confidence in the chi-square value is not suffi­ cient when working with data tables that result in many, very low-expected frequencies. For this reason, it is helpful when exploring relational struc­ ture with this type of analysis, to use a program that readily provides the expected frequencies or the proportion of expected frequencies of low value. Also note, it is recom m ended that a sim ilar statistic, the LikelihoodRatio Chi-square, G2 (available in the GSEQ program ) be utilized with tables containing more than two dim ensions and as well, with log-linear analysis. To return to our example, the results of analyzing the sequential associa­ tion in Tables 3.5 and 3.6, are given in Table 3.7. Here we observe that a sig­ nificant relational structure exists only in the interaction with the m other as antecedent and the daughter as consequent. The p value is .328 for the d aughter-m other interactions, but the p value approaches zero, .016, for the m other-daughter interactions. T hese results indicate that the relational structure is in one direction (i.e., the relational control behavior of the daughter tends to change as a function of the type of control of the m other). In other words, the findings suggest a unidirectional dependence. If an association had been found with either the m other or the daughter as

62

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS TABLE 3.7 Results of Testing Relational Structure

Pearson's Chi-Square Result for the Interaction Daughter-*Mother

Pearson’s Chi-Square Result for the Interaction Mother-* Daughter

Pearson’s Chi-square Degrees of freedom Approximate p value

Pearson’s Chi-square Degrees of freedom Approximate p value

= 4.621 = 4 = 0.328

(Expected frequencies < 5 = 88.9%)

= 12.052 = 4 = 0.016

(Expected frequencies < 5 = 77.8%)

antecedents, it would indicate a bidirectional dependence. For this example (as shown in Table 3.7), there is a high percentage of very low-expected fre­ quencies which, other than for illustrative purposes, would caution against making inferences about significance. As noted earlier, most relational con­ trol analyses are based on many more observations than in the m otherdaughter example and thus, are typically not subject to the limitations of a small database.

FOURTH STEP: ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC RELATIONAL PATTERNS Generally, studies in relational communication involve research questions related to specific control patterns. For example, it has been observed in studies of clinical couples their discussions of conflict are characterized by a pattern of competitive symmetrical interaction. In this case, in a table con­ sisting of the possible dyadic interchanges, the cell corresponding to the one-up/one-up ( T t ) interchange is central. To test if the frequency of this or other cells of interest in a contingency table are significant, an index re­ ferred to as Adjusted Residual (Bakeman & Quera, 1995a; Haberman, 1978) can be used. It is defined as:

" ^ exp(‘, m - p u w - t i 0 ] The adjusted residuals are a normalized version of the difference that exists between the observed and expected transition frequencies. Therefore, they indicate if the consequent behavior is influenced significantly by the antece­ dent behavior. But it must be recognized that computing the adjusted residu­ als makes sense only when the results of the chi-square indicate that sequen­ tial association exists in a table overall. The adjusted residuals for the mother-daughter interaction with the control messages of the mother taken as antecedent to the daughter’s response are given in Table 3.8.

63

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION TABLE 3.8 Adjusted Residuals for M other-Daughter Interaction

Consequent

Antecedent Mother One-up ( t ) Mother One-down ( t ) Mother One-across (-» )

Daughter One-Up (T)

Daughter One-Down ( I )

Daughter One-Across (-*)

2.99 -0.92 -2.54

-2 .0 0 1.01 1.17

-1.54 0.11 1.78

Adjusted residuals can have a positive or negative sign. Using a signifi­ cance level of p < .05, adjusted residual values greater or equal to +1.96 indi­ cate that the consequent behavior is activated by the antecedent behavior; values below or equal to -1 .9 6 indicate that the consequent behavior is in­ hibited by the antecedent behavior. The results in Table 3.8 show that the one-up behaviors of the m other are significantly associated with the daugh­ ter’s one-up behavior, thus, evidencing a pattern of com petitive symmetry (MT,DT). We also observe that the m other’s one-up behaviors not only acti­ vate com petitive behavior by the daughter, but they also inhibit the daugh­ te r’s subm issive, one-down ( i ) behaviors. Furtherm ore, the m other’s oneacro ss m essages (-» ) inhibit the daughter’s one-up (T ) m essages. As with all statistical tests, certain conditions need to be met for the ap­ propriate application of this form of analysis and the interpretation of the results. The normal approximation of the adjusted residuals can not be met when the transition tables are based on a small sample of recorded codes or an unbalanced sam ple of codes with very high frequencies of som e codes and low frequencies of others. It is indispensable that the ch aracter­ istics of the transition tables be clearly recognized before interpreting sta­ tistical significance. The GSEQ program for carrying out this analysis indi­ cates which of the adjusted residuals do not m eet the conditions for a normal approximation. In the case of the exam ple used here, the sam ple is too small for the adjusted residuals to m eet the conditions described; but it is used to serve as an illustrate of this type of analysis. For exploring relational structure, a more typical analysis of the relational control transition table involves carrying out statistical com parisons based on the nine relational control transactions (even more if we analyze inter­ changes on the basis of the response mode codes). A useful recommendation when facing the possibility of finding significant results by chance (Type I er­ ror) is to apply the correction of Bonferroni to reduce the probability of this type of error. It consists of dividing the conventional alpha level of .05 by the number of com parisons. In a typical table of relational control (9 cells) this correction requires the use of a .005 level for each cell.

64

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

N onetheless, it seem s especially advisable to approach the analysis of these contingency tables in a system atic m anner due to the fact that the re­ lational patterns (represented in the different cells of the tab le) are interre­ lated. Quera and Bakeman (1999) described a procedure referred to as the “winnowing technique,” developed on the basis of a number of different contributions (Brown, 1974; Bakeman & Quera, 1995b; Bakeman, Robinson, & Quera, 1996). In general term s, the winnowing technique consists of ex­ tracting one by one the statistically significant adjusted residuals from the contingency table, substituting them with structural zeros (a zero assigned to the table cell in order to test its effect on the analysis of the table overall) and analyzing the modified tables until the chi-square statistic of the table is not significant. By m eans of this procedure, one can d etect the interac­ tion patterns that have significant adjusted residuals and that are independ­ ent of each other. The technique proposed by Quera and Bakeman (1999) elim inates cells from the contingency table as a function of the absolute value of Haberm an’s (1978) adjusted residuals found at the time of starting the winnowing p rocess. With this analysis, the cells that with every winnowing step go from having a significant residual to a nonsignificant one in the following step are identified, th ereby indicating the relationship of these changes in significance with the cells eliminated in each step. This technique considers all the redundancies, and thus, allows one to correctly d etect the relevant, independent interaction patterns. It further allows the detection of patterns that are redundant with respect to a particular pattern that one is inter­ ested in analyzing. Accordingly, the winnowing process can begin with the cell with the greatest residual magnitude, or with a cell of particular inter­ est for identifying relevant transactional patterns. By applying the winnowing technique to the table of adjusted residuals (T able 3.8) for the m other-d aughter example, it is observed as shown in Ta­ ble 3.9, that only the pattern of com petitive sym m etry is relevant in terms of this interaction sample. In line with this technique, once the com petitive sym m etrical (T T ) cell is substituted with a structural zero, the analysis of the resulting table does not show any further significant relational struc­ ture. The adjusted residuals of the other transactional patterns and the re­ sulting chi-square value are given in Table 3.9.

FIFTH STEP: T H E C O M PA R ISO N OF DIFFERENCES B ETW EEN GROUPS Apart from examining the relational structure of an interpersonal system and analyzing specific interaction patterns, an investigator is often inter­ ested in com paring the com m unication patterns of different types of groups

65

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION TABLE 3.9 Results of the Winnowing Analysis WINNOWING

STEP

1:

*Zeroed cell: 1 1 XSQ(3) = 4.04541 GSQ(3) = 5.87841

Given: MOup p = 0.255 p = 0.115

Target : DAup

ADJUSTED RESIDUALS: DAup 0.00* 1.64 -1.73

DAdown -0.80 -0.11 0.61

DAacross 0.75

1 I—» £> 00

MOup MOdown MOacross

l.ii

using parametric analyses. The investigation of the relational control differ­ ences of clinical and nonclinical couples by Escudero et al. (1997) is repre­ sentative of this type of analysis. A common procedure used to conduct a study of this type consists of the following set of procedures: 1. analyzing each couple (or study unit) for the existence of relational structure, 2. analyzing each couple for the significance of specific patterns of rela­ tional control (for instance, if competitive symmetry or one-down complementarity are activated or inhibited), and 3. carrying out parametric analyses to compare the specific patterns be­ tween groups. An important consideration if one opts to use these analytical proce­ dures is that the indices described earlier (i.e., the transition probability or the adjusted residuals) are not appropriate scores for carrying out para­ metric analyses. Although the adjusted residuals can be useful for detecting significant interaction patterns in a contingency table (one in which the ex­ istence of relational structure has previously been detected), these indexes are affected by the size of the sample, that is, by the number of observa­ tions recorded in a sequential contingency table (Morley, 1987; Wampold, 1992). Thus, adjusted residuals can only be used as appropriate scores for a parametric analysis when each dyad or interpersonal system included in the analysis have the same number of recorded observations. Bakeman, McArthur, and Quera (1996), as well as Yoder and Feurer (2000) examined and compared the results of different indexes of sequential association, specifically the Odds Ratio, Yule’s Q, Kappa, and Phi, which in contrast to adjusted residuals, are not affected by the size of the sample. With the ex­

66

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

ception of a few disadvantages of the transform ed kappa (Wampold, 1989), the other indexes offered only subtle differences. These indexes are applicable for 2 x 2 tables, hence, a prior operation to computing these indexes of sequential association is the transform ation of the contingency tables into 2 x 2 tables. The procedure for collapsing a typi­ cal table obtained from the RCCCS is a simple one, as illustrated in the fol­ lowing example. For the M otherT-D aughterT pattern, the 3 x 3 table pre­ sented in Table 3.5 can be broken down into the 2 x 2 table shown in Table 3.10, with the letters A, B, C, and D indicating the four resulting cells. The Phi coefficient, suggested initially by Morley (1987) as a sequential association index, is a com mon index for 2 x 2 tables that corresponds to the Pearson correlation coefficient com puted for binary coded data (o ccu r­ rence or nonoccurrence of the code). Phi can vary betw een - 1 and +1; the extrem e positive and negative values are the maximum association of acti­ vation and inhibition, respectively, with zero indicating th ere is no associa­ tion. In the research mentioned earlier (Escudero et al., 1997), phi was used as an index in the sequential analyses of relational com m unication patterns for carrying out param etric com parisons betw een clinical and nonclinical couples. Recognize, however, the use of this coefficient is inappropriate when analyzing tables in which the total frequencies of rows and columns are disproportionate. This disproportionality affects the maximum value possible for phi, independent of the magnitude of the association between the analyzed behaviors (Cureton, 1959; Yoder & Feurer, 2000). Therefore, in com paring dyads or groups (e.g., couples or fam ilies) based on dispropor­ tionate tables of data, it may be the case that similar sequential associa­ tions will produce different phi values. Of the four indexes examined, Yule’s Q appears to be the m ost recom ­ mended (Bakem an et al., 1996; Yoder & Feurer, 2000). This index is derived from the Odds Ratio, but is easier to interpret. As with phi, Yule’s Q has a minimum value of -1 , which represents the greatest inhibitory type of se­ quential association and a maximum value of +1, which indicates the great­ est activation of sequential association. A value of zero indicates that no sequential association exists between the antecedent and consequent be­ havior. The calculation of Yule’s Q for the pattern of com petitive sym m etry (MTDT), based on Table 3.10, resulted in a value of .90. TABLE 3.10 Example of a 2 x 2 Table for Analyzing Competitive Symmetry

Consequent Antecedent M other T M other NO t

Daughter T 9 6

(A) (C)

Daughter NO t 1 13

(B ) (D)

67

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Q _ a d —be _ 1 1 7 - 6 _ 90

ad+bc

117 + 6

(4)

In this formula, if the value of the A or D cells and the B or C cells is 0, Yule’s Q can not be com puted. In our example there are no zeros, and the Yule’s Q value reflects that the sequential association betw een the MotherTDaughterT behaviors is greater than the randomly estim ated associa­ tion of these types of behaviors. Specifically, the result represents an acti­ vation of t behaviors in the daughter by t behaviors of the m other. When based on a larger num ber of dyads (e.g., a sample of m others and daugh­ ters), the Yule’s Q values can also serve as the basis for carrying out para­ m etric types of analysis. Among the advantages of Yule’s Q, described by Yoder and Feurer (2000), are: (a ) the fact that the com putational formula of Yule’s Q does not use the marginal frequencies of the table (the total of each binary recording in rows and colum ns), (b ) this index is adequate for retrosp ective sequen­ tial analyses (to explore, for example, the probability of T, 4, and -» behav­ iors of the m other appearing before a t response of the daughter, by re­ cording these sequ ences “backw ards”), and (c ) the adaptation of Yule’s Q as a m easurem ent of a dependent variable in group param etric designs, be­ cau se its distribution approaches a normal distribution and its mean ap­ p roaches zero (Bakem an et al., 1996). A precaution to keep in mind for the use of this index is the total number of recorded codes and the frequency with which the type of transaction being analyzed occurs. The com putation of Yule’s Q is not very reliable with limited observations; as a general rule, when working with a coding system consisting of three codes, it is n eces­ sary to consider that the frequency of the pattern being studied (cell A in our exam ple) be at least 10 (w hich is not met with only 9 codes in this cell).

S IX T H STEP: T H E E X A M IN A T IO N OF MORE C O M PLEX R E L A T IO N A L PATTERNS: D IR E C T IO N A L IT Y , R ECIPRO CITY, PREPONDERANCE, EPISODES, A N D C O N T E X T U A L MARKERS An obvious goal, as well as challenge, of relational research is to identify m ore of the interactional com plexities of interpersonal system s. Although particular research questions will guide the type of analysis required, what follows is a discussion of different ways of expanding relational com m unica­ tion pattern descriptions.

68

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

Directionality, Reciprocity and Preponderance of Pattern As dem onstrated earlier, pattern directionality rests on an examination of w hether or not speaker order significantly influences the resulting patterns of sequential exchange. To briefly review, let us assum e we find a pattern of relational control that is independent of speaker order, that is, independent of which interactor’s m essage is taken as the prior (an teced en t) or su b se­ quent (co nseq u ent) m essage in the ongoing exchange of contiguous mes­ sages. More specifically, let us suppose that in a marital couples’ interac­ tion, the t behaviors of the husband significantly activate the subsequent I behaviors of the wife, and likewise the t behaviors of the wife significantly activate the subsequent I behaviors of the husband. In this case, the result­ ing pattern represents a bidirectional activation of one-up com plem entary reciprocity. This pattern of reciprocal com plem entarity is based on two dyadic patterns which in com bination indicate that the interactors tend to interchange their control positions in a relatively equal manner. In contrast, recall that when speaker order m atters a pattern of uni­ directionality is indicated. Such is the case, for example, if a wife signifi­ cantly responds with t behaviors to her husband’s t m essages, but the re­ verse is not the case, that is, the husband does not significantly respond with t m essages to the t behaviors of the wife. If, however, in relation to this example, a significant activation of com petitive sym m etry is found in­ dependent of the husband or wife speaker order (i.e., who initiates or fol­ lows), the results, as previously indicated, would represent a reciprocal, bidirectional pattern. Note that even though the pattern is bidirectional, the possibility exists for one of the speaker-ordered sequ ences to result in a stronger activation of the pattern than the other. The concept of pattern preponderance refers to this differential strength of association. Figure 3.3 outlines the principal patterns of interaction based on the dif­ ferent forms of directionality, reciprocity and preponderance, along with corresponding types of analysis, and relational com m unication examples. The exam ples given are based on com plem entary and sym m etrical pat­ terns, but these procedures can be applied to any of the relational control transactions, including transitory transacts, as well as the different forms of sym m etry and com plem entarity. As noted earlier, a prior condition for car­ rying out the types of analysis described is that the results of the global analysis of the sequentially ordered, transactional contingency tables are significant, thus giving evidence of relational structure (s e e Step 3). To summarize the types of pattern discrimination presented in Fig. 3.3, interaction patterns may be unidirectional or bidirectional. For each form of directionality, the results may indicate relationships of activation or inhi­ bition, such that, in an ongoing interaction, certain m essage behaviors of

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

69

one or both of the interactors may significantly increase the probability (a c­ tivate) or d ecrease (inhibit) certain subsequent behaviors by the other. With the occu rrence of bidirectionality, two additional types of pattern description are possible. First, when the sam e type of bidirectional relation­ ship is found betw een interactors, this represents a pattern of reciprocity. R eciprocal com plem entarity and com petitive sym m etry represent the two m ost com mon types of reciprocity referred to in the relational literature; further, if highly accentuated bidirectional circuits of reciprocity are noted, these types of interchange evidence the p ro cesses of schism ogenesis de­ scribed originally by Bateson (1936). Second, bidirectionality may further be described in term s of the preponderance of pattern, if the magnitude of the sequential association is greater in one direction than in another. Thus, if a bidirectional circuit is found, for exam ple of com petitive sym m etry be­ tween persons A and B, both the sequential association of A Î B Î and B TA Î are significant, but it may also be the ca se that one of the patterns of associ­ ation is significantly greater than the other. For example, if the A Î B Î pat­ tern is significantly greater than B Î A Î , a preponderance (strength of asso­ ciation) of the AB sequ ence for predicting com petitive sym m etry exists over the BA sequence. The analysis of bidirectionality and preponderance are specific adapta­ tions of the general ideas formulated by Gottman and Roy (1990) based on the “asym m etry in predictability” of the in teractors’ observed behaviors in relation to one another. Wampold (1992) also offered specific statistical tests for the analysis of bidirectional dependency, reciprocity and prepon­ derance. As indicated in Fig. 3.3, these different forms of analysis are readily derived from the com parison of the indices described in the preceding sec­ tions (e.g., P earson’s Chi-square for global analyses and Adjusted Residuals or Yule’s Q for the analysis of specific patterns). The potential results of these analyses are nonexclusive, as graphically displayed in Fig. 3.4. The husband-w ife interaction depicted in Fig. 3.4 illustrates the existen ce of a com plem entary bidirectional circuit of reciprocity, as well as a pattern of preponderance with the husband ’s one-up m essages taken as the an tece­ dent in the sequential structuring of this transactional pattern.

Episodes Complex patterns of relational com m unication can also be defined based on specific sequ ences consisting of m ore than two m essages w hose config­ uration has a particular relational meaning. T hese types of patterns are re­ ferred to as episodes, in the sen se that they are com m unicative configura­ tions depicting particular forms of the interaction process. One of the interaction sequences that has been defined and studied in the literature on relational control is the conflict episode (Bavelas, Rogers, &

o Exam ples for Sym m etry and C om plem entarity in M other-D au ghter Interaction

Relational S tru ctu re and Patterns

• •

•

RELA TIO N A L STRU C TU RE Global analysis o f transactional contingency tables showing significant results. Significant Pearson’s Chi-square test for the table overall. U N ID IRECTIO N A L STR U C TU R E Global analysis o f the transactional contingency tables are significant with one interactor as antecedent but not with the other interactor as antecedent.

UNIDIRECTIONAL A CTIVATION PA TTERN S • Transactions with frequencies higher than expected by chance. Significant positive Adjusted Residuals for specific cells.

•

INH IBITION PA TTERN S Transactions with frequencies lower than expected by chance. Significant negative Adjusted Residuals for specific cells.

•

Global sequential association is found for the table representing the 9 relational control transactions.

•

Mother’s relational control behaviors affect Daughter’s relational control responses but Daughter’s relational control behaviors do not affect Mother’s control responses.

•

Simple Complementarity: M oth er! activates Daughter! Symmetry: M oth er! activates D aughter!

•

• •

•

BID IREC TIO N A L CIRC U ITS Transactional contingency tables showing overall significant association regardless o f which interactor is taken as antecedent.

•

Simple Complementarity - inhibition pattern: Mother ! inhibits D aughter! Symmetry - inhibition pattern: Mother ! inhibits Daughter! Mother’s relational control behaviors affect Daughter’s control responses and Daughter’s relational control behaviors affect M other’s control responses.

BID IREC TIO N A L ACTIVATON PA TTERN S • Significant positive nonredundant Adjusted Residuals for the two cells in the same table or Y u le’s Q indicating activation in the 2 cells o f separated tables.

•

•

BID IREC TIO N A L INH IBITION Significant negative nonredundant Adjusted Residuals for the two cells in the same table or Y ule’s Q indicating inhibition in the 2 cells o f separated tables. R E C IPR O C ITY The same bidirectional pattern is found when exchanging the interactors’ position o f antecedent and consequent.

• •

• •

•

•

• •

PREPONDERANCE Significant differences between the two patterns that compose a bidirectional or reciprocal circuit. Testing for significant differences between the two indexes o f activation or inhibition. Implies comparing z-scores, Adjusted Residuals or transformed kappa (Wampold’s dominance test).

•

•

Circular Complementarity: M other! activates D aughter!, and D aughter! activates M ! Circular Symmetry: M other! activates D aughter!, and D aughter! activates M !

Complementarity - inhibition circuit: M other! inhibits D aughter!, and Daughter! inhibits m ! Symmetry - inhibition circuit: M other! inhibits D aughter!, and Daughter! inhibits M A

Reciprocal complementarity: M other! activates D aughter!, and D aughter! activates M oth er!, that is, complementarity is significant with the Mother as well as the Daughter in the antecedent ! position. Reciprocal symmetry: is the same as circular symmetry.

Preponderant direction in a reciprocal complementary pattern: The activation o f Daughter ! responses by Mother ! messages is stronger than the activation o f Mother ! responses by Daughter ! messages. Preponderant direction in a competitive symmetrical pattern: The activation o f competitive symmetrical responses ( ! responses to ! antecedent messages) is stronger with the Mother as antecedent than the Daughter as antecedent.

FIG. 3.3. Overall scheine of possible relational control patterns.

72

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

RECIPROCAL COMPLEMENTARITY Bidirectional activation

Bidirectional activation Husband t

Wife :

.

i

>

Wife t

Husband 4-

Preponderance: The complementary circuit is stronger with the husband as antecedent FIG. 3.4. Illustration of a reciprocal complementary pattern.

Millar, 1985; Millar, Rogers, & Bavelas, 1984). This episode represents the con­ ception of conflict as “active opposition” and is identified by the occurrence of at least three consecutive one-up (T ) types of interchange between inter­ actors. In a conflict sequence, person A asserts a definitional claim which is rejected by person B which, in turn, is opposed by person A, with the result­ ing sequence being one of competitive symmetry (ATBTAT). In previous re­ search, the frequency of this episode has been a clear indicator for differenti­ ating the conflictive quality of relational contexts, and the competitive nature of different types of marital relationships (e.g., Escudero et al., 1997). Another pattern of theoretical and empirical consistency is the leveling negotiation episode. Studies of marital interaction, as well as therapeutic in­ teraction (B eyebach & Escudero, 1997; Beyebach, Rodríguez-Morejón, Palenzuela, & Rodríguez-Arias, 1996) have indicated the importance of oneacross (-» ) messages in the formation of transitory transacts as conflict reg­ ulators, and as mechanisms for introducing solutions in therapeutic situa­ tions. Specifically, the interchange of -* and I messages between two interactors, represents an episode in which one person offers information about the conflict or relational situation in a leveling or neutral (-» ) manner and the other person accepts these ideas or suggestions with one-down (-1) messages. For example, a A -»B4A -»B i sequence between persons A and B in a context of conflict resolution, implies a neutral control offering by A that is accepted or supported by B. The regulative function of this pattern is further illustrated in the following sequence of B tA tB -> A iB -> A i, in which the leveling negotiation episode reflects a movement away from a potentially competitive sequence toward a neutralizing/accepting sequence of transactional interchange. As a general procedure for depicting and illustrating pattern, we have found it helpful to construct graphic displays of the interaction flow of the RCCCS codes which allow an overall, visual identification of episodes and other sequences of interest. Among the more useful graphic representa­ tions of relational control patterns and their descriptive power, we high­ light two: the sequential representation of control messages as shown in Fig. 3.5, and the cumulative representation of the control maneuvers shown

73

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Relational Control Codes

Speech Turns 20

30

40

50

Mother

Daughter

FIG. 3.5. Example of a graphic display to detect relational control episodes.

in Fig. 3.6. In the first of these, the three types of control codes are repre­ sented on one axis and the speech turn on the other axis. The shaded speech turns, in the m other-daughter example (Fig. 3.5), indicate a noted sequ ence of com petitive symmetry. With the cumulative type of graph, t m essages are represented with a +1 value, I m essages with a -1 value, and -* m essages with a 0 value; based on these values, the accum ulated move­ ment of each su ccessiv e control cod e is noted in the overall graphing of the interaction. The sam e m other-daughter exam ple is used in Fig. 3.6 to illus­ trate this form of graphic display. The sequ ence of com petitive sym m etry shown in Fig. 3.5, becom es even m ore visually pronounced with the cumula­ tive type of mapping the control code sequences.

Cumulative graphic display 16 14 12

10 8 6 4

2 0 1 4

7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 Speech turns

FIG. 3.6. Example of a cumulative graphic display for visually detecting rela­ tional control episodes.

74

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS TABLE 3.11 Frequency and Percentage of Selected Relational Control Episodes

Episodes Conflict Episodes M essages composing T T t chains Negotiation episodes M essages composing -»A-»A chains Messages not integrated in conflict or negotiation episodes

Frequency

%

18

31%

10 30

17% 52%

In addition to the episodes described here, note that with the use of the FRCCCS coding procedures, another set of patterns that represent rela­ tional control episodes are those com posed of the triadic seq u ences de­ scribed in chapter 2, namely, simple, parallel, and coalition triadic configura­ tions. B ecause the sequential analysis of the interactions among three or more people may n ecessitate breaking the interaction p ro cesses into dy­ adic units, the graphic identification of episodes offers a useful, visual focus of examination. Current program s of data recording and analysis provide procedures for easily identifying episodic configurations in the ongoing interaction flow. Program s, such as the GSEQ, allow the detection of episodes through the identification of a chain of codes. For any selected sequ ence containing three or m ore consecutive codes, the program provides for the reanalysis of the data using the designated chain of cod es for detecting the episodes of interest. If, for the m other-d aughter exam ple, we wish to identify and com pare the proportion of m essages that are organized into conflict epi­ sodes (T T T ) and episodes of leveling negotiation (-»4--»4«), the results of this type of analysis are shown in Table 3.11. For this interaction nearly one third of the one-up ( t ) m essages form conflict episodes.

Contextual Markers There are certain punctuated events in interpersonal com m unication, iden­ tified as contextual markers, that have a particular significance within a given relational context. The investigation of these events is in line with the analytic goal of interaction research of uncovering types of behavioral oc­ cu rrences or behavioral seq u ences that prompt observable differences in the ensuing direction and form of the interactional process. T hese events are akin to interactional turning points. In the context of psychotherapy, for instance, a question of particular interest is what interaction patterns are produced following a therapist’s statem ent or request that is considered a clinically important move within the therapeutic model being applied. In this setting, a frequent topic of study is the effect of an intervention, known

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

75

as re-framing, by which a therapist provides a redefinition or rein terpreta­ tion of the meaning and influence of the family m em bers’ behaviors. It is proposed that this form of intervention, if effective, can mark a new rela­ tional context for the family. T hese events, which may occu r infrequently but are of theoretical im portance, are representative of what are identified as interactional m arkers. Another exam ple of this type of research is the in­ vestigation of blaming m essages as contextual m arkers in the study of mari­ tal cou ples’ construction of relational problem s (Escudero, Heatherington, & Friedlander, 1998). Any num ber of events, depending on on e’s research interest, may serve as contextual m arkers, such as supportive, nonsupportive m essages, closed questions, disconfirmation, triadic seq u ences of coalition, etc. The exploration of the potential influence of th ese events on relational p ro cesses is of practical, as well as theoretical concern. A strategy used to study the effect of events defined as contextual mark­ ers consists of examining if in an designated period of time after the identi­ fied event, a change is observed in the interaction pattern with respect to other time periods of the interaction that are not affected by that event. Through the use of time windows in conjunction with the GSEQ or similar analytic programs, one can discern, for instance, if the relational control patterns significantly change during a specific time period (i.e., time win­ dow) after the occu rrence of the contextual m arker events. (Note, the time window can also be a time period prior to, instead of after, the event being examined, however, the latter is more typically the ca se.) The duration of the time frame can vary, based on one’s research interests or on previously established em pirical indicators. The analytic procedures rest on a com par­ ative analysis of w hether the interactions that take place during the speci­ fied time period in relation to the contextual m arkers are significantly dif­ ferent from the those not marked by the special event. The results of the analysis indicate if the contextual m arkers structure the subsequent inter­ action, and if so, what type of relational patterns characterize the influenc­ ing effect of these events. With the conclusion of this final step, the procedures covered in this chapter provide a central analytical framework for investigating relational com m unication patterns. The techniques described are as well applicable to other forms of interaction research based on time-ordered observations. The design of the GSEQ com puter program, utilized in illustrating these pro­ cedures, provides a highly com patible system for analyzing interaction pat­ terns. Additional information regarding this program is given in the appen­ dix to this chapter. The programming com mands for the analysis of the m other-daughter interaction exam ples are also included to illustrate the type of format used. See Bakeman and Quera (1995a) for com plete coverage of the application and use of the SDIS-GSEQ system .

76

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

A F IN A L N O TE: T H E C O N T R IB U T IO N OF Q U A L IT A T IV E ANALYSIS Based on the wealth of relational information contained in the interaction data, an important consideration in carrying out observational research is the inclusion of different forms of qualitative analysis. The transcriptions of the interaction, along with the audio and video tape recordings, offer the opportunity to com plem ent quantitative with qualitative analyses, with the potential of each form of analysis being enriched. Qualitative descriptions of interaction segm ents have been used to illustrate patterns of relational com munication, but full-scale studies combining qualitative and quantita­ tive data are rare. We see this as an important research direction. In com bination, qualitative approaches could lend extended understand­ ings to the quantitative descriptions of pattern. For instance, d iscourse or conversation analysis techniques, would be particularly useful in the explo­ rations of episodes and contextual com m unication m arkers in different re­ lational contexts. Insights offered by the relational m em bers under study can be garnered from an analysis of the specific content of the m essages ex­ changed, their interpretations from viewing their recorded interactions, as well as from oral histories, open-ended interviews, among other possible methods. It is clear that the study of relationships is open to a variety of dif­ ferent approaches. By carrying out qualitative analyses of the interaction process, our understanding of relational dynamics would no doubt benefit from these contributions.

C O N C L U S IO N S The analytical steps and techniques presented in this chapter for assessing patterns of interaction, clearly do not represent the only possible approach for the analysis of relational com m unication. In the research chapters that follow a num ber of different analytic techniques have been employed, which will dem onstrate a range of available research paths. Our intention here was to contribute a useful and understandable set of procedures that adapt well to the conceptual frame of relational com munication. In this way, by providing step-by-step descriptions of the relatively simple to more com plex forms of analysis, we hope to encourage the expansion of sequen­ tial-based research for exploring the com m unication p ro cesses of interper­ sonal relationships. The statistical com plexities of sequential analysis tech ­ niques have often been seen as a daunting analytical challenge, no doubt curtailing the use, and benefits, of these process-oriented techniques. By

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

77

providing an a cce ssib le and readily ap p licable s e t of p ro ced u res we hope to fo ster a revision of this view.

A P P E N D IX Analysis Commands Using the SDIS-G SEQ System T h e SDIS-GSEQ program co m es with th e book, Analyzing Interaction: Sequen­ tial Analysis with SDIS and GSEQ, by Bakem an and Q uera (1995a, 1996 for th e Spanish edition). T h e m ost re ce n t version of this program (v ersion 3.8 for W indow s) can b e found, along with additional inform ation on sequ ential an alysis, on th e In tern et at: w w w .u b.es/com p orta/sg .htm o r www.gsu/ psyrab/sg.htm . Th e GSEQ program requ ires a d ata file of th e type show n in Fig. 3.1 of this ch ap ter. T h e program m ing com m ands allow th e instruction files to be easily form atted for m any different analysis options. The program m ing ex­ am ple given below is th e com m and file used for the different m o th e rdaughter interactio n an aly ses p resen ted in this ch apter. File "C:\Archivos de programa\GSEQ for Windows\gseq\Datbook\name of the file.mds"; Title "Relational control analysis of Mother-Daughter conflict interaction session"; Simple freq rate relf dura reld avgd %asking for descriptive statistics% (MOoneup MOonedown MOoneacross DAoneup DAonedown DAoneacross); Event; Stats jntf expf conp rsdl adjr yulq phi xsq; %anlyzing sequential associations in Mother-Daughter interaction* Target $DAUGHTER; Lags 1; Given $MOTHER; Target $MOTHER; Lags 1; Given $DAUGHTER; Simple freq relf ( MOoneup MOonedown MOoneacross ); Simple freq relf ( DAoneup DAonedown DAoneacross ); Recode Oneup = MOoneup DAoneup; Recode Onedown = MOonedown DAonedown; Recode Oneacross = MOoneacross DAoneacross; Stats jntf expf conp rsdl adjr xsq; Target Oneup Onedown Oneacross; Lags 1; Given Oneup Onedown Oneacross; %analyzing conflict and negotiation episodes with the chain

78

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

%command Chain conflict = Oneup Oneup Oneup? Chain negot= Oneacross Onedown Oneacross Onedown; Simple freq r e l f (conflict negot Onedown Oneacross

Oneup);

REFERENCES Bakeman, R., McArthur, D., & Quera, V. (1996). Detecting group differences in sequential associa­ tion using sampled permutations: Log odds, kappa, and phi com pared. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 446—457. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1992). SDIS: A sequential data interchange standard. Behavior Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 24, 554-559. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995a). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995b). Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when consec­ utive codes can and can not repeat. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 272-284. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1996). Análisis de la interacción: Análisis secuencial con SDIS y GSEQ. Madrid: Ra-Ma. Bakeman, R., Robinson, B. F., & Quera, V. (1996). Testing sequential association: Estimating exact P values using sampled permutations. Psychological Methods, 1, 4-15. Bateson, G. (1936). Naven. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bavelas, J. B., Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1985). Interpersonal conflict. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4, pp. 9-26). New York: Academic Press. Beyebach, M., & Escudero, V. (1997). Therapeutic interaction and dropout: Measuring relational communication in solution-focused therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 19, 173-212. Beyebach, M., Rogríguez-Morejón, A., Palenzuela, D. L., & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Research on the process of solution-focused therapy. In S. D. Miller, M. A. Hubble, & B. Duncan (Eds.), Handbook of solution brief therapy: Foundations, applications, and research (pp. 157-194). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, M. B. (1974). Identification of the sources of significance in two-way contingency tables. Applied Statistics, 23, 405-413. Cureton, E. E. (1959). A note on phi/phimax. Psychometrika, 24, 90-91. Escudero, V., Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1998, June). Integrative analysis of interper­ sonal control, cognitive constructions, and emotions in couple interaction: An illustrative case. Pa­ per presented at the meetings of the Society for Interpersonal Interaction Research, Snow­ bird, Utah. Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., & Gutierrez, E. (1997). Patterns of relational control and nonverbal af­ fect in clinic and nonclinic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 5-29. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J. M., & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cam­ bridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Haberman, S. J. (1978). Analysis of qualitative data: Vol 1. New York: Academic Press. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1987). Relational dimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Explorations in interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 117-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Millar, F. E., Rogers, L. E., & Bavelas, J. B. (1984). Identifying patterns of verbal conflict in interper­ sonal dynamics. Western Journal o f Speech Communication, 48, 232-246. Morley. D. D. (1987). Revised lag-sequential analysis. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook: Vol. 10 (pp. 172-182). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

79

Quera, V., & Bakeman, R. (1999). “Untangling the web:” Técnicas de tamizado de residuos en el análisis de secuencias de conducta. In A. M. López, J. López, & R. Moreno (Eds.), Actas del V congreso de metodología de las ciencias humanas y sociales: Vol 1. Sevilla: Editorial Kronos. Rogers, L. E., & Bagarozzi, D. A. (1983). An overview of relational communication and implica­ tions for therapy. In D. A. Bagarozzi, A. P. Jurich, & R. W. Jackson (Eds.), Marital and family therapy (pp. 48-78). New York: Human Sciences Press. Rogers, L. E., Courtright, J. A., & Millar, F. E. (1980). Message control intensity: Rationale and pre­ liminary findings. Communication Monographs, 47, 201-219. Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: A transactional view. Human Communication Research , 5, 238-246. Rogers, L. E., Millar, F. E., & Bavelas, J. B. (1985). Methods for analyzing marital conflict dis­ course: Implications of a system s approach. Family Process, 24, 53-72. Wampold, B. E. (1989). Kappa as a m easure of pattern in sequential data. Quality & Quantity, 23, 171-187. Wampold, B. E. (1992). The intensive examination of social interaction. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Thomas (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and edu­ cation (pp. 93-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yoder, P. J., & Feurer, I. D. (2000). Quantifying the magnitude of sequential association between events of behaviors. In T. Thompson, D. Felce, & F. J. Symons (Eds.), Behavioral observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 317-333). Baltimore, MD: P. H. Brookes.

PART

II RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH CONTEXTS

CHAPTER

4 Relational Communication Patterns in Marital Interaction L. Edna Rogers University o f Utah

Valentín Escudero University o f La Coruna

With the advent of the family therapy movement in the 1950s and the early clinical studies incorporating the movement’s paradigmatic shift from the individual to the relational system, the study of marital interaction began to open up (Bochner, 1976). As Hinde (1995) noted, “Three decades ago, nearly all the data available about relationships came from clinicians” (p. 1). From these beginnings, research on the communication processes of marriage and family relations continued to develop and carve out an established area of study. Cumulative efforts to understand the “psychosocial interior” of the family (Hess & Handel, 1959), its “politics” (Laing, 1969), “interactional configurations” (Lennard & Bernstein, 1969), “conflict styles” (Raush, Barry, Hertel, & Swain, 1974), patterns of “distance regulation” (Kantor & Lehr, 1975), and “temporal form” (Gottman, 1982), to name but a few, under­ scored the importance of process research. In view of the emerging inter­ actional focus in marital and family research, Gottman (1982) emphasized that the “recent methodological breakthroughs represent far more than new analytic tools,” they represent “a conceptual revolution in our ability to think about relationships” (p. 958). Relational communication research, by giving central importance to the interrelating processes of system members, progressively moves from (a) a focus on observable communication behaviors, (b ) the sequentially or­ dered descriptions of those behaviors, (c ) to the sequential analysis of larger relational-level patterns of interaction characterizing the relationship

83

84

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

(Rogers, Millar, & Bavelas, 1985). Each step is a prerequisite for the next level of analysis, with the final step remaining the most critical and the m ost challenging. Far too often, com m unication studies claiming to be “interactional,” be­ gin by gathering ongoing, time-ordered behavioral data, only to have the se­ quentiality of the data “pulled ap art” by analytical procedures that are based on the participants’ individual m essage behaviors, and thus stop short of incorporating the tem poral qualities inherent in the study of proc­ ess. Playing off the traditional notions of Type I and Type II errors, Ransom, Fisher, Phillips, Kokes, and W eiss (1990), referred to results based on inap­ propriate data as Type III error. “A Type III error is made w henever one draws a conclusion to which the data do not speak” (p. 49). To avoid this type of error, it must be recognized that different levels of analysis provide different types of information. With a clear distinction betw een individual behavioral m easures and jointly produced process m easures, one of the strengths of the relational approach is that the full range of the analytical scale can be played out, such that each level of description may be useful in the overall analysis. In mapping relational patterns it can prove insightful to recognize the particu­ lar behaviors enacted by the individual interactors in the process of con­ structing the larger, sequentially patterned chains of interaction. Thus, each level of description has potential value, but lower levels of description cannot substitute for higher levels. Although each level influences and is in­ fluenced by other levels, each “has properties that are simply not relevant to the level below” (Hinde, 1997, p. 43). Koestler’s (1978) concept of the holon, coined to refer to the em bedded part/whole nature of system s, em phasizes the interconnected but inescap­ able level distinctions such that each ascending level “cannot be reduced to, nor predicted from, the lower level” (p. 32). Hinde (1995) further clarified the distinction between monadic and relational levels of analysis in the fol­ lowing quote, “Studies of how individuals perceive others, make attribu­ tions, resolve dissonance, and so on within relationships, how ever impor­ tant and relevant they may be, are not studies of relationship” (p. 3). This is rem iniscent of Simmel’s (1950) earlier statem ent that “marriage, however much of it depends on each of the spouses, may yet have a ch aracter not coinciding with either of them ” (p. 129). Along these sam e lines, Cappella (1987) provided an extended descrip­ tion of the interwoven, yet different levels of inquiry. In his critique of the fundamental distinctions of interpersonal com m unication research beyond the basic (zero-order) issues concerning the types of behavior observed and time units utilized, intraindividual research represents the first-order level of inquiry, the analysis of interaction patterns, the second-order level, and the analysis of interaction patterns with relationship factors and out­

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION

85

com es, refers to the third-order. Relational com m unication research is rep­ resentative of the third-order. The overriding goal of the relational ap­ proach has been the indexing of relational level patterns of com m unication and researching their association with different relationship qualities or consequences. The initial application of the Relational Communication Control Coding System (RCCCS) procedures was carried out in the context of marital rela­ tionships (Rogers, 1972). Since the early 1970s, the investigation of com mu­ nication patterns of marital couples continues to represent a central line of relational research. An unfolding of the main studies in this program of re­ search are presented in this chapter.

M A R ITA L C O M M U N IC A T IO N RESEARCH Relational control represents one of the central dim ensions of relationships (Dillard, Solomon, & Palmer, 1999; Markman & Notarius, 1987; Millar & Rog­ ers, 1987) and a primary focus of relational research. This dim ension refers to the interactive structuring of the regulative function of m essage ex­ change (Rogers & Farace, 1975). To clarify the focus of relational control, the delineation offered by Olsen and Cromwell (1975) is helpful. T hese au­ thors suggest that power, viewed as a generic construct, consists of three different, although interrelated, domains: power base, refers to the classic sociological definition of the potential to influence outcom es based on re­ sou rces; power process refers to the interaction p ro cesses within which in­ fluence attem pts are exerted, accepted or resisted, and power outcomes re­ fer to the after-the-fact decisions or outcom es. In short, the first domain concerns what may happen, the second with what is happening, and the third with what did happen. The focus of relational control equates with the conceptual domain of power process, that is, on how the influencing proc­ esses are mutually enacted. However, based on the relational perspective’s cybernetic meaning of control, this term is seen as a more appropriate choice than power in referencing the fluidity of these processes. With this brief conceptual description, we now turn to the research on relational con­ trol within the marital context.

R E LA TIO N A L C O N T R O L The results reported in this section are based on two sam ples of randomly selected married couples living in two U.S. Midwestern m etropolitan areas who had at least one child under the age of 12. The first sample included 45 marital dyads, and the second, 87 dyads. On the average, the couples in

86

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

both sam ples were in their first marriage, had been married for approxi­ mately 12 years, were in their mid-30s, high school graduates with a year or two of college, and in the middle to upper-middle social class range. Thus, the study participants represented a relatively com parable group of mar­ ried couples in the active child-rearing stage of family life. During a 2-hour interview in each couple’s home, two types of data were collected. First, self-report questionnaires concerning various aspects of their marital relationship were com pleted separately by each husband and wife; second, interaction data were obtained by tape recording each cou­ ple’s conversations as they discussed four m arriage and family related top­ ics with one another. The couples were asked to discuss each topic for 10 minutes. The topics included how they met and decided to marry, how they handled disagreem ents, related happenings of the day to one another, and their views on what it takes to have a good marriage. The coding of the interaction data was done by trained coders, three for the first data set and five coders for the second set, from verbatim tran­ scripts of the cou ples’ discussions. Paralinguistic asp ects of the conversa­ tions were also noted on the transcripts. The total number of m essages coded was m ore than 10,000 in the first sample, and m ore than 13,000 mes­ sages in the second. The average intercoder agreem ent reliability esti­ m ates, based on the three-digit m essage cod es of approxim ately 12% of the total data for each study, were .86 for the first sam ple and .89 for the sec­ ond. The unitizing reliabilities, including double code designations, were .98 and .99 for the two data sets; the sep arate gramm atical code, and response code averages were above .91, and for the m essage control direction, .93 for both samples. In the initial relational com m unication study of m arital dyads (R ogers, 1972), control patterns were found to differ by the cou p les’ level of role d iscrepancy, which was an index based on the p artn ers’ perceived ineq­ uity regarding personal, social, and instrum ental a sp ects of th eir marital relationship. Controlling on length of m arriage, the reported differences w ere m ore evident in couples m arried for fewer years than the longer m arried (12 to 26 y e a rs) couples. Dyads with higher role d iscrepan cy en­ gaged in significantly m ore neutralized sym m etry ( “* “* ) than th o se re­ porting low d iscrepancy, and enacted m ore com petitive sym m etry ( t t ) . T h ese cou ples also gave m ore one-up m essages and fewer one-down m es­ sages to their partners, and as th e se behaviors suggest, they reported less satisfaction with their m arriage and their com m unication with one an­ oth er than low-discrepant couples. In com parison, one-down transitory patterns (-» ¿ , 4>->) particularly with husbands’ m essages being one-down moves, were found to be significantly m ore ch aracteristic of couples with low role discrepancy. Th ese couples ex­ pressed more support m essages, had more active turn-taking and fewer si­

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION

87

lences in their conversations than high role-discrepant dyads. In addition, the low-discrepant couples reported spending m ore time together and m ore time talking with one another; they talked about a broad er range of su b jects and discussed personal topics. Importantly, the results of this ini­ tial study found the coding system to be a workable and reliable method for coding the relational asp ects of conversational interaction. The main find­ ings of this study, supported by later research, also served as a basis for an expanded set of relational control analyses. In su bseq u ent studies, several interaction-based m easures w ere devel­ oped in ord er to further investigate different a sp ects of the control dy­ nam ics of relationsh ips, including dom ineeringness and dom inance (Rogers-M illar & Millar, 1979), m essage con trol intensity (R ogers, Courtright, & Millar, 1980), tran sactio n al redundancy (C ourtright, Millar, & Rogers, 1980), coefficient of varian ce (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers, 1983) and ver­ bal conflict (M illar, Rogers, & Bavelas, 1984). Of th e se m easures, domi­ neeringness, dom inance, and redundancy, form ed an early and central fo­ cus of investigation. Domineeringness refers to the proportion of one-up m essages exp ressed by an individual during an ongoing interaction. Thus, it rep resen ts a m onadic m easure and is indexed by an individual’s num­ ber of one-up m oves divided by their total num ber of m essages. Domi­ nance and redundancy rep resen t dyadic m easures of control and are based on the m em bers’ tran saction al pattern s of m essage exchange. Dom­ inance is based on the o ccu rren ce of one-up com plem entarity and indexes the proportion of one-up behaviors by each m em ber that are responded to with a one-down m essage by the other. In the studies d escribed here, dom ineeringness and dom inance were found to be independent variables, such that enacting a high proportion of one-up control m oves d oes not necessarily lead to being dominant. Redundancy m easures the am ount of tran saction al rigidity or flexibility evidenced in the over all conversation. It rests on the num ber and variety of different tran saction al pattern s man­ ifested in the interaction. The fewer the observed types of tran saction s en­ acted, the m ore redundant the interaction, with m ore tran saction al pat­ terns utilized, the m ore flexible the interaction pattern. Operationally, tran saction al redundancy is defined as the sum of the absolu te deviations from random use of the nine tran saction al configurations. The possible range of s co re s is from 0 to 177, with higher sco re s indicating higher re­ dundancy. For instance, the overall mean sc o re for the marital dyads was 54, which indicates a fairly flexible interaction pattern. By com parison, in a study of m anager-su bord inate dyads (Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987), the average sco re was 83, suggesting a m ore structured , less flexible pat­ tern of interaction in the organizational setting. Based on the described control measures, the following results are from a series of interrelated studies (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers-Millar, 1979; Millar,

88

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

Rogers-Millar, & Courtright, 1979; Rogers-Millar & Millar, 1979) and represent an integrated set of findings from the analysis of the two research samples. One of the consistent findings of this research was the inverse relationship between wife domineeringness and marital satisfaction on the part of both spouses. It was also the case that inverse relationships were found between wife domineeringness and the partners’ satisfaction with their communica­ tion relation, and with their level of understanding one another. The more domineering the wife, the more the couples’ interactions appeared to take on a flavor of a “demand-withdrawal” pattern. This is suggested by several re­ lated findings. For instance, when wives expressed higher levels of one-up messages, they gave fewer supportive m essages to their husbands and in turn received fewer supportive statem ents from their husbands. However, when husbands were more domineering they offered more supportive state­ ments than domineering wives. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that oneup behaviors on the part of the husband did not engender the level of dissat­ isfaction as was the case with wife domineeringness. In contrast, the expression of nonsupportive m essages was not consis­ tently related to dom ineeringness. Thus, in com bination, a more ch aracter­ istic style, especially for domineering wives, was the withholding of support, rather than the expression of nonsupport. This m ore veiled, unspoken form of “nonsupport” may over time have contributed to the partners’ lack of satisfaction and understanding of one another. For th ese couples, the bene­ fits of “not rocking the marital b oat,” appear to be offset by the unsettled tensions of not openly dealing with their underlying differences. In intimate relations, avoiding disagreem ents is often initially undertaken with the best of intentions, only later to turn into a potentially problem atic pattern in which marital harm ony at all costs, winds up too costly. Interrupting and taking over the speaker’s position represented another set of com m unication behaviors ch aracteristic of a domineering style and again, m ore so for wives than husbands. An analysis of talk-over behaviors found that the total number of talk-overs, and importantly, the num ber of successful talk-overs (taking over the conversational floor), were more strongly associated with wife dom ineeringness than husband domineering­ ness. The use of interruptions are often cited as representing a m ore mas­ culine language style (Eagly, 1987; Henley, 1977) thus, when wives m ore fre­ quently interrupt their partner and take over the “floor," this may be an added irritant of wife dom ineeringness, as well as a style that disavows in­ formational input from their husbands. Note that talk-overs, and especially unsuccessful talk-overs which allow the speaker to continue talking, were com mon features of the marital con­ versations. Unsuccessful talk-overs frequently served as brief expressions of support, or signs of attention and involvement in the conversation. Com­ ments such as, “yeah, I agree, good, you’re right,” are typically made with­

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION

89

out an intention to take over the speaker role. Thus, unsuccessful talk-overs were part and parcel of satisfied cou ples’ behaviors, but not high levels of successful talk-overs. A corollary finding, supportive of the suggested dem and-withdrawal interactional nature of couples with domineering wives, was the inverse re­ lation found betw een husband dom ineeringness and transactional redun­ dancy. That is, the fewer one-up assertions made by the husband, the more rigid the structuring of the couple’s m essage-exchange patterns. But, when husbands enacted higher proportions of one-up m essages, not only was the cou ples’ interaction pattern m ore flexible, but as noted earlier in contrast to domineering wives, these husbands gave more supportive m essages to their wives and interrupted less with fewer successful talk-overs. In com bi­ nation, these differences imply that when husbands express m ore one-up m essages they are more actively involvement in the conversation than when wives are m ore domineering. Given these findings, one-up behaviors appear to function quite differently depending on which spouse enacts a higher proportion of them. These results readily fit the research by Gott­ man (1979, 1994) in which he reports that in d istressed marriages, husbands are less em otionally responsive and m ore withdrawn, whereas wives are m ore assertive and argumentative. The results of the analysis of dom inance found as expected that rela­ tively equivalent, shared husband-w ife patterns of dom inance were posi­ tively related to marital satisfaction and understanding, but this association was som ew hat stronger, when husbands were slightly m ore dominant than wives. A related finding was that when husbands were m ore dominant, wives gave m ore supportive m essages than husbands gave when the wives w ere more dominant. It appears that to som e degree traditional cultural definitions of m ale-fem ale relations are evident in these differences. Even with this variation, the dom inance pattern related to couple satisfaction represents a relatively balanced pattern of reciprocal com plem entarity, one that is typically associated with relational harmony. However, when either spouse was clearly m ore dominant, that is, when their one-up assertions were m ore consistently responded to by the oth er’s one-down m ovements, the less the couple’s reported relational satisfaction and the less each spouse understood the other. With unequal patterns of dominance, the more dominant mem ber, even though reporting feelings of being understood, had lower levels of understanding their partner’s view, than the less dominant member. Thus, with a high dom inance pattern, the dominant m em ber’s sen se of understanding the other, was not m atched with their spou se’s perceptions. From the foregoing results, we find the different forms of com munication enactm ents of dom ineeringness and dom inance are reflected in the cou­ ples’ reported evaluations of the quality of their marriage relationship.

90

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

When the couples moved into these different patterned modes is not known, but when either wife dom ineeringness or discrepant patterns of dominance becom e habitual, they are associated with lower levels of com m unication and marital satisfaction, perceptions of equity, and levels of understanding.

R E L A T IO N A L C O N T R O L A N D N O N VE R B A L A FFECT The sequ ence of studies described in this section were carried out in Spain and are based on Spanish couple sam ples. Importantly, this set of investiga­ tions m oves from an analysis of relational control to an examination of both interactional control and nonverbal affect. The first of these investigations (Escudero & Gutierrez, 1990; Escudero, Sobral, & Gutierrez, 1987) was de­ signed to explore the control dynamics of marital conflict using the rela­ tional coding system (RCCCS). The research objectives were to describe the relational patterns that were ch aracteristic of conflict versus noncon­ flict marital interaction, and as well, provide a test of the cross-cultural ap­ plication of the coding schem e. Twelve couples formed the basis of this exploratory study. The couples had been married for an average of 13 years, had 2 to 3 children and were classified as middle social class. The cou ples’ discussions, based on a con ­ flict and nonconflict topic selected from Olsen and Ryder’s (1970) Inventory of Marital Conflict, were carried out in each of the cou ples’ hom es with their perm ission to audiotape their conversations. In total, 3,077 m essages were coded in accord an ce with the RCCCS procedures. Intercoder relia­ bilities, based on Cohen’s (1968) kappa, ranged from .72 to .80, which clearly indicated adequate estim ates of agreem ent. The interactions were analyzed using lag-sequential analysis (Q uera & Estany, 1984). The results of this initial study, although limited in nature, firmly sup­ ported the predicted com petitive nature of conflict-oriented discussions. In the cou ples’ conflict interactions, com pared to their nonconflict discussion, there were significantly m ore com petitive sym m etrical tran saction s ( t t ) and fewer one-down subm issive tran sacts (4-'!). Also as predicted, there was less enactm ent of transitory transactions, one-across com binations with one-down and one-up m essages, in the conflict situation. It was further found that one-up m essages in the conflict but not the nonconflict discus­ sions, activated one-up moves on the part of both, the partn ers’ response and the initiators’ following response, and thus set in motion a pattern of escalating symmetry. To investigate this potential escalating pattern, triadic sequ ences of oneup m essages (T IT ) , the minimal unit for identifying relational conflict were examined (Millar et al., 1984). A sequ en ce of th ree consecutive one-up mes­

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION

91

sages index a pattern of opposition in which one partner’s asserted defini­ tional claim is rejected by the other, which in turn is opposed by the initial speaker. Significantly more of these one-up sequ en ces were found to occur in the conflict interactions. However, when this sequ ence occurred in either of the topic discussions, there was a high probability of this pattern being followed by another seq u ence of three one-ups (.74 at lag one in the conflict and .70 in the nonconflict condition). This pattern, while occurring less fre­ quently in the nonconflict discussions, n evertheless retains a high escalat­ ing potential. Counterbalancing this potential, again in both types of discus­ sions, was the finding that one-across m essages activated a one-down response and in turn one-down m essages activated a one-across response, thus producing one-across\one-down\one-across ( ~ ^ i ^ ) sequences. These configurations allowed the cou ples’ interactions to move into a less com ­ petitive pattern, one of an extended and supported type of discussion. Along with these initial, conflict-nonconflict pattern descriptions result­ ing from this exploratory research, the cross-cultural utility of the RCCCS was also confirmed. With the utility of the coding system established, an im­ portant research step was taken in the next two studies with the investiga­ tion of two central relational dim ensions, relational control and nonverbal affect. The research was designed to expand our descriptive base of the interactional com plexities of relationships by first analyzing each of these dim ensions separately, and then in com bination. The first study examined the control and affect interactional behaviors of marital couples representing different levels of dyadic adjustm ent. Based on previous research, a general expectation was that there would be an in­ verse relation betw een dyadic adjustm ent and com petitive control pat­ terns, and nonverbal affect negativity. That is, the lower the couples’ mari­ tal adjustm ent, the m ore their enactm ent of dom ineeringness, com petitive symmetry, and the exchange of negative affect. It was also expected that higher levels of dyadic adjustm ent would be related to m ore positive and neutral affect and one-down transitory patterns. The sam ple for th e first study (Escudero, Rogers, Gutierrez, & Caceres, 1992) was drawn from couples who contacted a family clinic seeking marital counseling and consisted of 20 couples. From the interview and question­ naire information gathered during the initial session, the sample couples were fairly similar in term s of the general nature of their relational prob­ lems and dem ographics; they were in the middle social class and on the av­ erage in their 30s with one or two children. They did, however, significantly differ in their marital adjustm ent. Based on their sco res on the Dyadic Ad­ justm ent Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) the couples formed three groups: a high adjustm ent group (n = 5, x = 116), a medium group (n = 6, x = 102), and a low adjustm ent group (n =9, x = 63). The maximum range of DAS sco res is 0 to 151, with 100 found to represent a midpoint betw een m ore adjusted and

92

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

less adjusted couples (Spanier & Filsinger, 1983). During each couple’s ini­ tial session, they were asked to discuss betw een them selves one of their problem s and try to solve the issue. T hese procedures, as well as videotap­ ing the discussion, are part of the normal counseling protocol. The first 15 minutes of these videotaped interactions, in total over 2,300 m essages, were coded using R ogers’ relational control coding system and Gottman’s (1979) procedures for coding nonverbal affect. The affect coding is based on a com posite of three types of nonverbal observation: facial expression, voice tone, and body position. Each unit is coded as either positive (+), neutral (0), or negative ( - ) affect. The average kappa intercod er reliability values were .78 for the control coding and .80 for the affect coding. Base-rate com parisons of nonverbal affect found the cou ples’ mean pro­ portion of positive affect steadily declined acro ss the high, medium, and low adjustm ent groups from 31% to 16% to 3%. For expressions of negative affect, the proportions were reversed, with 15% in the high adjustm ent group, 37% in the medium group, and 55% in the low group. With more than half of the low adjustm ent cou ples’ nonverbal expressions being negative in affect with minimal positive expressions, these couples lend continuing evi­ d ence of the relation betw een negativity and marital d istress (Gottman, 1979; Gottman & Levenson, 1999). There were no significant differences acro ss the couple groups in the expression of neutral nonverbal affect. For m essage control, the average proportions of one-up m essages for both husbands and wives in the high adjustm ent group (slightly less than 30%), were significantly lower than in the other two groups. In the medium and low adjustm ent groups both husbands and wives had high levels of dom ineeringness with more than half of their m essages coded as one-up, with wives enacting som ewhat more one-up m oves than husbands. It was therefore, not surprising to find a significantly higher occu rrence of triadic sequ ences of one-up m essages (T T T ) in these two groups, with very few in the high adjustm ent group. The transactional analysis of the control and affect interactions resulted in distinct pattern sets that were m ost representative of each of the three couple groups. The high adjustm ent couples were characterized by posi­ tive and neutral affect reciprocity and one-dow n/one-across transitory con ­ trol patterns. T hese couples engaged in less com petitive sym m etry and rarely in escalating one-up sequ ences. The medium adjusted couples en­ acted com petitive and escalating patterns of sym m etry and nonverbal af­ fect negativity. However, these couples also intermixed these patterns with one-across sym m etry ( “* “*), one-dow n/one-across transitory transactions, and positive affect reciprocity. With this “offsetting” mix of patterns, these couples interactions were som ewhat volatile without being overly destruc­ tive. In contrast, the low adjustm ent couples were characterized by two pat­ terns, com petitive sym m etry and negative affect reciprocity, two patterns

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION

93

that hold little potential for problem resolution. With th ese patterned differ­ ences, successful clinical intervention appears far m ore likely for the high and medium couple groups than the low adjusted group. The second study (Escudero, Rogers, & Gutierrez, 1997) incorporated yet a further step in the analysis of control and affect. The two dim ensions w ere examined again separately, but most im portantly in com bination, based on the concurrent control-affect coding of each m essage. For this study, the interactions of clinical and nonclinical couples formed the com ­ parative basis of analysis. T hree general types of questions guided this re­ search. First, to what extent do control and affect behaviors convey nonre­ dundant relational information about the interactional process? Second, do the sep arate control and affect m easures discrim inate betw een clinical and nonclinical couples in line with previous research? And third, do concur­ rent con trol-affect m easures discrim inate betw een the two couple groups in ways that lend further information beyond the sep arate m easures? The sam ple for this study consisted of 30 marital dyads, 18 clinical and 12 nonclinical couples. The clinical group, selected from couples who sought marital counseling (with no overlap of the couples included in the first study), were m atched with sim ilar couples from the sam e urban area who did not seek counseling but agreed to participate in the study. As in the previous study, dem ographic data and each person’s response to the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) were obtained during the initial interview. Based on the intake information and educational level, the couples were all of middle socioeconom ic status. Between group com parisons of clinic and nonclinic couples by age, length of marriage, and num ber of children re­ sulted in no significant difference. Once again, on the average the partici­ pants were in their middle 30s, had been married betw een 7 to 9 years, and had one to three children. The two groups of couples did differ significantly on their DAS scores. The clinical group had a mean sco re of 76 (SD = 12.8) and the nonclinical group, a mean of 110 (SD = 8.6). After obtaining the self-report data, the couples were then asked to dis­ cuss a relevant relational issue. The problem s discussed were of similar types acro ss the two groups and all couples indicated their interactions were typical of their normal discussions of the problem . Based on the first 20 minutes of the cou ples’ conversations, the videotaped and transcribed interactions were coded by two team s of cod ers applying the relational control system (RCCCS) and Gottman’s (1979) nonverbal affect coding pro­ cedures. A total of 5,389 m essages were dual coded, 2,555 for the clinic group and 2,834 for the nonclinic group. A com parison of the average m es­ sages generated per dyad, 142 for the clinic couples and 236 for the non­ clinic couples, was significantly different and reflected the distress evident in the clinical group and the m ore active turn-taking and conversational flow in the nonclinical group. For relational control, all code category-by-

94

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

category intercoder reliabilities were above the acceptable levels; the re­ sponse code observer agreem ent was .81 and Cohen’s (1968) kappa was .74, with a control direction estim ate of .84 and a kappa value of .74. For the nonverbal affect codes, the intercod er agreem ent was .80 with a kappa esti­ mate of .68. As described in chapter 2, kappas from .60 to .75 are considered to be good indications of reliability, and above .75 as excellent indications (Fleiss, 1981). To answer the first research question, basic for this study, log-linear tests were conducted to examine the interrelationship of the control and af­ fect dim ensions. Our assum ption that the two dim ensions would be related but sufficiently distinct to provide unique interactional information, was supported. Based on the two dimensional contingency table (th ree control directions and three affect cod es), the analysis indicated a significant rela­ tionship betw een control and affect. The estim ate of the effect size resulted in a Cram er’s V coefficient of .277 (with sep arate V values of .247 for clinic and .270 for nonclinic), indicating that the relationship was in the low to m oderate range. Thus, the two dim ensions are not em pirically independ­ ent, but each provides information that is not indexed by the other. This be­ com es increasingly evident in the com parative analyses of the two couple groups. In response to the second question, couple group distinctions were evi­ dent from the analysis of both the control and affect dim ensions. The baserate com parisons of control found significantly higher proportion of one-up m essages for clinic than nonclinic couples (45% vs. 31%) and lower propor­ tions of one-across m essages (30% vs. 44%), with no significant one-down control differences. All nonverbal affect com parisons were significant. For the clinic group, 51% of their m essages w ere negative, 34% neutral, and 13% were positive, whereas the nonclinic mean proportions were 13% negative, 58% neutral, and 28% positive. The inverse relationship betw een dom ineer­ ingness and marital adjustm ent and satisfaction rem ains a constant acro ss the studies, as does the inverse relation between negative affect and mari­ tal adjustm ent. With a com parison of the zero-order com bination of control and affect m essage codes, as shown in Table 4.1, the differences betw een the couple groups becom e even more pronounced. Only 4% of the clinic couples’ oneup m essages (52 out of 1,253 total one-up m essages) were positive in affect, with 71% of their one-up m essages (890 of 1,253) expressed with negative af­ fect. For nonclinic couples, 15% of their one-up m essages were positive (135 of 895 total one-up m essages), 30% were negative, and the m ajority (55%) were neutral in affect. Comparison of the affect expressed with one-across m essages found 8% of these neutralizing m essages in the clinical group were positive in affect, with 54% negative, whereas for the nonclinic couples 27% were positive and 8% were negative. Even with one-down control

95

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION TABLE 4.1 Zero-Order Contingency Between Control and Nonverbal Affect Message Codes for Clinic and Nonclinic Couple Groups by Frequency and Percentage

Couples

Clinic

Control Codes t -> J. t

Nonclinic

I

Nonverbal Affect Codes + 52 (4%) 65 (8%) 116(28%) 135 (15%) 330 (27%) 300 (47%)

0 311 289 159 491 807 322

(25%) (37%) (38%) (55%) (65%) (50%)

890 (71%) 419(54%) 139 (33%) 269 (30%) 103 (8%) 18 (3%)

Total 1253 773 414 895 1240 640

(100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

Note. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd. From Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., and Gutierrez, E. (1997). Patterns of relational control and nonverbal affect in clinical and nonclinical couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14,5-29. Copyright © Sage Publications Ltd., 1997.

moves, 33% were expressed with negative affect by the clinic couples, ver­ sus 3% by the nonclinic couples. In addition, nonclinical couples significantly engaged in more neutral af­ fect reciprocity, as well as neutral/positive affect sequences. In terms of control, these couples enacted significantly more one-down/one-across transitory transacts, sequences in which partners encourage or support the continuing extension of their discussion, and they also engaged in more ac­ cepting or supporting, one-down symmetry (4/-1-). Turning to the third question guiding this research, the lag-sequential analysis of the concurrent control-affect coded messages resulted in more specific, significant pattern comparisons. A competitive, one-up-negative pattern of symmetry ( T - T - ) was activated by both couple groups in their discussions of relational issues, however, the nonclinic couples also en­ acted two other, counterbalancing symmetrical patterns, one-up-neutral af­ fect (TOTO) and one-across-neutral (->0-»0) symmetry. What was also par­ ticularly telling, were the additional 10 transitory transactional patterns that were activated by the nonclinical couples, with all of these sequences expressed with positive or neutral nonverbal affect and 7 of the 10 were com binations of the one-down, one-across control transactional forms (-»04'+), ( 4 + - *+), (i+ -» 0 ), etc. In contrast, for the clinic group only five tran­ sitory transactions were significantly activated, with three of these patterns generated with negative affect and two based on one-up, one-across control sequences ( T - — >—), (- » - T - ) . To examine the potential escalation of competitive-negative symmetry activated in both groups of couples, the analytical procedures of Revens-

96

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

torf, Vogel, W egener, Hahlweg, and Schindler (1980) were applied. With this method, the unconditional probability of a one-up-negative m essage ( Î - ) was com pared (through z-scores) with the conditional probability of a oneup-negative m essage occurring, given previous sequ ences of two ( Î - Î - ) , three ( Î - Î - Î - ) , or m ore one-up-negative m essages, until no significance is found. The results of this analysis found the escalating chain of negative sym m etry in the clinical group to be both stronger (i.e., higher probabili­ ties) and longer seq u en ces of o ccu rren ce than in the nonclinical group. When this type of tran saction occu rred in the clinical group, the likeli­ hood of moving to a three-m essage exchange was .58, com pared to .37 for nonclinic couples, and rem ained high, betw een .52 and .6.6, until dropping off after a total exchange of eight m essages. The nonclinic probability re­ mained lower and ended with a four m essage chain. Thus, we se e the nonclinic cou ples not shying away from one-up negative exp ressio ns of disagreem ent or differences when discussing relational problem s, but at the sam e tim e not caught in extended escalations, w hereas the clinical couples did not share this ability to readily pull out of these negative, sym ­ m etrical escalations. The results from this set of studies, with the added feature of crosscultural verification, are consistent with previous research based on the sep arate analyses of relational control and nonverbal affect. However, based on the com bined concurrent analysis of control and affect, the find­ ings are expanded with the identification of more specific com m unication pattern distinctions that are associated with different ch aracteristics and levels of adjustm ent of marital relationships. This research clearly moves our efforts in the direction of the overall goal of relational research to ex­ plore in com bination, multiple aspects of the central dim ensions of inter­ personal relationships.

PH YSIC A L AGGRESSION A final area of research included in this review is the application of the rela­ tional com m unication approach to the study of physical aggression in mar­ riage relationships. The first of these studies was Gage’s (1988) investiga­ tion of 25 abusive couples with a history of dom estic violence, during each cou ples’ initial counseling session for treating physical aggression. At this stage of the cou ples’ relationship, Gage found com petitive sym m etry to be the m ost predom inant, alm ost system ab so rbin g , pattern of ongoing spousal opposition to one another’s definitional assertions. In a com para­ tive study of abusive and nonabusive cou ples’ interactions, based on their discussion of a nonconflict topic, Sabourin (1995) found, even in this con­ text, the enactm ent of one-up control moves, nonsupportive m essages and

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION

97

higher levels of com petitive sym m etry to be m ore prevalent interaction pat­ terns among the abusive couples than nonabusive couples. In con trast to the study of m ore abusive m arriages, Rogers, Castleton, and Lloyd (1996) focused on the control pattern s of 25 relatively satisfied couples who, in the year prior to this study, reported or did not report ep­ isodes of physical aggression, such as pushing, hitting, or throwing o b ­ je c ts at one another. This study was the third phase of a longitudinal study on marital aggression. In the first two phases, carried out by Lloyd, husbands and wives from an original sam ple of 78 couples w ere inter­ viewed sep arately to co llect base-line inform ation, and then through a se ­ ries of over-tim e telephone interview s Lloyd tracked the everyday posi­ tive and negative behaviors reported by each of the husbands and wives to study behavioral differences by levels of marital d istress and aggression; 18 m onths later, sim ilar procedures were used to investigate the cou ples’ be­ havioral changes. One of the findings by Lloyd (1990), in line with O’Leary et al. (1989), was the occu rrence of aggression in relatively satisfied mar­ riages. See Lloyd (1996) for a detailed description of the procedures and re­ sults of the first two phases. Our goal in this third phase was to move to an investigation of the cou­ ples’ com m unication interactions. The sam ple consisted of couples from the original sample who could still be contacted after 3 years, and who agreed to participate in the study. The couples were from a western m etro­ politan area, and on the average, in their mid-30s, with 1 to 2 years of col­ lege, married for 11 years, with three children. The data gathering proce­ dures were sim ilar to those used in previous marital interaction studies. The couples were interviewed in their hom e with each partner com pleting the self-report, marital questionnaire first, then together discussing four topics for at least 10 minutes each. The discussions included conflict and nonconflict oriented topics. The transcriptions of the tape recorded conver­ sations were coded using the relational control coding system , with an overall intercoder kappa reliability estim ate of .85 based on approxim ately 10% of the 11,644 total m essages. On the basis of the cou ples’ responses to the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spainer, 1976) and Conflict T actic Scale (CTS; Strauss, 1979), three couple groups were identified for this investigation: high adjustm ent-nonaggressive (n = 9, DAS x = 123), m oderate adjustm ent-nonaggressive (n = 8, DAS x = 113), m oderate adjustm ent-aggressive (n = 8, DAS x = 111). Three couples each were classified as low adjustm ent-nonaggressive (DAS x = 96) and low adjustm ent-aggressive (DAS x = 75), but due to the limited number of cases were not included in this analysis. Thus as indicated, this study fo­ cu ses on couples with m oderate to high DAS scores. Even though all of the couples reported relatively satisfying relation­ ships, in com parison with the two m oderate groups the high ad ju stm ent-

98

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

nonaggressive couples across all topic discussions expressed higher pro­ portions of supportive m essages, one-down moves, and one-across/onedown (-»A, A-») transitory tran sacts, and in turn, lower enactm ents of nonsupportive m essages, one-up m essages and com petitive sym m etry ( t T ) . Importantly, the dom inance ratio for these couples was 1.10, which in­ dicates a relatively equivalent pattern of dominance with the husband slightly higher. The m oderate adjustm ent-nonaggressive cou ples’ ratio of .62 indicates higher wife dominance, w hereas the m oderate ad ju stm ent-ag­ gressive cou ples’ ratio of 1.42 indicates a pattern of husband dominance. What particularly stood out in this analysis, however, were the marked differences in the cou ples’ interaction patterns during the conflict oriented discussions com pared to the nonconflict topic discussions. A cross all top­ ics, whether conflict and nonconflict topics, the high adjustm ent couples continued to steadily maintained a low proportion (8%) of nonsupport mes­ sages (with a 3 to 1 ratio of support to nonsupport), an equivalent (sh ared ) dom inance ratio and low levels of com petitive interaction patterns (e.g., 4% for one-up sym m etry). In contrast, when the topic moved to discussing dis­ agreem ents, the two m oderate adjusted groups, but m ore so the physically aggressive couples, shifted quickly and significantly into much higher levels of nonsupport (for the aggressive couples, from 8% to 26%), one-up moves (21% to 36%), and com petitive sym m etry (from 4% to 19%). For these cou­ ples, and again more pronounced for the aggressive couples, it was as if a fuse had been lit when the topic turned to how they dealt with problem is­ sues, with their discussions turning into a series of oppositional moves of complaining and defending, a type of exchange not pronounced by either of these groups in the nonconflict oriented topics. The unequal dom inance ratios of the two groups may play a part in the move toward more com petitive interaction in their conflict discussions, or the topic itself triggers a pattern of conflict, seemingly an unproductive one, that over time has becom e overly redundant and habituated. A relevant fac­ tor regarding the two m oderate adjustm ent groups is that five of the eight aggressive couples reported physically aggressive acts in all three phases of the research project, and several of the presently classified nonaggres­ sive couples reported aggressive acts in the first phase of the study. In addi­ tion, the aggression reported by th ese couples was predominantly mutual, that is both partners engaged in physical acts of aggression, which could further lend to the higher com petitive nature of their discussions of dis­ agreem ents. If, as Stets (1980) proposed, “verbal aggression carries the seed of physical aggression” (p. 513), these findings although limited, suggest that the aggres­ sive couples in their discussions of conflict may more readily slip beyond a point of sufficient containm ent of verbal escalation into physical aggression, while the m oderate-nonaggressive couples may still be struggling with this

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION

99

potential. How couples handle conflict is seen as a central aspect in maintain­ ing viable, intimate relationships (Markman, 1991), and the key may not lie in solving conflictive issues, but in not damaging the relationship in the process of dealing with these issues (Gottman & Levenson, 1999).

C O N C LU S IO N S In this program of research we have sought to advance the study of marital interaction by examining the com m unication patterns of couples who rep­ resent different types of marital dyads, from a general population of cou­ ples in the active child-rearing stage, to couples in marital counseling, to physically aggressive couples, to couples representing two different cul­ tures, Spanish and American. Further, we have sought to expand the dimen­ sions studied through the com bined analysis of relational control and non­ verbal affect, and to in corp o rate m ore of the tem poral dim ension of interaction with the application of sequential analysis techniques for identi­ fying longer sequ en ces of com m unicative patterns. In many ways, th ese ef­ forts represent small research steps, but acro ss the span of the research program, a consistent, integrated set of expanded findings has emerged. In general, patterns of com plem entarity representing shared dominance, one-down transitory tran sacts, supportive m essages, relatively flexible con­ trol patterns accom panied by positive and neutral nonverbal affect reci­ procity are associated with m ore satisfying and well adjusted m arriage rela­ tionships. Conversely, dom ineering one-up m essages, particularly wife dom ineeringness, interruptions, unequal dominance, escalating com peti­ tive symmetry, in com bination with nonverbal negative affect reciprocity are related to lower levels of marital adjustm ent, understanding, perceived equity and com m unication satisfaction. From th ese com parative results, we gain a b etter understanding of the influencing effect of different com m unication p attern s on marital relation ­ ships. For instance, the ability of satisfied cou ples to exp ress one-up m es­ sag es and com petitive sym m etry with positive or neutral affect, m ore clearly illustrate how th e se couples are able to discu ss differences, dis­ agreem ents, or disapproval without becom ing entangled in destructive re­ lational spirals. Or how these couples facilitate com m unication and rela­ tional harm ony through the exchange of the less controlling, som e what innocent appearing, one-across/one-dow n sequ ences in which they give positive “stro k es” to one another while continuing to express thoughts, points of view, or feelings. Through the use of these patterns, couples dem­ onstrate, perhaps unknowingly, their relational wisdom. An understanding of these everyday, com m unicative forms represen t both im portant re­ search and practical goals of the relational study of marital interaction.

100

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

REFERENCES Bochner, A. P. (1976). Conceptual frontiers in the study of communication in families: An intro­ duction to the literature. Human Communication Research, 2, 381-397. Cappella, J. N. (1987). Interpersonal communication: Definition and fundamental questions. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 184-238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa nominal scale agreem ent with provisions for scales disagree­ ment of partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213-220. Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1980). M essage control intensity as a predictor of transactional redundancy. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 199-216). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1983). A new m easure of interactional control pat­ terns. Communication, 12, 47-68. Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers-Millar, L. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: Rep­ lication and expansion. Communication Monographs, 46, 179-192. Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Palmer, M. T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational control. Communication Monographs, 66, 49-65. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Law­ rence Erlbaum Associates. Escudero, V., & Gutierrez, E. (1990, June). Relational communication in the family system: Dimen­ sions and patterns of communication. Paper presented at the International Communication As­ sociation meetings, Dublin, Ireland. Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., & Gutierrez, E. (1997). Patterns of relational control and nonverbal af­ fect in clinic and nonclinic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 5-29. Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., Gutierrez, E., & Caceres, J. (1992, May). Relational control and nonver­ bal affect in marital conflict: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the International Com­ munication Association meetings, Miami, FL. Escudero, V., Sobral, J., & Gutierrez, E. (1987). Conflicto interpersonal: Un estudio exploratorio [Interpersonal conflict: An exploratory study]. Analisis y Modificacion de Conducto, 13, 111128. Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judg­ ment about the relationship. In M. M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 395-415). Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley. Gage, R. B. (1988). An analysis of relational control patterns in abusive couples. Dissertation Ab­ stracts International, 19, 1034-1048. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J. M. (1982). Temporal form: Towards a new language for describing relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 943-962. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and mari­ tal outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). How stable is marital interaction over time? Family Process, 38, 159-165. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hess, R. D., & Handel, G. (1959). Family worlds: A psychosocial approach to the family. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hinde, R. A. (1995). A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships, 2, 1-15. Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION

101

Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family: Toward a theory of family process. New York: Harper & Row. Koestler, A. (1978). Janus: A summing up. New York: Vintage Books. Laing, R. D. (1969). The politics of the family. New York: Vintage Books. Lennard, H. L., & Bernstein, A. (1969). Patterns in human interaction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lloyd, S. A. (1990). Conflict types and strategies in violent marriages. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 269-284. Lloyd, S. A. (1996). Physical aggression, distress, and everyday marital interaction. In D. D. Cahn & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 177-198). Thou­ sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Markman, H. J. (1991). Constructive marital conflict is not an oxymoron. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 83-96. Markman, H. J., & Notarius, C. I. (1987). Coding marital and family interaction: Current status. In T. Jaco b (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology (pp. 329-389). New York: Plenum. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1887). Relational dimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Explorations in interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 117-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Millar, F. E., Rogers, L. E., & Bavelas, J. B. (1984). Identifying patterns of verbal conflict in interper­ sonal dynamics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 232-246. Millar, F. E., Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Relational control and dyadic under­ standing: An exploratory predictive regression model. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 213-224). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. O'Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Con­ sulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268. Olson, D. H., & Cromwell, R. E. (1975). Power in families. In D. H.Olson & R.E. Cromwell (Eds.), Power in families (pp. 3-11). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Olson, D. H., & Ryder, R. G. (1970). Inventory of marital conflict (IMC): An experimental interac­ tion procedure. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 443-448. Quera, V., & Estany, E. (1984). ANSEC: A basic package for lag sequential analysis of observa­ tional data. Behavior Research, Methods, Instruments and Computers, 16, 303-306. Ransom, D. D., Fisher, L., Phillips, S. Kokes, R. F., & Weiss, R. (1990). The logic of measurem ent in family research. In T. W. Draper & A. C. M arcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conception, measure­ ment and use (pp. 48-63). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. (1974). Communication, conflict, and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Revenstorf, D., Vogel, B., Wegener, C., Hahlweg, K., & Schindler, L. (1980). Escalation phenomena in interaction sequences: An empirical com parison of distressed and nondistressed couples’ behavior. Behavior Analysis and Modification, 2 , 97-116. Rogers, L. E. (1972). Dyadic systems and transactional communication in a family context. Unpub­ lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Rogers, L. E., Castleton, A., & Lloyd, S. A. (1996). Relational control and physical aggression in satisfying marital relationships. In D. D. Cahn & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a com­ munication perspective (pp. 218-239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rogers, L. E., Courtright, J. A., & Millar, F. E. (1980). Message control intensity: Rationale and pre­ liminary findings. Communication Monographs, 47, 201-219. Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New m eas­ urement procedures. Human Communication Research, I, 222-239. Rogers, L. E., Millar, F. E., & Bavelas, .1. B. (1985). Methods for analyzing marital conflict dis­ course: Implications of a system s approach. Family Process, 24, 53-72. Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: A transactional view. Human Communication Research, 5, 238-246.

102

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

Sabourin, T. C. (1995). The role of negative reciprocity in spouse abuse: A relational control anal­ ysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 271-283. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. Wolff, Trans.). New York: Free Press. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of mar­ riage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28. Spanier, G. B., & Filsinger, E. E. (1983). The dyadic adjustment scale. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Mar­ riage and family assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy (pp. 155-168). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Stets, J. E. (1980). Verbal and physical aggression in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 501-514. Strauss, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88.

C H A P T E R

5 From Dyads to Triads, and Beyond: Relational C o n tro l in Individual and Family Therapy Laurie Heatherington W illiams College

Myrna L. Friedlander University at Albany, State University o f New York

In 1936, when Gregory Bateson described in Naven the patterned sequ ences of behavior betw een the Iatmul people of New Guinea, the practice of indi­ vidual psychotherapy was in its infancy and family therapy had not yet been conceived. Y et B ateson ’s notion that the meaning and pragm atic func­ tion of behavior could only be fully understood in their interactional con­ text would later prove to profoundly influence the theories and techniques of psychotherapy, as well as the research m ethods used to study it. From this sem inal work and subsequent elaboration by Bateson, Jackson , Haley, and others (e.g., Sluzki & Beavin, 1965/1977; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967) was born a substantial body of literature on relational com m unica­ tion, also term ed control theory, which refers to “the asp ects of m essage exchange by which interactors reciprocally negotiate their positions rela­ tive to one another by redefining, constraining, adapting, accepting, and re­ jecting one another’s definitional presen tations” (Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983, pp. 51-52). Psychotherapy is essentially a social interaction, albeit of a special type, in which therapists and clients “reciprocally negotiate their positions rela­ tive to one a n o th e r. . . ” (Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983, pp. 51-52). This notion was shared by psychotherapists and com m unication resea rch ers who worked together in the 1960s and 1970s to apply interactional ideas to a sci­ ence of psychotherapy (cf. Wilder-Mott & Weakland, 1981). From that theo­ retical soil, a body of research on relational com m unication in psychother­

103

104

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

apy, especially family therapy, has grown. This chapter sum marizes and discusses that research.

R E LA TIO N A L C O M M U N IC A T IO N IN IN D IV ID U A L PSYC H O TH ER A PY Harry Stack Sullivan (1953), a psychoanalyst, introduced the term comple­ mentarity into the clinical literature to refer to situations in which one per­ son ’s needs are met satisfactorily by another—friendly subm issiveness met with friendly dom ineeringness, for exam ple. According to Sullivan (1953), by eliciting com plem entary behaviors from each other, two people are able to maintain a com fortable, harm onious balance in their social relationship. Sullivan’s interpersonal theory had an im portant influence on analytic thinking and practice, an influence that continues today (e.g., Kiesler, 1996; Klerman & Weissman, 1993; Klerman, W eissman, Rounsaville, & Chevron, 1984). But in 1963, Ja y Haley, a m em ber of th e Palo Alto group, criticized Sullivan (1953) for describing m íe/personal relations using (Vtfrapersonal constructs—motivation, personality, affiliation, and so forth. Haley (1963) ar­ gued that interpersonal behaviors are better described by transactions, ob­ servable and quantifiable behaviors. (Unlike interpersonal theory, Haley’s relational control theory did not take into account the affiliative asp ect of the behavior [Friedlander, 1993]). Although Haley’s (1963) perspective on human com m unication was first applied to the diagnosis and treatm ent of families as well as couples, the e a rlie st clinical re sea rch with the Relational Com m unication Control Coding System (RCCCS; Ericson & Rogers, 1973; Rogers & Farace, 1975) was designed to identify the interactional patterns in dyads—one client, one therapist. To our knowledge, there have been six published (Friedlander, Siegel, & Brenock, 1989; Heatherington & Allen, 1984; Lichtenberg & Barké, 1981; Lichtenberg & Heck, 1986; Tracey, 1991; Tracey & Miars, 1986) and three unpublished (Heatherington, 1985; Lichtenberg, 1985; Tham es & John­ son, 1982) studies of individual psychotherapy using the RCCCS and one published (B eyebach & Escudero, 1997) and two unpublished (Beyebach, de la Cueva, Ramos, & Rodríguez-Arias, 1990; Rodríguez-Arias, 1996) studies of individual psychotherapy using a modified version of the RCCCS, the Family Relational Communication Control Coding System 1(Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987; Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989).2 'Based on the results of Heatherington (1988) and other validity studies of the original RCCCS, we revised the coding rules for certain types of questions and answers. Specifically, whereas the RCCCS does not differentiate the coding or the assignment of control codes to open and closed questions and the answers to them, the FRCCCS does, arguing that th ese have differ­ ent control functions; see the coding manual (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987) for m ore de­ tails. Although m ost research ers have used the FRCCCS for family or family therapy studies,

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

105

The purpose of all the RCCCS studies was to learn what takes place in in­ dividual therapy in term s of relational control. The process of treatm ent was not manipulated; rather, the naturally occurring d iscourse was ana­ lyzed for descriptive purposes. In the earliest study, Lichtenberg and Barké (1981) com pared the relational dynamics in dem onstration films conducted with three m aster therapists—Albert Ellis, Fritz Peris, and Carl Rogers—rep­ resenting distinctly different therapeutic approaches. All of the subsequent studies were field investigations, that is, studies of actual therapy con­ ducted by nonexperts with real clients. The major question addressed by the investigators was: To what degree are therapeutic transactions com plem entary? (Friedlander, 1993). In most of the studies (Friedlander et al., 1989; Heatherington, 1985; Heatherington & Allen, 1984; Lichtenberg, 1985; Tracey, 1991), com plem entarity was found to be the predominant control pattern, but in two studies (Lichtenberg & Barké, 1981; Tham es & Johnson, 1982), sym m etry was observed m ore fre­ quently. In the studies in which com plem entarity was the primary pattern, the transactions tended to be therapist t/clie n t A, reflecting the proposi­ tion that for therapy to be successful, the balance of power must favor the therapist (Haley, 1963; Strong & Claiborn, 1982). Two exceptions were Heatherington and Allen (1984) and T racey and Miars (1986), in which the predominant pattern was therapist A/client t . As pointed out by Lichten­ berg and Barké (1981), the finding of therapist A /client t may be becau se therapists take control by relinquishing control to the client, a phenom e­ non that Haley (1963) term ed metacomplementarity. Other interesting findings underscore the com plexity of relational con­ trol in the therapeutic setting. Tham es and Johnson (1982) reported that re­ lational control patterns varied acro ss time in therapy. In their research, the initial and term ination stages were characterized by m ore com ple­ m entarity and less sym m etry than the middle stage. Analyzing only the middle stage, Tracey (1991) applied 5 different control coding sch em es to 26 sessions, and after the interviews participants com pleted questionnaires assessing their perceptions of control during the session. The therapists were 14 graduate student trainees at a com munity mental health training center. RCCCS results showed that therapists had the most control, both in term s of the frequency of one-up (T ) m essages and in term s of the fre­ quency of therapist t/clie n t A com plem entary exchanges. Furtherm ore, som e, including th ese authors, have chosen to use it for studies of individual therapy and other dyadic communication as well. 2Because the focus of this chapter is on psychotherapy, we have limited the review to that body of research. We note, however, that there are important lines of research on relational communication in other helping interactions, notably, school consultation (cf. Erchul, 1987; Erchul & Chewning, 1990; Erchul, Covington, Hughes, & M eyers, 1996; Martens, Erchul, & Witt, 1992) and physician-patient interaction (cf. Cegala, McNeilis, McGee, & Jonas, 1995; Lamude, Scudder, & Dickson, 1994; McNeilis, Thompson, & O’Hair, 1995; Morris & Chenail, 1995).

106

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

there was consistency acro ss the various observational m easures when the sam e data aggregation method was used, supporting the construct validity of these instrum ents. On the other hand, the observational results were un­ related to the participants’ self-reported perceptions of control. Various other studies used sequential analyses to draw conclusions about how clients and therapists attem pt com m unication control. Reana­ lyzing one of Carl Rogers’s interviews, Lichtenberg and Heck (1986) demon­ strated that t codes by one speaker tended to be neutralized by subse­ quent one-across (-» ) m essages by the respondent, leading to no clear pattern of either com plem entarity or symmetry. Heatherington (1985) and Lichtenberg (1985) used RCCCS data from two interviews, Sessions 1 and 18, with an experienced male therapist and a female client. Using the lag se­ quential analysis method (Sackett, 1977), Heatherington (1985) found nonrandom patterns of control codes in both sessions at a lag of 1 as well as at subsequent lags. A high proportion of all interactions was stable com ple­ mentarity, but the pattern was m ore pronounced in Session 1 than in Ses­ sion 18. Using transitional probability m atrices and m easures of entropy and redundancy from Shannon and W eaver’s (1947) m athem atical commu­ nication theory, Lichtenberg (1985) reported that neither session evidenced much structure or patterning, although Session 1 had m ore structure than Session 18, as one might expect. Although in both sessions the therapist had more I than t responses, the predominant control pattern was thera­ pist t/c lie n t I com plem entarity. Interestingly, w hereas in Session 1 thera­ pist t responses had a strong “excitatory” effect on client t responses, by Session 18 these sam e respon ses had a strong tendency to be followed by client I responses. Heatherington and Allen (1984) tested the association betw een gender and control patterns in an outpatient therapy setting. This large-scale study (N = 72 clients) of intake sessions found that dyads with men clients tended to exchange t and I m essages m ore frequently than did th ose with women clients, who used m ore neutral -» m essages. Furtherm ore, contrary to pre­ diction, dyads with women clients were not characterized by m ore thera­ pist t/c lie n t I com plem entarity when the therapist was male than when the therapist was female. W hereas Heatherington and Allen showed that relational control pat­ terns may be affected by gender, another study (Friedlander et al., 1989) showed that the patterns are influenced by the type of social relationship. In this study, the coding system was applied to supervision as well as psy­ chotherapy. In an intensive ca se study, the relational control patterns of one client, one therapist/trainee, and one supervisor (all women) were ob­ served over an 8-week period as part of an investigation of parallel proc­ esses in supervision. Results showed that in both the therapy and supervi­ sory dyads, there was more com plem entarity than com petitive symmetry.

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

107

Interestingly, the therapist was 1" with her client but I with her supervisor, underscoring the role-bound nature of relational com m unication. A rever­ sal from therapist t/c lie n t I com plem entarity (in Sessions 1 and 3) to thera­ pist A/client t (in Session 5) may have been related to problem s in the th er­ apeutic relationship, which term inated prematurely. An active research program on relational com m unication as it relates to psychotherapy dropout reflects som e patterns noted in other m ore de­ scriptive research .3 Beyebach, Rodriguez Morejon, Palenzuela, and Rodriguez-Arias (1996) found that in the information-gathering phase of first ses­ sions, a consistent q uestion-answ er pattern was m ore ch aracteristic of those who dropped out than of those who continued in therapy. The au­ thors noted that, “This form of interaction has also been described by Heatherington and Allen (1984), who note that the ‘cross-fire of questions and answ ers’ is a type of exchange that produces a feeling of discom fort and com petition betw een participants” (p. 312). They also reported that in the first sessions of later dropouts, clients interrupted therapists more, gave more nonsupport m essages, and received less support from thera­ pists. Analysis of transactional patterns showed that clients who subse­ quently dropped out asserted control m ore (i.e., m ore dom ineeringness) than those who continued in treatm ent. Beyebach and Escudero (1997) conducted another sophisticated com ­ parison of relational control in 16 sessions in which the therapy term inated prem aturely versus 16 sessions in which it did not. It is notable that this is the only study of relational com m unication in brief therapy based on a solution-focused approach (deShazer, 1982, 1991), one that is well-suited con­ ceptually to system ic and relational research strategies. T hese authors dis­ tinguished, on the basis of other m easures, successful and unsuccessful dropout groups. The latter were clients who left treatm ent early but were feeling better and generally satisfied with the therapy, whereas the former w ere those who left early due to lack of progress and dissatisfaction. The FRCCCS data showed that the sessions of successful dropouts were charac­ terized by less support, m ore nonsupport, more successful talkovers, fewer client A m essages, and more client t m essages during the informationgathering phase of the session. T here was also less support and a higher proportion of talkovers in the unsuccessful dropout sessions as com pared :iT he review of this body of work might also have been placed in the family therapy section, since “family” therapy can be defined by a particular theoretical approach rather than by the number of people present in a therapy session. We cho se to review it here because the methods for coding interaction change somewhat when there are m ore than two people present. In this section on relational communication in individual therapy, therefore, we discuss research on therapy which included just one client and a therapist, acknowledging that som e of the studies concerned individual approaches while others focused on system ic, solution-focused, or other approaches most typically identified with family therapy.

108

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

with the continuation group. In both dropout groups, the therapists tended to use more questions in the information-gathering stage and were less likely to be in a i com plem entary position than they were with clients who continued in therapy. Moreover, there was m ore sym m etrical interaction in the dropout than in the continuation group. Lag sequential analysis indi­ cated that in the continuation group clien ts’ domineering ( t ) behavior was more likely to be met by therapist dom ineeringness than in the dropout group and that overall, one-across -» m essages were m ost likely to be fol­ lowed by other leveling (-» ) m essages. This finding contrasted with those of Beyebach et al. (1996), who reported that com petitive sym m etry and verbal conflict were m ore ch aracteristic of the first sessions of clients who later dropped out of treatm ent than of th o se who did not. B ey eb ach and Escudero noted that the study provides em pirical support for the conten­ tion of Beyebach et al. (1996) that neutral com m ents or leveling m essages are m ore important in psychotherapy than previously realized and that psychotherapy dropout should be conceptualized as a “relational phenom ­ enon, which seem s to be associated with a particular configuration of th era­ peutic com m unication” (p. 203).

R E L A T IO N A L C O M M U N IC A T IO N IN FAM ILY TH ER A PY Although the literature on relational com m unication in individual therapy is rich and com plex, marital and family therapy interactions, as every fam­ ily therapist knows, are also rich in com m unications that are “redefining, constraining, adapting, accepting, and rejecting” (Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983, pp. 51-52). Consider, for example, the following sequ ences of com m unica­ tion (Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989, p. 142):

Mother (to son): Jimmy, I thought you went out again after that. Did you? Father (to son, intercepting): What in the world did you do that for? Therapist (to son, intercepting): Jimmy, first I want to help you to answer your mother. Her opinion is important. or, another possible sequ en ce of com munication:

Therapist: So you girls and your mother don’t get along. Daughter: I’m a bit cold in here. Second daughter (to mother): See how she never listens to anybody? Mother: You mind your own business. And your sister will answer the question, now!

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

109

Theoretically, symptoms or other family problems are maintained by the family’s characteristic relational communication patterns, and changes in these patterns are necessary to alleviate symptoms and promote the well­ being of the family as a whole (e.g., Haley, 1963; Minuchin, 1974). Although relational control is relevant to the understanding of the therapist-client re­ lationship in individual therapy, the theories of client change in individual therapy have little to do with interpersonal control dynamics. Psychoanalytic theorists maintain that change com es with insight, for example, and cogni­ tive therapists argue that change requires maladaptive thought patterns to be altered. On the other hand, the original family system s theorists main­ tained that shifts in the balance of power in relationships promote client change (e.g., Minuchin, 1974). For this reason, m easures of relational control are especially relevant for studying conjoint family treatment. By observing meaningful shifts in transactional patterns between family members, we can track the process of changes as they occur over time in a system. Because the RCCCS was designed for dyads, we found it necessary to expand the system to account for group interactions, “p reservin g ] the as­ sumptions inherent in the system ic perspective” (Friedlander & Heathering­ ton, 1989, p. 139). To this end, we created the Family Relational Communica­ tion Control Coding System (FRCCCS; Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989; Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987). The next section describes the FRCCCS, its development and its psychom etric attributes, followed by a review of the studies to date on relational control dynamics in family therapy interviews.

The Family Relational Communication Control Coding System (FRCCCS) The purpose, developm ent, and uses of th e Relational Communication Con­ trol Coding System are well docum ented in other chapters in this volume. When we becam e intrigued by its potential use beyond dyadic interactions, to triadic or larger group contexts, it was clear that the RCCCS needed to be modified in order to handle the com plexity of com m unication among three or m ore speakers. In groups, m essages are not always direct or reciprocal. One person may talk to a second about a third, or one party may interrupt the exchange of two others or may disqualify another party by turning to a third person. Multiple m essages may be sent that reflect a coalition (i.e., the sim ultaneous support of one party and challenge of another; Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989). New procedures were needed to handle such triadic m oves, speaking turns in which there are two or m ore targets, indicating that the speaker is defining his or her relationship with two other people si­ multaneously.

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

Such interactions are of great theoretical import in family therapy. Bowen (1976), for example, described triangulation, a “three-person emotional con­ figuration” (pp. 75-76) in which a conflict-ridden dyadic relationship typically draws in a third party as a means of defusing, detouring, or avoiding conflict. Minuchin (1974), likewise, described rigid triads, and Haley (1967) proposed that “perverse triangles” (p. 16) may lead to symptoms, violence, or even de­ struction of the family system. Moreover, many family therapy techniques (e.g., joining, forming alliances, circular questioning, indirect suggestions) capitalize on the control dynamics in multiperson client systems. O verview o f th e FRCCCS. The FRCCCS is largely based on, and retains many features of the RCCCS (Ericson & Rogers, 1973; Rogers & Farace, 1975). It has to do with the pragmatic use of language to attempt to gain or relin­ quish control of the definition of a social relationship. Coding of verbal mes­ sages is conducted by trained judges using videotapes or verbatim tran­ scripts of family therapy sessions. The basic unit of analysis is the verbal message, several of which may be contained within a given speaking turn. Judges assign each message a message code, which involves judgments on the same three dimensions as the RCCCS. The first dimension, Participants, identifies the speaker and all targets (both direct and indirect) of the mes­ sage. As in the RCCCS, the second dimension is the Format, or structure, of the message (coded as either assertion, open or closed question, successful or unsuccessful talkover, intercept, or noncomplete) and the dimension, Re­ sponse Mode, refers to the pragmatic function of the message as it relates to the immediately preceding message(s) of other speakers. Response modes are categorized as either support, nonsupport, answer (to open or closed questions), extension, instruction, order, disconfirmation, topic change, inter­ cept block, or neutral (to the indirect target). The FRCCCS coding of natural discourse was illustrated by Friedlander and Heatherington (1989) in a segment of family therapy conducted by Sal­ vador Minuchin (Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978, p. 185). As one example from this vignette, Minuchin instructs an anorexic daughter that she should not “be in the middle” of her parents, that she should resist her father’s at­ tempts to resolve a problem with his wife by drawing her into the discus­ sion. The daughter replies, “I guess he values my opinion of things,” to which Minuchin responds, “Yes, but they should value your opinions on your things. They should not bring you in the middle, because you get caught.” Minuchin’s message was coded as an assertion-instruction to the parents (the indirect targets) and as an assertion-nonsupport to the daugh­ ter (the direct target of his intervention). To use the FRCCCS, judges are trained with the coding manual (Heath­ erington & Friedlander, 1987) to acceptable levels of interjudge reliability

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

based on Cohen’s (1960) kappa, a conservative estim ate that takes into ac­ count chance agreem ent. In our research using the FRCCCS, kappas have ranged from .93 to .96 (for the coding of participants), .84 (for the coding of format), and .66 to .78 (for the coding of response m ode) (Friedlander, Heatherington, & Wildman, 1991; Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b; Ray­ mond, Friedlander, Heatherington, Ellis, & Sargent, 1993). Once the m essage codes are determ ined, the investigator applies estab ­ lished rules to each possible com bination of format and response mode to yield a control code. Following the RCCCS, control codes can either be oneup (T), for m essages that attem pt to gain control, one-down (A), for m es­ sages that seek to relinquish control, or one-across (-> ), for m essages that are relatively neutral with respect to control. For example, based on the FRCCCS coding rules, a talkover giving an instruction is assigned a t code, w hereas an open question giving support is A. The con trol cod es can be analyzed in a variety of ways. Most simply, the proportion of each individual’s t , A, or -* m essages to every oth er in­ dividual can be determ ined. This provides inform ation on individuals’ at­ tem pts at gaining or relinquishing control. For oth er purposes, such as ex­ amining the family’s “d an ce” in term s of interpersonal control, the list of control cod es can be exam ined in seq u en ce for dyadic tran saction pat­ terns. Specifically, sym m etry is observed when two parties exchange m es­ sages with sim ilar control cod es (e.g., TT, or AA). Com plem entarity, on the other hand, is observed when one party’s t m essage is im m ediately responded to by a A m essage or vice versa, yielding eith er t A or A t. T ran­ sitory patterns involve a single neutral control m essage followed or pre­ ceded by a T or A m essage (e.g., T-» or ->A). Note that sequential patterns are identified only for recip rocal m essages (A speaks to B, who responds im m ediately to A, directly or indirectly). See Table 5.1 for a coded dis­ course segment that includes m essage codes, control codes, and transac­ tional patterns. The m ajor feature of the FRCCCS that distinguishes it from the original dyadic coding schem e is its ability to identify triadic moves, which reflect an individual’s attem pt to define his or her social relationship with two oth­ ers sim ultaneously. Triadic moves occu r when, for example, one individual “intercep ts” the dialogue betw een two others or when one party, A, “disconfirm s” another, B, by turning to a third party, C, rath er than responding to B’s previous question or challenge. One class of triadic behavior is a coalitionary move, which occu rs when a speaker goes one-up to one party and one-down to another, directly or indirectly (Friedlander & Heathering­ ton, 1989). In a group, for example, A may indirectly support (A) B by chal­ lenging (T ) C. In response, D might intervene to support (A) C by challeng­ ing ( t ) A to listen to his viewpoint.

112

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER TABLE 5.1 Discourse Segment as Coded by the FRCCCS

Message Son: Father: Son: Father: Son:

My vacation starts next week. (not coded) W here are you going? (closed qucstion-topic shift) To New York. (assertion-answer to closed question) What will you do there? (open question-/extension) I don’t know yet

Control Code

Transactional Pattern

T __________ . TA 11 ~~ ___________4 1 A- A-» - » _________

(assertion-extension) Mother: Son:

Let us know if you need any money. (intercept-order) Sure, thanks. (assertion-support)

________ + Î t _ ~

'Î A

A■— '

Note. M essage codes: format and response mode are indicated in parentheses. The control code assigned to each m essage code is determined by FRCCCS coding rules. Transactional pat­ terns, formed by the sequence of reciprocal m essages, are indicated. The three exchanges be­ tween Father and Son are complementary (t,A ), sym m etrical (A, A), and transitory (A,->). Mother interrupts the dialogue between Father and Son: the M other-Son sequ ence is complementary (M other t/S o n A).

D evelopm ent and Validation o f the FRCCCS. Extending the original RCCCS to family (o r any group) contexts proved to be m ore com plex than we had anticipated. First, it was necessary to take into account a m ajor dis­ tinction betw een dyadic and group interaction. In a group, sequ en ces of verbal m essages are not necessarily reciprocal. W hereas in a dyad the se­ quence of talk is ABABABAB . . . , in a group, it may be ABCABDBDABDC.. . . Obviously interruptions are a m ajor controlling m aneuver in group talk. Second, we recognized that the individual who is interrupted, although not directly addressed by the speaker, is nonetheless involved in a control dy­ namic. Third, we noted several other triadic situations in which a family m em ber may be indirectly controlled by another’s behavior. When a ques­ tion is ignored becau se the recipient (th e target) of the question opts to speak to som eone else in the family, the first speaker’s definition of the con­ versational situation has indirectly been challenged. Recognizing that these group asp ects of relational control would need to be incorporated into the FRCCCS, we used an inductive strategy to create the coding rules. We selected one videotaped dem onstration session by theorist Carl W hitaker (one that had been used in a previous research ef­ fort) in which the issue of interpersonal control was clinically meaningful. That is, the entire session was characterized by an explicit struggle for con-

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

trol betw een W hitaker and one of the family m em bers, the father. Indeed, other family m em bers described the father as excessively controlling and domineering. We expected that the constan t interruptions, challenges, dis­ qualifications, and indirect interventions that were observable clinically in this interview would provide us with suitable exam ples from which to cre ­ ate our coding rules. We reasoned that if the resulting relational control patterns (th e FRCCCS coding of the tran script) indicated a struggle for con­ trol betw een W hitaker and the father, these results would support the face validity of the coding system . The findings did, in fact, show a predomi­ nance of com petitive sym m etry betw een W hitaker and the father (as well as betw een the father and his wife and son; Heatherington, Friedlander, & Raymond, 1986). We were encouraged by these preliminary findings, be­ cau se it was apparent to us that many of the FRCCCS indices reflected theo­ retically meaningful family phenom ena, e.g., disqualification (Sluzki, Beavin, Tarnopolsky, & Verón, 1977), intrusiveness (Riskin & Fau nce, 1976), triangu­ lation (Bowen, 1976), and the therapeutic use of indirectness (Friedlander, Ellis, Raymond, Siegel, & Milford, 1987). The following brief exam ple illustrates the congruence betw een the FRCCCS and a clinical understanding of the interaction:

Husband (to therapist): Do you see how my wife distorts everything? Therapist (to wife, discontinuing husband): How do you feel about what he just said? (Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989, p. 141) Here, the husband indirectly challenges his wife while sim ultaneously seeking to gain control over the therapist by using a closed question-topic change. The therapist indirectly challenges the husband by discontinuing him (i.e., not responding to his question). With the FRCCCS, their reciprocal exchange would be coded as com petitive symmetry. Furtherm ore, by ask­ ing the wife an open question, the therapist is relinquishing control of the conversation to her. By sim ultaneously “going one-down” to the wife and “going one-up” to the husband, the therapist has made, in FRCCCS term s, a “coalitionary m ove” (Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989, p. 143). From a clinical perspective, the therapist has, in this intervention, joined with the wife and challenged the husband’s attem pt to control them both. Although R ogers’s original dyadic coding system had been su b jected to sev eral con stru ct validation te sts (e.g., Heatherington, 1988), we believed that the new coding rules we had created for the family con text deserved sim ilar attention. The interjudge reliabilities of the FRCCCS w ere satisfac­ tory, suggesting that trained cod ers tended to view therapy interactions sim ilarly. But did the FRCCCS cod es indeed m easure interpersonal con ­ trol? To answ er this question, we com pared family th era p ists’ perceptions of the control dynam ics in videotaped interview s with the FRCCCS cod es

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

for triadic interactions (Gaul, Simon, Friedlander, Heatherington, & Cutler, 1991). Indeed, the results of this study supported the validity of the triadic cod­ ing rules. The study was essentially a criterion validity study of “observer accu racy” (i.e., a test of the degree to which ob servers’ perceptions matched “preorchestrated . . . videotapes”) (Suen, 1988, p. 378). Specifically, we carefully constructed two videotaped vignettes in which the “triadic” in­ dices of the FRCCCS (those that distinguish it from the original dyadic cod­ ing system ) were embedded within the script. Participants, 25 experienced family therapists, viewed each vignette and then rated specific verbal mes­ sages within the vignette as either t , 4, or Several m essages represent­ ing each FRCCCS triadic index (e.g., disconfirmation) were delivered by dif­ ferent “family mem bers” (acto rs) so as to minimize the degree to which participants would form global impressions of different family members as domineering or submissive. Results indicated that the majority of partici­ pants’ responses reflected agreement with the coding rules. A z-test of Co­ hen’s kappa (.56) was statistically significant, p < .0001, indicating that sub­ je c ts ’ perceptions corresponded with the coding rules more closely than would be expected by chance alone.

Extension to Nonverbal Behavior. The need for a nonverbal relational control coding schem e has been pointed out repeatedly (e.g., Folger & Poole, 1982; Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987; Wiener, Budney, Wood, & Russell, 1989). In the family context, children communicate a great deal non­ verbally. Many adult gestures also seem to have unambiguous relational meaning. For example, X begins to answer a question Y had addressed to Z, and Z points an index finger in X’s direction. The latter, understanding this gesture as an instruction to stop interrupting, says, “Sorry.” Z’s nonverbal gesture was an attempt to direct the interaction in a particular way and, as such, was a clearly communicated “one-up” message. In this context, the gesture directly instructed X and indirectly supported Y. To extend the FRCCCS so as to allow for the coding of nonverbal behaviors, we conducted three studies (Siegel, Friedlander, & Heatherington, 1992). These involved creating a means by which nonverbal relational control behaviors could be reliably and validly coded and integrated with the existing verbal FRCCCS. In Study 1, a pool of discrete nonverbal behaviors with potential rela­ tional control implications was identified (e.g., head nod, raised eyebrow) from consultation with family therapy researchers and from the literature on nonverbal communication and marital and family therapy. Then, a test of the content validity of these behaviors was conducted with three inde­ pendent samples to exclude those behaviors that were not easily identifi­ able or were not discrete with respect to relational meaning. Still other be­ haviors were eliminated based on the results of a cluster analysis. Once

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

115

this was accom plished, a m eans was developed for incorporating the em­ pirically based clusters of nonverbal behaviors into the FRCCCS. In Study 2, evidence of interjudge reliability was obtained. Five judges w ere trained to identify and code nonverbal relational behaviors from vid­ eotaped family therapy session. Interjudge reliability was acceptable for both the participants (k = .96) and response mode (k = .84) dim ensions. (As all nonverbal behaviors are coded as assertions, no reliability estim ates are needed on the format dim ension.) Finally, Study 3 was conducted to test the criterion validity of the com ­ bined verbal and nonverbal FRCCCS. Like our earlier test of the “observer accu racy” (Suen, 1988, p. 358) of the verbal coding schem e (Gaul et al., 1991), results indicated that the m essage stimuli were perceived in accord with the FRCCCS coding rules. Specifically, we constructed brief (2 -3 m es­ sag e) videotaped vignettes in which the verbal and nonverbal m essages were crossed. Thus, in som e vignettes the verbal and nonverbal m essages were congruent, for example, both t , w hereas in others they were incongruent, for example, a nonverbal m essage was t while the verbal m essage was i . (In part, the latter evaluation was designed to provide information about the im pact of disparate verbal and nonverbal behaviors occurring si­ m ultaneously.) Experienced family therapists observed each vignette and rated one m essage in the vignette as a move toward either gaining or relinquishing control. The significant nonverbal effect supported the validity of the non­ verbal com ponent of the FRCCCS, while the significant verbal effect sup­ ported the validity of the verbal coding system . Comparison of effect sizes revealed that the variance accounted for by the nonverbal effect was twice that accounted for by the verbal effect. T hese findings, although not definitive, suggest that nonverbal m essages may carry m ore meaning (with resp ect to relational con trol) than do verbal ones. This conclusion needs to be tem pered, however, by the recognition that the nonverbal behaviors included in our vignettes were, due to the na­ ture of the FRCCCS, relatively discrete and obvious. More subtle nonverbal behaviors may carry less meaning in the context of verbal behaviors.

Research on Relational Control in Family Therapy The earliest studies using the FRCCCS were descriptive. For example, our first family therapy study was conducted in a hospital-based outpatient family therapy clinic known for its system ic approach and directed by Carlos Sluzki (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b). The purpose of this study was to refine the coding system as well as to identify the kinds of rela­ tional com m unication patterns that typify system ic family therapy. Because of the interesting interactional patterns that we had observed between

116

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

W hitaker and individual family m em bers in our developm ent of the FRCCCS coding rules (Heatherington et al., 1986), we speculated that therapist/fam ­ ily m em ber control patterns might differ depending on the treatm ent mo­ dality (couples vs. family therapy) and on the clients’ gender. We sampled 29 family sessions conducted betw een the 3rd and 5th w eeks of tre atm e n t by e x p e rien ced th e ra p ists. D escrip tive an aly ses showed, first, that in the couples sessions as well as the family sessions the predominant control pattern was com plem entarity, with Therapist T/Family M ember 4. Second, experienced therapists of both genders tended to en­ gage in this control pattern som ewhat m ore frequently with female clients than with male clients (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b). In a second, com parative descriptive study, we (Friedlander et al., 1991) com pared the consultative work of three leading structural therapists (C harles Fishman, Ron Liebman, and Salvador Minuchin) with those of three Milan system ic therapists (Luigi B oscolo, Gianfranco Cecchin, and Mara Selvini Palazzoli). The focus was the relational control dynamics be­ tw een th erap ists and fam ily m em bers. As hypothesized, in both ap­ proaches com plem entary relational control patterns predominated, with therapists from both cam ps m ost often assuming a Î position, and family m em bers a i position. Other relational indices show ed consid erable divergence a cro ss ap­ proaches, however. Consistent with the respective theories, the system ic therapists engaged in proportionately m ore com plem entarity than the structural therapists, probably due to their greater use of q uestion-answ er sequ ences. By contrast, the structural therapists engaged in more com peti­ tive sym m etry with family m em bers. System ic therapists encouraged or permitted significantly less interaction among the family m em bers. Rather, much of the direct action was betw een the therapist and individual family m em bers. Moreover, while the structural therapists intervened in more overtly controlling and unbalancing ways by, for exam ple, ordering, in­ structing, interrupting, praising, and supporting family m em bers (eith er di­ rectly or indirectly), the system ic therapists were, as expected, m ore neu­ tral in their indirect com munications. Overall, these results were generally congruent with theory (i.e., th era­ pists were generally “doing what they say they do,” interactionally). The re­ sults also reflected the hypothesized differences in the two approaches, providing additional support for the validity of the FRCCCS and informing a discussion about the advisability of integrating the two approaches. Subsequently, we began to ask how change p ro cesses in family therapy correspond to relational com m unication. In the first study of this type, we predicted that therapist/fam ily m em ber relational control dynamics would predict clien ts’ perceptions, specifically their overall evaluations of the ses­ sion and their views on the therapeutic alliance. In 1986, Pinsof and Cath-

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

117

erall had published the first m easure of the therapeutic alliance specifically designed for couples and families. There was som e evidence to suggest that, m easured early in treatm ent, the alliance in family therapy (like its counterpart in individual treatm ent) is predictive of outcom e (Pinsof & Catherall, 1986). We speculated that becau se com plem entarity reflects mu­ tuality in participants’ understanding of their relationship, therapist/fam ily m em ber com plem entarity would predict a m ore favorable therapeutic alli­ ance. Alternatively, less favorable alliances were expected to be related to m ore frequent com petitive symmetry, becau se this interactional pattern re­ flects disparate definitions of a social relationship. To test these predictions, we (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b) asked family m em bers (over age 10) to com plete Pinsof and Catherall’s (1986) alli­ ance scales immediately following each session, along with the Session Evaluation Q uestionnaire (Stiles, 1980). Results did not support the hypoth­ e ses concerning the alliance, but a statistical trend suggested that com ­ plem entarity in which the family m em ber was dominant (T ) and the thera­ pist subm issive (4-) predicted a less favorable alliance. While this finding has not been replicated, it makes sen se intuitively in that one may expect a controlling therapist to be an asset when the family is undergoing a great deal of conflict. The more able the therapist is to a ssert control in a chaotic session, the m ore he or she is likely to be viewed by family m em bers as possessing the requisite knowledge and skills to help them. Although the verbal patterns were not strongly predictive of the alliance, the latter was related to family m em bers’ perceptions of the session ’s value (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990c). We suspected that the leap from ver­ bal patterns in ju st one session to these interm ediate outcom e (Greenberg, 1986) variables was too large. W hat was m ore likely to be observed—and possibly m ore meaningful—was a shift in the quality of the com m unication patterns them selves. Would, we wondered, the father in the W hitaker inter­ view (Heatherington et al., 1986) begin to behave differently with his wife and son over the cou rse of treatm ent? If so, the com petitive sym m etry we observed in the session might occu r less frequently or might alternate with other com m unication patterns over the cou rse of treatm ent. These ques­ tions drew us away from averaging data acro ss families and toward a m ore intensive view of change over time in a single family. We therefore conducted a case study (Raymond et al., 1993) to provide information about the p ro cess of change in structural therapy with an anorexic family. The structural approach was selected becau se it is consid­ ered to be clear, specific, and, with its em phasis on observable interaction, relatively more am enable to empirical investigation than other leading models of family therapy (Gurman, 1988; Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990a). Although the outcom e literature has supported the effectiveness of structural therapy for several disorders, few studies have been undertaken

118

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

to exam ine the approach as it is actually practiced. Other than the original work upon which the theory was predicated (e.g., Minuchin et al., 1978), in­ vestigations of the process of change over th e cou rse of structural family therapy are notably absent. An anorexic family was selected for intensive study becau se many asp ects of structural theory were developed from clin­ ical work with these types of families (e.g., Minuchin et al., 1978) and be­ cause there is som e evidence to suggest that structural treatm ent is suc­ cessful with this difficult client population (e.g., Liebman, Minuchin, & Baker, 1974). The major feature of structural treatm ent explored in the case study was the interactional communication patterns of family mem bers with one an­ other and with their therapists. According to structural theory (e.g., Minu­ chin, 1974), the goal of treatm ent is to alter specific patterns of dysfunctional interaction (e.g., enmeshment, rigidity, intergenerational coalitions, detour­ ing) that maintain symptoms. Thus, we expected that an examination of changes over time in the observable interactional patterns of family mem­ bers would provide information concerning whether the change process cor­ responds with theory. We also questioned whether structural therapists in­ teract with family members in theoretically predictable ways by, for example, challenging behaviors indicative of enmeshment or triangulation. We reasoned that relational control has a close connection with struc­ tural theory inasmuch as relational control con cern s how individuals use language to influence one another (Ericson & Rogers, 1973) and the roots of the construct can be traced to B ateson’s (1936/1958) proposition that inter­ personal relations are reflected in the implicit hierarchy and structure of the m essages people exchange with one another (Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983). Likewise, structural theorists em phasize the role of com municational transactions in defining and reflecting hierarchical relations between and among family m em bers (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin et al., 1978; Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). In this single case design, John Sargent, well known for his inpatient work with chronic families of this type (e.g., Sargent, Liebman, & Silver, 1985), conducted (with a co-therapist) 15 sessions of family treatm ent over a 3-week period. Each of th ese 15 family interviews was examined sep a­ rately and in entirety in term s of specific relational control variables reflect­ ing transactional rigidity, enm eshm ent, intergenerational coalitions, and interpersonal closen ess-d istan ce. Sessions from the three phases of treat­ ment (beginning, middle, and end) were com pared for changes in relational control patterns (a ) betw een the anorexic daughter and her parents and (b ) between Sargent and each of these three family m em bers. Multidimen­ sional scaling (MDS; Kruskal & Wish, 1978) provided spatial maps of the un­ derlying interpersonal structure of the therapist-fam ily system ; th ese maps were examined for the predicted changes over time. Finally, therapist inter-

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

119

ventions following specific observable dysfunctional family com m unica­ tions (e.g., intergenerational coalitions) were examined. Consistent with our earlier work (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b) on relational control dynamics, Therapist t/Fam ily Member 4- com plem en­ tarity predominated throughout this case. With the identified patient, this pattern was observed m ore frequently in the early and late phases of treat­ ment than in the middle, or restructuring, stage. The MDS maps showed that Sargent maintained a central position in the system throughout treat­ ment, with the cotherapist more peripheral. Hypothesized changes in alli­ ances within the family were not evident in the maps, however. Indeed, the findings did not confirm the majority of our theory-based hy­ potheses, particularly those concerning changes in family behavior over time. Relational behaviors assum ed to reflect intergenerational triangula­ tion and enm eshm ent, two hallmarks of anorexic families according to structural theorists (e.g., Minuchin et al., 1978), were expected to decrease in frequency throughout treatm ent. Only three instances of these inter­ actional behaviors were observed in the entire treatm ent. Indeed, given the structural em phasis on family “enactm ent” (Minuchin et al., 1978), there was surprisingly little family interaction throughout; family m em bers ad­ dressed each other, on average, only 22% of the time. Although few statistical tests could be conducted due to the low fre­ quency of within-family interactions, a close inspection of the family’s rela­ tional control patterns suggested that som e changes in the family’s rigid com m unication style may have occurred over time. Specifically, the par­ ents were observed to engage in more com petitive sym m etry over time, possibly reflecting a struggle for control betw een them. At the sam e time, the com petitive sym m etry betw een the anorexic daughter and each parent d ecreased over time. We speculated that these shifts might reflect less de­ touring or conflict avoidance on the part of the parents and a consequent “detriangling of the sym ptom atic child” (p. 323). We also observed therapists’ responses to dysfunctional family com mu­ nication patterns. The patterns of interest were those that theorists (e.g., Minuchin & Fishman, 1981) consider to reflect an underlying structural problem in the family. It was hypothesized that, becau se the goal of struc­ tural treatm ent is to disrupt com m unication patterns reflecting boundary violations or cross-generational triangulation, the therapists would inter­ vene immediately by interpreting or confronting these behaviors or by edu­ cating or coaching the family toward more functional com munication. Based on the FRCCCS, the following indices were identified over the cou rse of the 15-session treatm ent: (a ) intercepts, or attem pts by the daugh­ ter to interrupt in her p arents’ conversations with each other, and (b ) coalitionary moves in which the daughter supported one parent while chal­ lenging the other or in which (c ) either parent supported the daughter

120

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

while challenging the spouse. Although only three such instances were ob ­ served, on each of these occasions, the therapists did respond immediately as predicted. Their interventions either “redirected the conversation, . . . provided information, direct guidance or advice, or . . . sought information from family m em bers in a highly structuring, one-up m anner” (Raymond et al., 1993, p. 322). In this research, that is, at th e speech act level of the ther­ apy process, all behaviors occurring during the sam ple—be it a segm ent, a session, or an entire treatm ent—were observed. The data provided a de­ scriptive and com prehensive, but relatively flat, map of the terrain of rela­ tional control. By contrast, in individual psychotherapy research a relatively new strat­ egy was emerging that focuses on particular features of the terrain of inter­ action, change event research (G reenberg, 1986). In change event studies, the assum ption is that not all speech acts are of equal im portance. Rather, there is a focus on the psychotherapy event, an “interactional sequ ence be­ tween the client and therapist . . . that has . . . a particular structure that gives it meaning as an island of behavior distinguishable from the sur­ rounding behaviors in the ongoing psychotherapeutic p r o c e s s .. . . The event represents a therapeutic activity that com es to som e closure in the hour” (Greenberg, 1984, pp. 137-138). In this approach, a therapeutic epi­ sode with a clinically identifiable task, a beginning (th e m arker phase), and an end (th e resolution p hase) is operationally defined. In the marker phase, the therapist notices and sets out to address emotional, cognitive, or (m ost important in family therapy) interactional problems. In the resolution phase, there is observable evidence of a shift in em otional, cognitive, or interac­ tional states, signaling the work done in the middle phase has been su ccess­ ful. The jo b of the researcher, then, is to analyze im portant aspects of the event—but particularly the middle phase—in order to build a perform ance model, or a delineation of the sequ ence of steps on the part of the thera­ pists and clien t(s) that are necessary to produce change. By limiting on e’s study to behaviors that surround such clinically meaningful moments, the research er can elucidate the actual m echanism s of therapeutic change. Arguing that change event research strategies should also be applied to family therapy research (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990a), we analyzed two dem onstration interviews by th eorist Salvador Minuchin. We identified a com m on “task” in both sessions as “com m itm ent to engage” (p. 40). In each case, the therapeutic event involved breaking an unproductive pursu e-d istan ce cycle that was hindering family m em bers’ abilities to engage effectively with one another in problem solving. In both sessions, by the end of the event the interpersonal im passe was significantly modified such that the parents no longer pursued and the son no longer distanced. Rather, each boy began to express his feelings to his p arent(s) voluntarily and with deep feeling.

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

121

Interpersonal control is a key construct in structural family therapy, and in these sessions, there were explicit power struggles surrounding the act of com m unication itself. Thus, in each interview, the FRCCCS data were com pared for the m arker and the resolution phases. The m arker phase of one interview was characterized alm ost exclusively by com plem entary Mother t/S o n 4 exchanges in which she was asking highly structuring, som ewhat blaming, closed questions. The son ’s re­ sponses were minimal closed answers, not giving much but also not at­ tempting to change the topic or challenge her. During the resolution phase, there were m ore different types of relational control exchanges; com peti­ tive sym m etry increased, and the com plem entarity pattern reversed, with Son t and M other 4, reflecting m ore a genuine give-and-take betw een them. In the second interview, the parents exchanged no m essages with each other during the marker phase. The com m unication was marked by com ­ petitive symmetry, which com prised 40% of the Father-Son exchanges and 50% of the M other-Son exchanges. T h ese reflected a power struggle, again around com m unication, of the “Tell me w hat’s bothering you”/ “No, I won’t” variety (p. 43). The rest of the com m unication was marked by com plem en­ tary sequ ences in which the son ’s m essage were t to the m other but 4- to the father. In the resolution, the m other began to a ssert m ore control and the roles of M other and Son in the com plem entary exchanges reversed. In addition, m other and father began to openly discuss their conflict, and their interaction was characterized by com petitive sym m etry in this phase. T hese relational control analyses proved useful in operationalizing the interactional change that was clinically observable. This was also true for a more extensive follow up study, conducted in a field (clinic) setting (Friedlander, Heatherington, Johnson, & Skowron, 1994). In this study, we called the task sustaining engagement to reflect family mem­ b ers’ engagem ent behaviors (rath er than their motivation to engage). Spe­ cifically, the term engagement refers to a challenging phenom enon in which families—even those who have voluntarily sought psychotherapy—som e­ tim es refuse to engage in productive collaboration with each other in the session. At the point at which the therapist notes the interactional patterns marking this situation, a sustaining engagem ent event may occur. That is, given successful interventions, that im passe may be resolved, allowing the family to move from disengagem ent to productive problem solving. We com pared four successful with four unsuccessful change events, and defined sustained engagem ent as “a seq u ence of at least 8 speaking turns in which family m em bers are observably willing to d isclose thoughts or feel­ ings on [a] designated topic, to share or cooperate, to show interest and in­ volvem ent in the discussion, or to be responsive and attentive (i.e., em o­ tionally p resen t)” (Friedlander et al., 1994, p. 9). On the basis of qualitative and quantitative analyses of the successful and unsuccessful sessions, a conceptual model of the process of change was created.

122

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

This perform ance model involved a series of five interrelated steps: ac­ knowledging one’s own contribution to the interpersonal im passe, commu­ nication of thoughts and feelings about the im passe, validation of those feelings by other family m em bers, developm ent of new constructions of one another’s behavior, and recognition of the potential benefits of engage­ ment. We described various strategies and interventions that the therapists used to facilitate engagem ent throughout the process using exam ples from the four successful change events (Details can be found in Friedlander et al., 1994). Again, and of particular relevance to this chapter, there was a need for interactional, behavioral m easures to study the process of change. One com plex aspect of this type of change event was the fact that there were clearly different styles of disengagem ent. In identifying the event (th e initial phase of this task analysis research), we noted three disengagem ent styles: direct (e.g., refusing to speak), indirect (e.g., shifting the topic), and passive (e.g., minimal responding, paying “lip service” to the issue). It is clear that these styles of disengagem ent represent a mix of content (what is said) and process (how it is said). All three styles were represented in the marker phase in the successful sam ple as well as in the unsuccessful sample. Relational com m unication in the m arker phases of these sessions varied. In som e families, there was much family interaction during the m arker phase, whereas in others family m em bers rarely spoke with one another. O bservations of the relational control m aneuvers suggested that som e fam­ ily m em bers were struggling for control. In other families, the pattern was predominantly complementarity. We noted that active, direct disengagement (arguing, topic changing, challenging) tends to be revealed by FRCCCS com ­ petitive symmetry; passive disengagement of the pursue-distance variety tends to be reflected in stable com plem entarity, with one family m em ber consistently attempting to gain control and another party consistently go­ ing one-down. By the sam e token, there was diversity in the FRCCCS coding in the resolution phase of the four successful events. No one kind of interac­ tion or pattern of transactions characterized these resolutions. As a consequence, and in con trast to som e of findings on marital satis­ faction and relational control (se e chap. 4, this volume), we could not con­ clude that som e patterns of family com m unication reflect a healthier reso­ lution than others. Rather, the resolution was revealed by a marked shift from the prior pattern of relating, a change that signaled a move from the initial “stuckn ess.” In one event, for example, M other and Son hardly inter­ acted in the m arker phase, reflecting their passive disengagement. In the resolution phase, their control defining pattern was com plem entary; she was asking questions, he was responding. By contrast, in another event, a couple’s stable com plem entarity in the marker phase d ecreased in the res­ olution. This shift signaled progress for this couple inasmuch as the hus­

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

123

band began to challenge his wife a bit more and collaborate m ore fully in the task at hand.

C O N C L U S IO N The important contributions of relational com m unication control theory and m easurem ent is its (a ) insistence on the interactional, reciprocal na­ ture of com m unication, (b ) its recognition of interpersonal control as an im­ portant dim ension in close relationships, and (c ) its assum ption that com ­ munication does not reflect, but rather builds and constructs, psychosocial relationships. Although these ideas may seem self-evident today, they were neither self-evident nor accepted in psychotherapy theory and research 20 years ago. Indeed, they were heretical. Psychotherapy, until the 1960s, was individually and intrapsychically focused. The notion that interactive be­ haviors betw een multiple interactants was worthy of study or intervention was limited to a few visionaries (e.g., Sullivan, 1953). Happily but not coincidentally (b ecau se they grew from the sam e roots), system ic theories of psychotherapy and relational control m easurem ent arose in a com plem entary fashion. Relational control theory proved to be a rich sou rce of conceptual and m easurem ent tools that were com patible with system ic approaches to psychotherapy, and allowed the kinds of re­ search efforts reviewed in this chapter to be undertaken. To date, research ­ ers have found that relational control in family therapy session s can be ob ­ served reliably and accurately, and th ere seem to be som e com m on relational features in family therapy (e.g., the predominant control pattern being Therapist t/Fam ily Member 4 com plem entarity, at least in the tradi­ tional schools of family therapy), as well as som e specific features that dis­ tinguish one approach from the other (e.g., structural family therapy from Milan system ic therapy). Furtherm ore, changes over time in relational com ­ munication patterns correspond to clinically meaningful changes, as in the resolution of sustaining engagem ent events. We have also learned that generalizing acro ss families about what kinds of relational com m unication patterns are best, that is, correlated with a good therapeutic alliance or indicative of healthy family functioning, is not as fruitful as examining changes over time in relational control dynamics. The form er is analogous to a photographic snapshot, while the latter is m ore like a running videotape of the dynamics of family interaction. More­ over, acro ss families, there are differences in the specific kinds of patterns that constitute therapeutic change. In som e families, an increase in com pet­ itive sym m etry may signal a healthy airing of conflict becau se until that point one person was rigidly 4-, the other always t , with all conflict sup­ pressed. In other families, com petitive sym m etry might signal the unwilling­

124

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

ness of individuals to com prom ise or yield to the others. Thus, to make the sam e predictions for all families, or to average relational control indices acro ss families, would obscure im portant differences as well as prevent meaningful conclusions about change. Following Safran, Greenberg, and Rice (1988), we believe that intensive, discovery-oriented research strate­ gies are the m ost appropriate m ethods for addressing clinically meaningful question. This is nicely illustrated, with regard to relational p ro cesses in solution-focused therapy, by the work of Beyebach et al. (1996). What does the future hold? We suggest a number of possibilities for con­ tinued understanding of relational control in psychotherapy. First, from Bate­ son on, the major point of relational control theory has been that isolated be­ haviors are meaningless—only by studying any given behavior in relation to the stream of behavior in which it is embedded, does its meaning becom es evident. Following this reasoning, there is a need to pay more attention to the larger contexts that surround the coding of relational control behavior. Research is needed on both obvious and subtle nonverbal behaviors as well as on the relationships between the nonverbal and verbal channels of com­ munication. These may of course vary depending on gender, status, or cul­ tural differences as well as on the context of the interaction. In the context of an argument, nonverbal behaviors (walking out, using ridiculing or threaten­ ing gestures, and so forth) seem to carry more weight, but in a problem solv­ ing discussion, verbal m essages may have more influence. Moreover, we need to move beyond basic descriptive, summarizing maps of relational com m unication in psychotherapy to m ore specific maps of how relational control patterns betw een therapists and multiple family m em bers vary at different strategic points (e.g., in establishing alliances, challenging coalitions, using indirect one-up m oves). This work has barely begun. The goal of such analysis should be a pragm atic one. That is, we need to know w hether the practice of a particular approach is consistent with theory, and if so, exactly what it is about the discourse that is th era­ peutic, what actually happens that leads to client improvement. Our final point con cern s relational com m unication and evolving models of psychotherapy. In the years since the inception of relational control the­ ory, and even subsequent to m ost of the research reviewed in this chapter, there has been a great deal of change and developm ent in psychotherapy theory and practice, particularly within the family therapy field. The earli­ est models of family therapy were based on cybernetics and general sys­ tem s theory. As these enterprises concerned them selves with concepts like control, feedback, and hom eostasis in physical, biological, or ecological system s, so too the original models of family therapy concerned them ­ selves with these concepts in human system s. This way of thinking about family and therapy interaction dovetailed with the popular behavioral re­ search m ethods in psychology, and produced an approach to family ther­

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

125

apy (and family therapy resea rch ) which was concerned with the observ­ able and sequ ential pattern s of interaction betw een people—with the pragm atics of human com m unication (Watzlawick et al., 1967). In recent years, a new wave of concepts has been infused into therapy practice and research. Variously known as postm odern, constructivist, con­ structionist, solution-focused, or narrative (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988, 1992; deShazer, 1982, 1991; McNamee & Gergen, 1992; O’Hanlon & WeinerDavis, 1988) approaches, they share a com mon focus on the socially con­ structed meanings of behaviors—including language behavior—rath er than on the behavior itself. In these theories, patterns of behavior are less mean­ ingful than the interpretations or beliefs that people have about those pat­ terns. Thus concepts like “meaning-generated sy stem s” have produced var­ ious therapy techniqu es that focus on helping people co n stru ct new “sto ries” about their relationships or problem s rath er than on changing those system s or interactions them selves. For psychotherapy researchers, this state of affairs is both exciting and challenging. It is exciting becau se it broadens the domains of investigation to understand the process of change. Not only interactional behavior, but also cognitions and em otions must be incorporated into our research ques­ tions and designs. Relational com m unication remains an important piece of the puzzle, but research ers are now also studying the subjective meanings and em otional consequences of interactional patterns, including relational control patterns. Escudero, Rogers, and Gutierrez (1997), for example, found that relational control and affect were m oderately but certainly not com pletely correlated, and each domain added interactional information. M oreover, as noted earlier, context m attered. In this case, the context was the quality of the ongoing relationship, the backdrop for the discussions that were studied. For couples who were in treatm ent for marital problem s, escalating com petitive sym m etry was associated with negative affect, but for nonclinic couples, this was not the case. Competitive sym m etry was as likely to be associated with neutral affect as it was with negative affect. In our research on sustaining engagem ent (Friedlander et al., 1994), we found that successful resolution of disengagem ent im passes included an affective or “hope” com ponent, when family m em bers cam e to recognize their em o­ tional bonds and their value. This seem ed to motivate change in their ac­ tual behaviors with each other. The point is that supplementing a focus on interactions with a focus, where appropriate, on feelings and beliefs, is nec­ essary to capture the full meaning and import of psychotherapy processes. The beauty of relational control theory is that it is congruent with the theory of change in the early family therapy models—there is an isom or­ phism betw een the tools and the theories. The challenge for relational com ­ munication research ers in the 21st century will be one of integration: how to use theoretical models, and com bine m easurem ent strategies from be-

126

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

havioral, cognitive, and affective dom ains in o rd er to build a com prehen­ sive scien ce of the p ro cess of psychotherapeu tic change.

REFERENCES Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human system s as linguistic system s: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 317-398. Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1992). The client is the expert: A not knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 25-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bateson, G. (1958). Naven. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1936). Beyebach, M., de la Cueva, F., Ramos, M., & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1990, June). Relational commu­ nication control in first interviews o f systemic therapy. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Meeting, Dublin, Ireland. Beyebach, M., & Escudero, V. (1997). Therapeutic interaction and dropout: Measuring relational communication in solution-focused therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 19, 173-212. Beyebach, M., Rodríguez Morejón, A., Palenzuela, D. L., & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Research on the process of solution-focused therapy. In S. Miller, M. A. Hubble, & B. Duncan (Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy (pp. 299-334). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bowen, M. B. (1976). Theory in the practice of psychotherapy. In P. J. Guerin (Ed.), Family ther­ apy: Theory and practice (pp. 42-90). New York: Gardner. Cegala, D. J., McNeilis, K. S., McGee, D. S., & Jonas, A. P. (1995). A study of doctors’ and patients’ perceptions of information processing and communication com petence during the medical interview. Health Communication, 7, 179-203. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreem ent for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. deShazer, S. (1982). Patterns of brief family therapy. New York: Norton. deShazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York: Norton. Erchul, W. P. (1987). A relational communication analysis of control in school consultation. Pro­ fessional School Psychology, 2, 113-124. Erchul, W. P., & Chewning, T. G. (1990). Behavioral consultation from a request-centered rela­ tional communication perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 5, 1-20. Erchul, W. P., Covington, C. G., Hughes, J. N., & Meyers, J. (1996). Further explorations of requestcentered relational communication within school consultation. School Psychology Review, 24, 621-632. Ericson, P. M., & Rogers, L. E. (1973). New procedures for analyzing relational communication. Family Process, 12, 245-267. Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., & Gutierrez, E. (1997). Patterns of relational control and nonverbal af­ fect in clinic and nonclinic couples. Journal of Personal and Scxial Relationships, 14, 5-29. Folger, J. P., & Poole, M. S. (1982). Relational coding schem es: The question of validity. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 235-257). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Friedlander, M. L. (1993). Does com plementarity promote or hinder client change in brief ther­ apy? A review of the evidence from two theoretical perspectives. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 457-486. Friedlander, M. L., Ellis, M. V., Raymond, L., Siegel, S. M., & Milford, D. (1987). Convergence and divergence in the process of interviewing families. Psychotherapy, 24, 335-341.

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

127

Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1989). Analyzing relational control in family therapy in­ terviews. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 139-148. Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., Johnson, B., & Skowron, E. (1994). Sustaining engagement: A change event in family therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 438-448. Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Wildman, J. (1991). Interpersonal control in structural and Milan systemic family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 395-408. Friedlander, M. L., Siegel, S. M., & Brenock, K. (1989). Parallel processes in counseling and super­ vision: A case study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 149-157. Gaul, R., Simon, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Cutler, C. (1991). Correspondence of family therapists’ perceptions with the FRCCCS coding rules for triadic interactions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 379-394. Greenberg, L. S. (1984). Task analysis: The general approach. In L. N. Rice & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Patterns of change (pp. 124-148). New York: Guilford. Greenberg, L. S. (1986). Change process research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 4-9. Gurman, A. S. (1988). Issues in the specification of family therapy interventions. In L. C. Wynne (Ed.), The state of the art in family therapy research: Controversies and recommendations (pp. 125-138). New York: Family Process Press. Haley, J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton. Haley, J. (1967). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In G. H. Zuk & I. Boszormenyi-Nagy (Eds.), Family therapy and disturbed families (pp. 11-27). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Heatherington, L. (1985, August). A descriptive and lag analysis of relational control in counseling. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Heatherington, L. (1988). Coding relational control in counseling: Criterion validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 41-46. Heatherington, L., & Allen, G. J. (1984). Sex and relational communication patterns in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 287-294. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family Relational Communication Control Coding System manual. (Available from Laurie Heatherington, Psychology Department, Bronfman Science Center, Williams College, Williamstown, MA 01267 USA). Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990a). Applying task analysis to structural family ther­ apy. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 36-48. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990b). Complementarity and symmetry in family ther­ apy communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 261-286. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990c). Couple and family psychotherapy alliance scales: Empirical considerations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 299-306. Heatherington, L., Friedlander, M. L., & Raymond, L. (1986, August). Methods for investigating rela­ tional control in family therapy interviews. Paper presented at the annual convention, Ameri­ can Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research. New York: Wiley. Klerman, G. L., & Weissman, M. M. (Eds.). (1993). New applications of interpersonal psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, Inc. Klerman, G. L., Weissman, M. M., Rounsaville, B. J., & Chevron, E. (Eds.). (1984). Interpersonal psy­ chotherapy of depression. Northvale: Jason Aronson Press. Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. (Sage University Paper Series on Quan­ titative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-011). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lamude, K. G., Scudder, J., & Dickson, R. (1994). Relational communication messages of Type-A scoring physicians. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 985-986. Lichtenberg, J. W. (1985, August). A structural analysis of counseling interaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

128

HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER

Lichtenberg, J. W., & Barké, K. H. (1981). Investigation of transactional communication relation­ ship patterns in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 471-480. Lichtenberg, J. W., & Heck, E. J. (1986). Analysis of sequence and pattern in process research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 170-181. Liebman, R., Minuchin, S., & Baker, L. (1974). An integrated treatm ent program for anorexia nervosa. American Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 41-43. Mark, R. A. (1971). Coding communication at the relational level. The Journal of Communication, 21, 221-232. Martens, B. K., Erchul, W. P., & Witt, J. C. (1992). Quantifying verbal interactions in school-based consultation: A com parison of four coding schem es. School Psychology Review, 2 1 ,109-124. McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1992). Therapy as social construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McNeilis, K. S., Thompson, T. L., & O’Hair, D. (1995). Implications of relational communication for therapeutic discourse. In G. H. Morris & R. J. Chenail (Eds.), The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse (pp. 291-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Minuchin, S., & Fishman, C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer­ sity Press. Minuchin, S., Rosman, B. L., & Baker, L. (1978). Psychosomatic families: Anorexia nervosa in con­ text. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Morris, G. H., & Chenail, R. J. (Eds.). (1995). The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of med­ ical and therapeutic discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Hanlon, W. H., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1988). In search of solutions: A new direction in psychotherapy. New York: Norton. Pinsof, W. M., & Catherall, D. R. (1986). The integrative psychotherapy alliance: Family, couple, and individual therapy scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12, 137-151. Raymond, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., Ellis, M. V., & Sargent, J. (1993). Communica­ tion p rocesses in structural family therapy: Case study of an anorexic family. Journal of Fam­ ily Psychology, 6, 308-326. Riskin, J., & Faunce, E. E. (1977). Family interaction scales. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds. & Trans.), The interactional view (pp. 101-127). New York: Norton. Rodriguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Investigaciones sobre control relacional y interacción terapéutica [In­ vestigations on relational control and therapeutic interaction]. Paper presented at the con­ ference “Research on the Process of Therapeutic Interaction,” La Coruna, Spain. Rogers, L. E., & Bagarozzi, D. A. (1983). An overview of relational communication and implica­ tions for theory. In D. A. Bagarozzi, A. P. Jurovich, & R. W. Jackson (Eds.), Marital and family therapy (pp. 48-78). New York: Human Sciences Press. Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measurement pro­ cedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239. Sackett, G. P. (1977). Measurement in observational research. In G. P. Sackett (Ed.), Observing be­ havior: Data collection and analysis methods (pp. 15-24). Baltimore: University Park Press. Safran, J. D., Greenberg, L. S., & Rice, L. N. (1988). Integrating psychotherapy research and prac­ tice: Modeling the change process. Psychotherapy, 25, 1-17. Sargent, J., Liebman, R., & Silver, M. (1985). Family therapy for anorexia. In M. Garner & P. Garfinkel (Eds.), Treatment of anorexia nervosa and bulimia (pp. 257-279). New York: Guilford. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1947). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Siegel, S. M., Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1992). Nonverbal relational control in family communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 117-139. Sluzki, C. E., & Beavin, J. (1977). Symmetry and complementarity: An operational definition and a typology of dyads. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds. & Trans.), The interactional view (pp.

5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

129

71-87). New York: Norton. (Reprinted from Acta psiquiatrica y psicologica de America Latina, 1965, 11, 321-330). Sluzki, C. E., Beavin, J., Tarnopolsky, A., & Veron, E. (1977). Transactional disqualification: Re­ search on the double bind. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds. & Trans.), The interactional view (pp. 208-277). New York: Norton. Stiles, W. (1980). Measurement of the impact of psychotherapy sessions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 176-185. Strong, S. R., & Claiborn, C. D. (1982). Change through interaction: Social psychological processes of counseling and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley. Suen, H. K. (1988). Agreement, reliability, accuracy, and validity: Toward a clarification. Behav­ ioral Assessment, 10, 343-366. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Thames, T., & Johnson, D. (1982, August). The dynamics of relationship control during termination in time-limited therapy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington. DC. Tracey, T. J. (1991). The structure of control and influence in counseling and psychotherapy: A com parison of several definitions and measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 265278. Tracey, T. J., & Miars, R. D. (1986). Interpersonal control in psychotherapy: A com parison of two definitions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 585-592. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton. Weiner, N., Budney, S., Wood, L., & Russell, R. L. (1989). Nonverbal events in psychotherapy. Clin­ ical Psychology Review, 9, 487-504. Wilder-Mott, C., & Weakland, J. H. (Eds.). (1981). Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson. New York: Praeger.

C H A P T E R

6 Relational Research in Brief Family Therapy: Clinical Implications Jo sé Luis Rodríguez-Arias Virxe da Xunqueria Hospital, Spain

In 1986, after completing my doctoral thesis, I seriously considered the need to open up a new line of research with the aim of exploring the empiri­ cal implications for the set of assumptions and criteria that were guiding my clinical decisions. At that time I was teaching family therapy in the Fac­ ulty of Psychology at the Universidad Pontificia in Salamanca (Spain), while at the same time, working as a clinical psychologist in a private psychother­ apy center which was a pioneer in Spain in the training of family therapists. During that period both my colleagues and myself held the belief that the therapeutic relation was absolutely fundamental to the successful outcome of psychotherapeutic treatment, yet we had no solid empirical evidence on which to base our assertion. However, in the discussions and evaluations of our clinical cases, the centrality of the th erap ist-clien t relationship was repeatedly emphasized with com ments such as, “It’s necessary to wait until the therapeutic rela­ tion is better established so that . . . , ” or “I’m doing this in order to im­ prove the relation,” or “I proposed more change than the therapeutic rela­ tion can handle.” These practical understandings carried over into our teaching and training of students, by stressing that in the first sessions of therapy, priority should be given to establishing a therapeutic relation­ ship which would facilitate the subsequent process of implementing change within the family system . Although this made intuitive sense, the question of w hether this would be empirically supported remained. In com bination, these concerns indicated the need for research and spurred

131

132

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

my interest in investigating the th erapeutic relationship, its interactive p ro cesse s and clinical con seq u en ces. Brief Family Therapy, the theoretical model that guided and continues to guide our clinical practice, is based on the idea that problems occur between people, not within people. This approach both analyzes and intervenes in the interpersonal side of family problem s and considers the intrapsychic aspects to be of secondary importance. Therefore, in order to carry out the line of re­ search envisioned, it was necessary to find a methodology for the collection of data that would focus on the relational aspects of therapy. In contrast, the majority of the m ethodological procedures currently in use assess individual behavior and are founded on the idea that through these analytical tests it is possible to discover what a person is like or how they usually behave and then, attem pt to predict their behavior based on the acquired information of the ch aracteristics or traits that make up what is known as a person’s “personality.” I feel there are two crucial reasons why this type of m easurem ent is inappropriate for evaluating the different elem ents of the psychotherapeutic process. First, such tests require a m echanistic procedure based on evaluating each person, or each variable, separately and then attempting to put them together, thereby violating the holistic or totality principle of General System s Theory (Bertalanffy, 1968). Second, and m ost important, such tests are inadequate, becau se they evalu­ ate only individual behavior and ignore the relational asp ects of behavior that are precisely what Brief Family Therapy focuses on. At this critical point in my thinking, 1 cam e into contact with the Rela­ tional Communication Control Coding System (Rogers, 1972), a system that operationalizes the concepts of symmetry and com plementarity which are defined in the communication axiom put forward by Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) that “All communicational exchanges are either symmetrical or complementary, depending on whether they are based on equality or dif­ ference” (p. 70). Thus, symmetry and com plementarity are defined as charac­ teristics of communicative exchanges, not individual behavior. An isolated m essage can be neither symmetrical nor complementary, but rather merges, in relation to the com bination of m essage exchange, into m essage sequences which “becom e” symmetrical or complementary, hence, these patterns rep­ resent dyadic concepts. According to Watzlawick et al. (1967), a relational pattern is considered pathological when it becom es rigidly sym m etrical or com plem entary. The case of the former is referred to as “sym m etrical escalation” while the latter is known as “rigid com plem entarity.” A progressive pattern of symmetry, however, is interrupted when com plem entarity is introduced and vice versa. By applying these ideas to therapy sessions, a therapist can propose subm issive m aneuvers when he or she perceives that relational m em bers are overengaging in sym m etrical exchange; likewise, if the therapist notes a

6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

133

relation of rigid com plem entarity, he or she can direct the exchanges to­ ward increased opposition. The Relational Communication Control Coding System (RCCCS) defines three com m unicative m aneuvers for each interlocutor: one-up ( t ) , one­ down (4-) and one-across (-» ), and nine dyadic exchanges: three sym m etri­ cal ( t T / i 4 / - > - > ) , two com plem entary (T4/4-T) and four transitional ( f - > / —>T /4 — >/—>■!') transacts. With this perspective, the basic, com m unicative be­ havior patterns defined in The Pragmatics o f Human Communication by Watzlawick et al. (1967) are considerably enriched. When these authors speak of sym m etry they are referring only to com petitive sym m etry (TT); the RCCCS also defines subm issive sym m etry ( 4 i ) and leveling symmetry (-» -» ). Furtherm ore, patterns of escalating sym m etry can be altered with enactm ents of one-across transitory exchanges as well as com plem entary transacts, and rigid com plem entarity can also be modified through differ­ ent m odes of transitory and sym m etrical transacts. By defining new rela­ tional com m unicative maneuvers, the range of com m unicational strategies available to a therapist (and/or resea rch er) is considerably broadened. From the standpoint of family therapy, the chief limitation of the RCCCS is that it was designed to be applied mainly to dyadic interaction; for clinical sessions with more than one family mem ber present, this limitation clearly represents a problem. However, of the Brief Family Therapy cases available for the present research, sessions involving the whole family were, in fact, quite rare, whereas individual sessions represented more than 40/6 of all cases (Fontecilla, Ramos, & Rodríguez-Arias, 1993; González et al., 1998; Rodriguez-Arias et al., 2000). Thus, for cases involving individual family member sessions, the RCCCS methodology was appropriate, and these cases pro­ vided a sufficient number of sessions for exploring the communication proc­ esses at work within the clien t-therapist relationship (Beyebach, de la Cueva, Ramos, & Rodríguez-Arias, 1990). Although limited to a dyadic unit, the potential therapeutic value of the insights gained is augmented by the general principle, that when even one element of a system (e.g., family) changes, this affects the rest of the system in its entirety (Bertalanffy, 1968). In applying Brief Family Therapy, as the name implies, it is custom ary practice to approach treatm ent with a view toward keeping the required num ber of therapy session s limited. Likewise, the therapist typically agrees to work with whoever com es to consult, but in setting the conditions for im­ plementing treatm ent, em phasizes that only those who firmly want to col­ laborate with the treatm ent should participate. In this way, although we speak of family therapy, the make-up of each session may be quite variable with the whole family, part of the family, or one m em ber attending. The view of those who attend is taken into consideration by the therapist, based on the information that each has to offer. Obviously, a balanced view of the family system is necessary in order to achieve a stable therapy outcom e. If

134

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

a therapeutic intervention favors the interests of one or som e m em bers to the detrim ent of others, the added dissatisfaction or system disturbance will negatively affect the treatm ent p ro cess and increase the likelihood of an unsuccessful outcom e. To investigate the p ro cesses involved in the therapeutic relationship, I was fortunate, in coordinating these efforts, to be associated with a group of students studying family therapy at the Universidad Pontificia who were eager to participate in carrying out the research. At the sam e time at the private family therapy center, I was one of a group of therapists who were willing to have their clinical cases provide the d atabase for the proposed process-oriented studies which, based on the results, would allow an evalu­ ation of the psychotherapy approach taken. The value of the insights gained carried potential benefits both for doing therapy, and for teaching therapeutic procedures. All of the clinical cases were directed by therapists following a Brief Family Therapy model. In addition, all case session s were videotaped as a regular practice at the clinic and thus, available for being transcribed and coded according to the relational control coding system . All therapy sessions utilized in the research were coded by trained coders, with acceptable interrater reliabilities achieved in all cases. For the present research, initial, individual format sessions were selected for analysis in which two phases are distinguished, information and interven­ tion, which are generally separated by a consultation break. During the infor­ mation phase, the client expresses his or her complaints and the therapist di­ rects the topic of conversation to those m atters that are clinically relevant to the client’s view of defining goals and how the family has tried to solve the problem up to the point (Fontecilla, Gonzalez, Ramos, & Rodríguez-Arias, 1996). Two types of solutions are distinguished in Brief Family Therapy: those that partially solve the problem, known as exceptions (de Shazer, 1985), and those that invoke, intensify or worsen the problem, that are referred to as at­ tempted solutions (Fisch, Weakland, & Segal, 1982). During this initial phase the therapist’s attention is aimed at both constructing the therapy system and organizing the information in such a way that a new form of solution can be designed to solve the problem. In this phase, priority is given to the rela­ tional aspects over solely informative ones, and if the two come into conflict, the therapist will opt for maneuvers that focus on the therapeutic rela­ tionship rather than those that simply elicit further information. The first phase is concluded when the therapist decides he or she has sufficient information to begin intervention and feels that a therapeutic re­ lation has been established that will enable them to enter into the family system . At this point there is a consultation break so that the therapist can m eet with the rest of the therapy team who have been observing the ses­ sion in a sep arate room through a one-way window. T hese observers have been taking note of both the pertinent information elem ents regarding goals, com plaints, solutions attem pted, and exceptions, as well as the rela­

6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

135

tional elements, including the notions of “posture” (Fisch et al., 1982) and “buyer” orientation (de Shazer, 1985). During the consultation break they discuss these issues and agree on a general strategy of intervention, which will be specified in the final segment of the intervention phase. After the break the therapist rejoins the client and explains the interven­ tion that has been designed by the team. The intervention is made up of two elements: praise (de Shazer, 1985) and prescription. The praise element refers to the therapist’s remarks that imply an acceptance of the client’s point of view, and express recognition and appreciation of the client’s re­ sourcefulness and efforts. The intention here is to avoid positions of criti­ cism on the part of the therapist and to establish a precedent of accep­ tance so that, in a reciprocal manner, the client will do the same with the prescription they will hear a few moments later. The prescription can be formulated in terms of an order, instruction, a suggestion, trial, or experi­ mentation; it may even be expressed metaphorically, depending on the evaluation of the nature of the therapy relation that has been reached in the first part of the session. With this introduction to the research setting, a description of a series of studies focused on the therapist-client relationship follows. The goal of this chapter is not only to report the main findings of these investigations but, in a sense, to tell the story of the lessons learned from applying the rela­ tional control system to the study of the therapeutic process, and how this information influenced the communicative practices used in our clinical work. Thus, what follows is an overview of the research findings and an il­ lustration of the practical aspects of the research. For a through descrip­ tion of the research details underlying th ese studies see Beyebach, Rodriguez Morejon, Palenzuela, and Rodríguez-Arias (1996). This program of research was carried out over a period of years. The first study paved the way for the later, more methodologically sound research studies. It was also the case, that the therapeutic implications of the earlier research results were incorporated into the therapeutic practices of subse­ quent clinical cases on which the later studies were based. Hence, the differ­ ences between the findings of the earlier and later studies can be attributed to both, the methodological differences, and the changes in the communica­ tive style and interaction patterns derived from the earlier study.

RELATIONAL RESEARCH O N THERAPEUTIC PROCESSES The Initial Study For the first of the investigations of the therapeutic relationship (Altuna, Beyebach, Piqueras, & Rodríguez-Arias, 1988a, 1988b), the initial interviews of 28 different clinical cases were studied. These sessions corresponded to

136

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

the following therapy outcom es: 9 of the cases were judged to be successful, 8 unsuccessful, 5 dropout (prem ature client termination), and 6 relapse (later return to therapy). Once the interviews were transcribed, they were coded in accordance with the rules set by the Rogers system of relational communica­ tion control coding. For this exploratory, largely descriptive study, the coded messages and control patterns were analyzed in several different ways. For an overall description, the 28 sessions were examined as a total group, and by the two interaction phases, the information and intervention segm ents of the interview, and then for more specific information the sessions were grouped according to the therapeutic outcom e of the case. Based on the overall analysis, the therapeutic relation was ch aracter­ ized, in general, as being m ore subm issive than com petitive, with m ore one­ down m essages and more subm issive (44-) than com petitive ( t t ) symme­ try, and with m ore com plem entary (T 4 /4 T ) than sym m etrical tran sacts. As for the differentiation by phases, in the opening segm ent, where the thera­ pist’s goal is to gain an understanding of the client’s problem , subm issive sym m etry was the m ost frequent relational pattern, while in the following intervention phase, an increased pattern of com plem entarity was observed. Thus, in line with the different therapy goals, the information phase was characterized by a “subm issive to n e” and the intervention phase by an in­ crease in “effective dom inance” on the part of the therapist. For the com parison of the sessions grouped according to the final out­ com e of the clinical case, a num ber of differences becam e apparent. In the initial therapy session s of the successful cases, the clien t-th erap ist interac­ tions were characterized by the therapist adopting a m ore directive posi­ tion with a greater proportion of orders and instructions. Furtherm ore, these interactions were m ore flexible with no notable repetitive (redun­ dant) pattern as occurred in the other outcom e groups. With the unsuc­ cessful cases there was a relative increase in com petitive sym m etry in which the therapist and client seem ed to rival one another for relational control of the interview. In the initial sessions of the dropout cases, what stood out was a ques­ tion/answ er pattern, as if the tone of these interviews was more like an in­ terrogation than a therapy session. For these cases, we also found a lack of sufficient accep tan ce or em pathy by the therapist for the developm ent of a clim ate of confidence, which based on the outcom e of these cases, appears to be related to the continuation of the therapy. In contrast, the first inter­ views in the cases of relapse differed precisely as a result of the increase in subm issive symmetry, which led us to coin the term submissive joining to re­ fer to the ch aracteristic subm issiveness of these therapy sessions. This type of relation was seen as being very accepting, but not particularly effec­ tive; it appeared to foster a relation in which the client felt supported and

6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

137

understood by the therapist, but one in which the client seem ed unable to carry out the problem-solving strategies n ecessary in order to confront their problem s without this support. The chief methodological problem of this study was the small num ber of cases in each of the outcom e groups. Also, the therapists directing the cases were not equally distributed acro ss the outcom e groups so that the differences described may be attributed to the personal style of the thera­ pist. Nevertheless, the resulting observed pattern differences coincided with the different therapy outcom es. Although we were aware of the limitations of this first study, we felt the consistency of the results offered sufficient insight to apply these conclu­ sions to our clinical work. B ecau se an increase in com petitive symmetry seem ed to be associated with an unsuccessful outcom e, we began to avoid direct disagreem ents and d ebates with the clients and developed therapeu­ tic strategies for this express purpose. We learned to give way if an argu­ ment was indicated. The therapist could manifest or show som e contrary opinion to what the client was saying but if the latter stood their ground the therapist would back down, indicating agreem ent or recognition of the cli­ ent’s view, and wait for a m ore favorable therapeutic moment to introduce a different view. With this end in mind, we replaced adversative formulas such as, “But I think that, . . wi th conjunctive expressions like, “Yes, and besides 1 think th at___ ” We also attem pted to avoid falling into the question/answ er pattern, b ecau se this appeared to be related to dropout. To do this we devised a series of com m ents to fit in betw een question and answ er and thus break such seq u en ces. The com m ents could be quite varied, but they all fol­ lowed two general rules. T hey eith er alluded to what the client had just said, such as, “Of cou rse, what you are telling me is som ething that you think of when you are dealing with your wife. In what other situations might you also apply it?” or they introduced th e th erap ist’s follow-up question, for exam ple, “1 want to pose a question that may be rath er hard for you to talk about. How does having too much work affect your per­ sonal relatio n s?” In this way, as soon as a therap ist realizes he or sh e is asking m ore than two consecu tiv e questions, som e com m ent or rem ark is introduced to alter this type of sequ ence. Lastly, although the benefits of a session having an acceptive tone were recognized, for the purpose of avoiding excessive sequ en ces of subm issive­ ness with its potential association with a relapse outcom e, we encouraged the use of directive, one-up m essages such as instructions and orders, par­ ticularly during the intervention phase. With the appropriate assertion of one-up control m essages an overly subm issive, one-down stance of a thera­ pist would becom e m ore effectively balanced.

138

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

All of these ideas were included in the therapy training program s that were developed at the private center and at the Universidad Pontificia, and new therapists continue to be trained under the guide of these relational in­ sights. Even today, in my clinical work, as well as in that of other colleagues who were trained using these programs, the mark made by this initial re­ search is still clearly present.

The Second Set of Studies Based on the encouragem ent of the initial results, three new research studies were undertaken to expand the original work. These studies were designed to address prior methodological limitations, to find out whether the previous results would be upheld or in need of correction, or if additional relational nuances would be found. All of the cases studied, as in the original study, were conducted according to the brief therapy approach. Furthermore, these studies were structured to annul the effect of the therapist variable by having the cases of therapists equally distributed in each of the outcom e com pari­ son groups. In this way, different results could no longer be potentially attrib­ uted to the therapeutic style of one particular therapist. The first of these studies, carried out by de la Cueva (1993), replicated the original study. For this research , 54 initial sessions were analyzed corre­ sponding to the final therapy outcom e, with 18 cases each in the successful, unsuccessful, and dropout groups. The second study by Beyebach (1993) fo­ cused on the dropout group in order to learn more about the therapeutic re­ lationship related to these cases in com parison to those completing therapy. With dropout, the therapy was ended by the client in a rather unexpected fashion within one to three sessions, whereas with com pleted therapy, whether considered successful or unsuccessful, the sessions continued un­ til the therapist and client mutually decided to conclude the therapy. Hence, this study was designed to com pare the initial therapy sessions, which were later followed by dropout, with those followed by continued treat­ ment. Thirty-two initial therapy sessions were studied, 16 corresponding to the dropout group, and 16 to continued treatm ent. Lastly, a critical asp ect of the therapeutic relation is w hether the inter­ vention phase of a therapy session is related to the client’s com pliance with the therapist’s prescribed intervention. The third study was an investiga­ tion of this aspect of the therapeutic process. In the prior research only the initial sessions were studied. With this research, the intervention phase of each of the sessions of a clinical ca se was examined and analyzed in term s of the prescription com pliance on the part of the client. This investigation was undertaken by Bailin (1995) in which 38 cases, com prising a total of 132 therapy sessions were studied.

6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

139

This series of investigations differed from the original research in several ways. First, as previously mentioned, the therapists, whose cases served as the research base for this set of studies, were familiar with the results of the initial research and had attem pted to apply the suggested therapeutic guidelines in these subsequent clinical cases. Second, a modification in the coding of questions, based on the adaption by Heatherington and Fried­ lander (1987), distinguished betw een open questions (A) and closed ques­ tions ( t ) , which to som e degree influenced the results. We also made addi­ tional clarifications in coding m onosyllabic responses (e.g., “yeah, O.K., uh huh”) betw een those that indicated approval (A) from those functioning to continue the com m unicative flow (-> ). With these changes, more of these m essages were coded as one-across than in the original study. Third, the data analysis was enhanced with the utilization of Bakeman and Quera’s (1996) sequ ential analysis program for analyzing speaker-ord ered se­ quences, thus allowing more finely tuned p rocess analyses. Before reviewing the specific results of this second set of studies, several general findings regarding the use of questions and the overall interaction patterns of the initial therapy sessions are presented. In these initial ses­ sions, far fewer questions than assertions were made; 16% of the th erapist’s m essages were questions and 64% were assertions, w hereas 8% of the cli­ ent’s m essages were questions and 70% were assertions. As expected, ther­ apists posed m ore questions than clients, however, of particular interest, therapists used open questions less frequently than closed questions, with a ratio of one to three. Typically, the therapist directed the therapeutic con­ versation by posing a topic with an open question, followed by several closed questions to clarify the client’s response, with various types of as­ sertions intermixed in the discussion. Clients rarely asked an open ques­ tion, thus m ost were closed. A com parison of interview phases found thera­ pists, again as expected, asked more questions in the information phase than in the second, intervention phase. The therapist used very few open questions in the second phase and also slightly decreased the proportion of closed questions. The client’s use of questions was relatively constant acro ss the two phases. As for the overall patterns of interaction, one-up m aneuvers by the ther­ apist (T ) activated one-down m aneuvers ( ¿ ) by the client, and likewise the therapist’s one-down m essages ( 4 ) activated one-up m oves ( t ) by the cli­ ent. In this way, patterns of com plem entarity were more frequently formed by clients adopting positions that were com plem entary to the therapist. On the other hand, one-down m essages by the client activated one-down m oves by the therapist, thus defining sequ ences of subm issive symmetry (4 -i), which were notable in the initial study. A third ch aracteristic pattern was leveling sym m etry (-» -» ) in which both therapist and client one-across m essages activated one-across m essages by the other.

140

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

These patterns are sim ilar to those found in the first study, but the se­ quential analysis of the interactive formation of the patterns allowed a more specific description of the p ro cesses than in the original study. Thus overall, com plem entarity more frequently resulted from the client taking a com plem entary position, subm issive sym m etry was m ore often formed by the therapist’s subm issive response to a client’s subm issive move, and pat­ terns of leveling sym m etry resulted from each of the interlocutors following the flow of the oth er’s one-across com m ents. Turning now to the specific findings of this second series of studies based on a com parison of therapy outcom es, de la Cueva (1993) found that the patterned exchange of the therapist’s one-down response to a client’s one-up m essage differentiated the sessions of the successful ca ses from the other therapy groups. This pattern was noted in both the information and intervention phases, plus in the intervention phase the reverse form of com plem entarity was activated with the therapist’s one-down (4-) m essages followed by the client’s one-up ( t ) moves. T hese patterns suggest the bene­ fits, in line with previous results, of a noncom petitive stance by the thera­ pist and the avoidance of patterns of com petitive sym m etry by responding to clients’ one-up m essages with subm issive maneuvers. For the unsuccessful ca ses, no sp ecific inform ation phase pattern could be discerned. In the intervention phase, the clien t’s one-up m oves (T ) acti­ vated one-down m oves ( i ) by the therapist, as in the successful group, but as well, the clien t’s one-down m essages ( i ) activated one-up m aneu­ vers (1") by the therapist. Although no strong case can be made, a sug­ gested interpretation of the intervention pattern difference, although sub­ tle, might reflect a m ovem ent toward a potentially ineffective structuring of the therapeutic relation in which the therapist was reacting to the cli­ en t’s m aneuvers instead of th e client being guided by m aneuvers of the therapist. With the dropout group, it was also the case that no ch aracteristic pat­ tern for the information phase was found. However, in the intervention phase the therapist’s one-down m aneuvers ( 4 ) activated one-down maneu­ vers (4-) by the client, but the therapist reacted with one-up m aneuvers ( t ) to both the client’s one-down m essages (4-) and one-across m essages (-»). Thus, subm issive sequ ences were enacted with the one-down response of the client, but a one-up response was taken by the therapist in relation to the client’s subm issive and neutralized relational m essages. In de la Cueva’s study, the differences betw een the outcom e groups basi­ cally rested on the enactm ent of different types of com plem entarity. In com paring these pattern differences acro ss the th ree outcom es, what stood out was that in the successful group, the pattern represented an alternating com plem entary exchange with the therapist taking a one-down position (CT/T4- and T4-/CT). There were no distinguishing com petitive moves on

6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

141

the part of the therapist. Thus, it appears more effective to be respectful of the client’s expressed views, to accep t and work with the information they offer, in bringing about a successful outcom e. The unsuccessful group differed from the successful group with the ther­ apist responding to the client’s one-down m essages with a one-up, while in the dropout group, the client responded with a one-down to the therapist’s one-down, but the therapist responded with a one-up m essages to the cli­ ent’s one-down and one-across moves. Again, it seem s advisable for a thera­ pist to avoid repeated one-up m essage responses to clients in constructing a more productive therapeutic relationship. In the Beyebach (1993) study this advice is m ore clearly supported by the initial therapy session interaction com parisons of the dropout cases versus the cases continuing therapy. A distinct pattern of one-up com peti­ tiveness, characterizing the dropout cases, was found to differentiate these two types of outcom e groups. For the dropout group there were m ore oneup m essages and fewer one-down m essages by both the therapist and cli­ ent. A noted, corollary difference was a lower proportion of supportive m essages by both participants in the dropout group than in the group con­ tinuing therapy. There were also slightly (but significant) higher propor­ tions of nonsupportive m essages and talk-over interruptions in the dropout sessions. At the dyadic level, significantly more sequ en ces of com petitive symme­ try ( t t ) and fewer one-across/one-dow n sequ ences (-»4-) were observed in the sessions followed by dropout than in th o se followed by continued th er­ apy. Also a noted group difference in the two phases of th ese sessions, was a higher proportion of the question-answ er exchange in the information phase of the dropout group, as was the ca se in the original study. The results of B ey eb ach’s study indicate the ineffectiveness of a com pet­ itive therapeutic interaction style and the downside of a lack of pattern alteration in moving the sequ ence of patterns toward a m ore conducive th erap ist-clien t relation of problem solving. The patterns observed in the dropout sessions, appeared similar to the escalating type of pattern that of­ ten bring relational partners into therapy. T hese results corrob orate the ini­ tial study findings regarding the relational patterns that work against a suc­ cessful therapeutic outcom e. In the third study, Bailin (1995) examined the com m unication patterns associated with the clients’ type of com pliance to the therapist’s interven­ tion prescriptions. The clien ts’ responses to the tasks set out by the thera­ pist were classified according to five “cooperation” modes defined by de Shazer (1985) as literal, modified, opposite/opposed, vague, and null/non cooperation. Thus, the therap ist-clien t interaction patterns during each in­ tervention phase were analyzed in relation to the cooperation mode exhib­ ited by the client in the following therapy session.

142

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

In su ccessiv e session s, the effect of the prescription form ulated in the previous session is evaluated in term s of the cu rrent situation of the cli­ e n t’s problem , w hether or not progress has been made in reaching desig­ nated goals and how the client has adapted to the p rescribed instructions. Following de Shazer’s (1985) guide, the clie n t’s resp on se is consid ered to be his or h er “way of coo p eratin g .” N oncom pliance is not viewed as nega­ tive, rath er the client did “what he or she felt like doing,” nor is th e client consid ered “re sista n t” in opposing orders or not following instruction s. On the contrary, th ese behaviors are looked upon as different m odalities of coop eration which the therap ist takes into accou nt in fashioning a m ode of intervention. In response to a therapeutic prescription, the client may react by doing precisely what the therapist’s prescribed, with “literal cooperation”; the cli­ ent may do som ething along the lines of what was prescribed with “modi­ fied cooperation”; or the client may do exactly the opposite of what the therapist instructed in “opposite cooperation.” Som etim es it is not clear just what the client has actually done in regard to the prescription, imply­ ing “vague cooperation.” Lastly, there are tim es when the client simply does nothing, ignores or rejects the instructions or doesn't rem em ber what the therapist said, resulting in “null cooperation.” The therapist’s response is based on the cooperation mode shown by the client (Rodríguez-Arias, Real, Castillo, & Real, 2001). Thus, in accordance with the therapeutic approach, if the cooperation has been literal, the th er­ apist reacts with direct prescriptions, in the form of orders; when the coop­ eration is modified, the therapist responds with indirect indications, with instructions, or broad, easily modifiable guidelines. If the cooperation mode is vague, the therapist may tell stories, use evocative m etaphors as to what the client can do, or give the prescription in a tangle of difficult-to-understand jargon with which this type of client feels com fortable. If the client m anifests opposition or null cooperation, the m ost appropriate response is not to give any prescription at all and simply limit the intervention phase to praise; another possibility is to propose a set of optional alternatives, one of which is not doing, or taking into consideration any of the alternatives suggested. In the investigation of the intervention phase, Bailin (1995) found a simi­ lar relational pattern characterizing the literal and modified modes of coop­ eration. These cases, in com parison to other modes, were distinguished by a relatively higher proportion of com plem entary exchange with the thera­ pist in the one-up position and the client one-down. This result corresponds with the patterns of com plem entarity previously found to be associated with the successful outcom e group. In com bination, these findings raise the consideration of a possible sequential interlinking of these events; but clearly, the design of the presen t study does not provide the n ecessary evi­

6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

143

d ence for this type of association, only a suggested one. However, given that the coded interaction patterns are based on the therapy session s prior to those in which the cooperation mode is identified, and that the clients’ m ode of cooperation occu rs considerably before the resulting therapeutic outcom e, a potential interrelationship of this set of events is that com ple­ m entarity prom otes literal or modified cooperation and this type of cooper­ ation facilitates therapeutic su ccess. If so, this would suggest that the inter­ active patterns created in the initial sessions may well set the tone for the sequential unfolding of the therapy process. This type of investigation rep­ resents an im portant future research direction. In consideration of the opposite mode of com pliance, it would seem logi­ cal (and was hypothesized) that this modality would be associated with fre­ quent sequ ences of opposition, however, this was not the case in the data analyzed here. For the interaction sessions preceding the clients’ adoption of an opposite mode, there was a relatively low level of opposition se­ quences, similar to the proportions in the literal, modified, and vague m odes. Furtherm ore, for this mode there were fewer sequ ences of com peti­ tive sym m etry (T T ) and less leveling sym m etry (-*-*) than in the sessions followed by null cooperation. These results enabled us to b etter differenti­ ate betw een opposition and opposed forms of cooperation, in that, the cli­ ents who did not offer much opposition to the therapist’s prescription when it was given, often did the opposite of what was prescribed, and thus reacted with opposite cooperation, w hereas those who opposed the pre­ scription the strongest at the time it was given, simply did not follow the therapist’s instructions, in other words, responded with null cooperation. When the cooperation mode was vague a relative increase in subm issive sym m etry was observed (4 -i). A similar pattern occurred in the first study in the sessions followed by relapse. It seem s likely that this reciprocal ac­ ceptance of the m essages by the therapist and the client is of little use in clarifying the ways in which clients carried out the therapist’s instructions. In these cases, if the therapist had taken a more directive stance, for in­ stance, using closed questions ( t ) to ask the client to explain his or her m essages, this would break the subm issive sequ ences (4 -i). But rath er the results indicate, the therapist accepted the client’s reports alm ost uncondi­ tionally and as a result, failed to elicit information regarding the client’s sit­ uation or interpretation of the intervention. This pattern is not only associ­ ated with, but seem s to “invite” a vague mode of com pliance. With the null cooperation mode in which the client does not follow the therapist’s instructions, there was an increase in the proportion of com peti­ tive sym m etry ( t t ) , com pared to other modes. When a therapist and client were caught up in this type of escalating pattern during the intervention phase, the likelihood increased that the client would not follow the thera­ pist’s instructions. This pattern is sim ilar to the one described for the ses­

144

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

sions corresponding to the unsuccessful and dropout cases. Once again, a suggested interrelationship may exist such that competitive patterns may trigger null cooperation, which in turn progressively moves the therapeutic process toward unsuccessful outcomes. W hether this sequence is the case or not, across this series of studies, it becom es increasingly clear that com­ petitive symmetry is not a recommended relational pattern for gaining ei­ ther prescription compliance or a successful outcome.

A Final Analysis This analysis rests on a consideration of the rules for the transposition of message codes into control directions (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987). For one-up control messages, it can be noted that the direction of these messages arise from regulative maneuvers such as, closed questions, re­ sponses to open questions, instructions, orders and topic changes, and from oppositional maneuvers representing domineering messages, nonsup­ port and disconfirmation. Although there may clearly be some overlap in relational meaning and function, regulative messages tend to organize and structure the conversation whereas oppositional messages tend to oppose or indicate a superior position vis-à-vis the other. In view of this distinction, it was thought that an additional analysis, including the two types of one-up messages along with one-down and one-across messages would provide a useful expansion for the description of the therapeutic relation. This analy­ sis (Rodríguez-Arias, 1996) was based on the recoding of the one-up mes­ sages of the existing pool of clinical cases utilized in the first three studies investigating therapy outcomes. The database for this effort consisted of 76 initial therapy sessions which resulted in 27 successful, 26 unsuccessful, and 23 dropout cases. Based on an analysis of the total sample, therapists and clients, as ex­ pected, used regulative and oppositional one-up m essages differently. W hereas in the case of the client, the proportion of both types of one-up messages was roughly the same (3% and 4% respectively), the therapist used a greater proportion of regulative one-ups (9%) than oppositional oneups (3%). This difference was even more pronounced in the intervention phase, in which the use of regulative messages on the part of the therapist made up 16% of the total communication maneuvers, compared to only 2% for oppositional one-ups. In addition, it was found that regulative one-up moves, whether expressed by the therapist or client, activated one-down responses by the other, whereas this did not happen with oppositional oneup messages. When these message differences were considered in relation to the ses­ sions classified according to therapeutic outcome, it was observed that in the

6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

145

successful cases, the therapist used more regulative one-ups and fewer oppositional one-ups while the client employed fewer oppositional one-ups than in any of the other therapeutic outcom e conditions. During the informa­ tion phase of the successful group, the client responded to the therapist’s oppositional one-up moves with submissive maneuvers (4 ), by which the cli­ ent indicated an acceptance of the therapist’s m essages of opposition. At the sam e time, the therapist responded to the client’s regulative one-ups with regulative one-ups and, in doing so, established the directive role of the ther­ apist in this phase of the therapeutic conversation. With an established defi­ nition of the therapeutic role in the first phase, it appeared this allowed the pattern found in the intervention phase of the therapist responding to the cli­ ent’s oppositional one-up m essages with one-down messages. In the sessions followed by dropout, when the therapist expressed oppo­ sition one-ups, the client adopted a sim ilar resp on se resulting in an oppositional sym m etrical stan ce (TTC T) rath er than a one-down response forming a com plem entary exchange (TTC4-) as occurred in the successful therapy group. Furtherm ore, in the dropout cases the therapist inhibited their one-down m essages and responded with one-across moves to the cli­ ent’s oppositional one-ups. As before, the results indicate that a d ecrease in com plem entarity and an increase in com petitive symmetry, particularly oppositional symmetry, tend to be associated with dropout. The analysis of the different nuances in the patterns of outcom e group interactions during the intervention phase, offer additional clinically rele­ vant information. For the successful group as indicated earlier, in this phase the therapist responded with one-down m aneuvers to the client’s op­ position one-up, however, this pattern was not observed in either the un­ successful nor the dropout group intervention phase. For the unsuccessful group, as well as the dropout group, a relative increase was seen in the oppositional, sym m etrical sequ ences with the client reacting with oppo­ sitional one-ups to the therapist’s oppositional m aneuvers, and moreover, the therapist responded with oppositional one-ups to the client’s regulative one-up m essages. The insights gained from this analysis of the patterned differences betw een th ese two forms of one-up m essages indicate the im­ portance of attending to this distinction, not only in future research but in therapy training.

C O N C L U S IO N S After many years of research in applying the relational com m unication sys­ tem to therapeutic interaction, the “lessons learned” from the clinical impli­ cations of these interactive p ro cesses have progressively been accum ulat­ ing. My intention here, in drawing the results of this research program

146

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

together, is to sum up what those of us who took part in the research de­ scribed in this chapter have learned over the years. We have found that the saying, “the client is always right,” can also be applied to the therapeutic relationship. And, when the client is “not right,” the fastest way to have them change their mind is to act as if they are. We have learned to use subm issive and one-across m aneuvers when we find ourselves involved in sequ ences of opposition. In doing so we resort to lan­ guage devices as sim ple as substituting conjunctive forms like, “yes, and be­ sides . . for adversative forms like, “yes, but .. We have com e to realize that a clinical session cannot be merely an in­ terview seq u ence of questions and answers. The therapeutic relationship improves notably when com m ents in an affirmative format are interspersed in the conversation. In this way, we m ore often reply with com m ents on the client’s answ ers and explanations, rath er than continue to pose unbroken sequ ences of questions about unexplained details of the client’s story. The effect that these behaviors of the therapist’s have on the session is that the conversation flows naturally betw een the participants; the client provides the information that they deem opportune in term s of the degree of famil­ iarity that gradually develops betw een the two of them, without any appar­ ent effort exerted on the part of the therapist. We know that m ost clinical sessions have a general subm issive tone, and recognize the therapeutic value of reciprocal acceptan ce, but if over done this pattern can be ineffectual. We further find that com plem entary pat­ terns facilitate, as well as indicate, a client’s willingness to com ply with therapeutic regulative m essages, and in the long run, these patterns are re­ lated to successful therapeutic outcom es. In creating com plem entary se­ quences, we have learned that in response to a client giving a one-down m essage, an appropriate move by the therapist is to offer a one-up mes­ sage, but in response to a client’s one-up m essage, a therapist’s reply with a one-up m essage, especially if in opposition, is to be avoided in structuring an effective therapeutic relationship. A clear lesson from the research is that patterns of com petitive sym m etry are detrim ental in moving the th era­ peutic process toward a successful outcom e. The results of the last analysis provide evidence that a therapist demon­ strates directiveness through the use of regulative one-ups, such as orders and instructions, and not through oppositional one-ups indicating disap­ proval or challenge. With a m ore practical aw areness of the different impli­ cations of the two forms of one-up moves, a therapist can utilize different criteria in guiding com m unicative behavior depending on the goals he or she has set, as well as the therapeutic moment. One area of research that remains relatively unexplored concerns the re­ lational pattern of subm issive symmetry, which was noted in cases of re­ lapse. These cases were included in the initial study, but have not since

6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

147

been taken up in later research. Nor has specific research been done on the com m unicative pattern of subm issiveness in cases of therapeutic “joining,” that is, those cases in which the client continue in treatm ent even though the therapeutic goals have been reached or continue to demand sessions despite there being no further signs of com plaint. This particular pattern, identified in the first study as “subm issive joining,” is also the sam e pattern that was found to be related to the vague cooperation mode. Thus, a re­ search issue yet to be examined concerns the potential interrelationship betw een relapse, therapeutic joining, vague cooperation, and subm issive symmetry. The conclusions reached regarding the relational p ro cesses underlying the therapeutic relationship, may not seem much after m ore than a decade of research. N onetheless, 1 have long lost count of the multiple num ber of therapists who have been trained in Brief Family Therapy under the influ­ ence of these ideas. In their clinical practice, they have been guided by the insights offered by both the com m unicative techniques and therapeutic cri­ teria based on this research program. It is likewise im possible for me to cal­ culate the num ber of families who have no doubt benefited by the work of these therapists.

REFERENCES Altuna, A., Beyebach, M., Piqueras, R., & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1988a, June). La relación terapéutica y su incidencia en el resultado de la intervención sistèmica [The therapeutic rela­ tionship and outcom e result of system ic intervention). Paper presented at the Congreso Internacional de Orientadores Familiares, Salam anca, Spain. Altuna, A., Beyebach, M., Piqueras, R., & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1988b). La relación terapéutica en la primera entrevista de terapia sistèmica: Análisis por fases [The therapeutic relationship in the first session of system ic therapy: Phase analysis). In M. Beyebach & J. L. Rodríguez-Arias (Eds.), Terapia familiar: Lecturas / (pp. 97-116). Salam anca: Kadmos. Bailín, M. C. (1995). Estudio sobre el cumplimiento de prescripciones en un modelo de terapia sistèmica [A study on prescription com pliance in system ic therapy). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1996). Análisis de la interacción: Análisis secuencia! con SDISy GSEC. Ma­ drid: Ra-Ma. Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General system theory. New York: Brazillier. Beyebach, M. (1993). Relación terapéutica y abandono en terapia sistèmica breve [Therapeutic re­ lationship and dropout in brief system ic therapy). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Uni­ versidad Pontificia de Salam anca, Salamanca, Spain. Beyebach, M„ de la Cueva, F., Ramos, M„ & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1990, June). Relational commu­ nication control in first interview of systemic therapy. Paper presented at the International Com­ munication Association Annual conference, Dublin, Ireland. Beyebach, M., Rodríguez Morejon, A., Palenzuela, D. L., & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Research on the process of solution-focused therapy. In S. Miller, M. A. Hubble, & B. Duncan (Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy (pp. 299-334). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

148

RODRÍGUEZ-ARIAS

de la Cueva, F. (1993). Análisis de primeras entrevistas de MRI mediante el sistema de codificación del control de la comunicación relacional [Analysis of first interviews of MRI therapy with the Relational Control Communication Coding System ]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Uni­ versidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York: Norton. Fisch, R., Weakland, J. H., & Segal, L. (1982). The tactic of change: Doing therapy briefly. San Fran­ cisco: Jossey-Bass. Fontecilla, G., Ramos, M. M., & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1993, November). Evaluación de resultados en terapia familiar breve [Evaluation of outcom es in brief family therapy]. Paper presented at the XIV Jornadas Nacionales de Terapia Familiar, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Fontecilla, G., González, M., Ramos, M. M., & Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Aplicación de un modelo de terapia familiar breve en una U.S.M. [Application of brief family therapy in a U.S.M.]. In A. Espina & B. Pumar (Eds.), A terapia familiar sistémica: Teoría, clínica e investigación (pp. 271-286). Madrid: Fundamentos. González, M., Revuelta, C., Rodríguez-Arias, J. L., Fontecilla, G., Aparicio, M., Rueda, A., & Ramos, M. M. (1998, May). Terapia familiar breve: Evaluación de resultados y estudio de seguimiento [Brief family therapy: Evaluation of outcom es and ongoing research]. Paper presented at the Congreso Nacional de la A sociación para la Investigación y el Desarrollo de la Terapia Fa­ miliar, Seville, Spain. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family relational communication control coding sys­ tem manual. Unpublished manuscript. Williams College, Williamstown, MA. Rodríguez-Arias, J. L. (1996, June). Control relacional y resultados en terapia breve: Un estudio centrado en las maniobras regulativas versus de oposicion [Relational control and brief ther­ apy results: A focus on regulative maneuvers versus opposition]. Paper presented at the Primer Simposio sobre Investigación de Procesos de Interacción Terapéutica, La Coruña, Spain. Rodríguez-Arias, J. L., Agra, S., Arauxo, A., Balea, F. J., García, M. J., Vicente, D., Grovas, I., & Andaluz, L. V. (2000, O ctober). Análisis de la demanda de psicoterapia en la U.S.M. del Hospital “Virxe da Xunqueira ” [Analysis of psychotherapy demand in the U.S.M. Hospital “Virxe da Xunqueira”]. Paper presented at the Congreso Nacional de la Asociación para la Investi­ gación y el Desarrollo de la Terapia Familiar, Madrid, Spain. Rodríguez-Arias, J. L., Real, M., Castillo, J. M., & Real, M. A. (2001). Psicoterapia familiar breve: Cómo facilitar el cumplimiento terapéutico a través de la modalidad de cooperación de los pacientes [Brief family psychotherapy: How to facilitate therapeutic com pliance across the patients’ modality of cooperation]. Atención Primaria, 27 , 514-520. Rogers, L. E. (1972). Relational communication control coding manual. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

C H A P T E R

7 Expressed Emotion and Interpersonal C on tro l in Families o f Persons W ith Mental Illness Anne K. W uerker University o f California, Los Angeles

Expressed Emotion (EE) is a measure of a relative’s attitude toward a per­ son with schizophrenia. The Camberwell Family Interview (CFI; Vaughn & Leff, 1976), the original instrument for measuring EE, was developed in 1958 by Brown and Rutter (1966) and was designed to elucidate factors in the family environment of persons with schizophrenia that influenced their course of illness. Research has shown unequivocally that persons with schizophrenia who live with relatives who are high EE, that is, relatives who are critical, hostile, or emotionally overinvolved, are far more likely to re­ lapse or have a severe course of illness than patients living with relatives without negative attitudes. Although through much of the history of this in­ triguing concept, EE research has focused on schizophrenia, recent re­ search has shown the same links to relapse or more severe illness in other disorders, such as depression (Hooley, Richters, Weintraub, & Neale, 1987), asthma (Wamboldt, Wamboldt, Gavin, Roesler, & Brugman, 1995), and juve­ nile diabetes (Koenigsberg, Klausner, Pelino, Rosnick, & Campbell, 1993). The original method, and still the “gold standard,” of measuring EE has been the CFI. The CFI consisted of a very long loosely structured dialogue with a relative of a person with schizophrenia who had just been hospital­ ized. Later, Vaughn and Leff (1976) revised the CFI, shortening it to 1 to 2 hours. A group of researchers at UCLA have since developed a very short version, the Five Minute Speech Sample (FMSS; Magana et al., 1986), which correlates quite well with the CFI but underestimates high EE to a consider­ able degree (Kazarian, 1992).

149

150

WUERKER

Although the link betw een EE and course of illness is “real, robust, and rem arkably resilient” (Hooley & Hiller, 1998, p. 450), the underlying m echa­ nism continues to be poorly understood. It is generally thought that high EE represents a unique form of psychosocial stress, to which persons with schizophrenia are extrem ely vulnerable. That still leaves the question of why living with a high-EE family m em ber is so stressful. There is som e evi­ dence that EE attitudes are reflective of actual behavior in the family; a se­ ries of studies by UCLA research ers found that EE attitudes are likely to re­ flect verbal transactions between the relative and the patient. For example, Miklowitz et al. (1989) and Strachan, Feingold, Goldstein, Miklowitz, and Nuechterlein (1989) found that relatives coded as high EE becau se of criti­ cal com m ents made about the patient were also likely to make critical com ­ ments to the patient during problem-solving dialogues. Patients with highEE relatives were also likely to be critical. However, these studies examined rates of specific behaviors by the patient and the relative, but not “what fol­ lows what,” so the studies implied but did not docum ent transactional proc­ esses (Strachan et al., 1989). Attribution theorists have found that high-EE relatives are likely to be­ lieve that the patient can control his or her symptom behavior, but low-EE relatives are m ore likely to ascribe problem atic behavior to the illness (e.g., Brewin, MacCarthy, Duda, & Vaughn, 1991; Harrison & Dadds, 1992; Harri­ son, Dadds, & Smith, 1998; Hooley, 1987). Thus high-EE relatives would be m ore likely to push or try to control the patient to behave differently. A re­ lated idea is that high-EE attitudes reflect high-intensity social control (Greenley, 1986). Naturally, relatives who are living with and caring for a person with schizophrenia are concerned about their offspring’s behavior, but a caregiver’s suggestions, nags, or criticism s may be very stressful to patients, particularly if the criticized behavior is not under the patient’s control. Other research ers have investigated personality ch aracteristics of the relatives and found that high-EE relatives are m ore likely to be rigid and controlling (Hooley & Hiller, 2000). Recently, Hinrichsen and Lieberman (1999) reported that high-EE relatives were likely to use coercive manage­ ment strategies in dealing with their offspring with schizophrenia. In a sense, the focus of all these approaches to understanding EE has been on determ ining what high-EE relatives are doing wrong. This runs the risk of continuing the parent-blaming that has been associated with schizo­ phrenia for many years (Lefley, 1992). T here has been little attention to the role the patient plays, and also little attention to what low-EE parents are doing right (Hooley & Hiller, 1998). This chapter describes a program of research on EE and schizophrenia that uses the Relational Communication Control Coding System (RCCCS; Ericson & Rogers, 1973; Rogers & Farace, 1975) to understand the process of interpersonal control in families of persons with schizophrenia and other se­

7. MENTAL ILLNESS AND EXPRESSED EMOTION

151

vere mental disorders. This approach offers several advantages. The first ad­ vantage is that interpersonal control processes are highly relevant to all the theories described earlier. The second is that the focus shifts to the process between patient and parent, rather than focusing on the parent. Third, inter­ personal control processes are examined for high- and low-EE families, so it becom es possible to examine what low-EE relatives are doing right. Interpersonal p ro cesses cannot be described without sequentially or­ dered data; order m atters (Rogers, Millar, & Bavelas, 1985). EE research ers often collect sequential data, but studies reporting sequential analysis are surprisingly rare. This is partly becau se of the com plexity of sequential analysis, but also becau se the coding system s used for coding dialogue are likely to have many categories, and thus are not suitable for sequential analysis. In the studies described, the RCCCS cod es dialogue into th ree gen­ eral categories (T, or asserting control; 4-, or giving up control, and nei­ ther giving up nor asserting control). Thus sequential analysis is possible without sacrificing information. The few sequential studies that have been done with EE other than the ones described have used much more com plex coding schem es, and then collapsed codes into positive and negative. How­ ever, as seen in the RCCCS studies, the neutral category is very important in understanding process.

EE A N D R E LA TIO N A L C O N T R O L IN FAMILIES OF PERSONS W IT H BIPOLAR DISORDER A N D W IT H S C H IZ O P H R E N IA The first two studies on EE and interpersonal control used data from two UCLA research p rojects (W uerker, 1994, 1996). The schizophrenia sam ple consisted of data from 16 patients and their families who participated in the Developmental P rocesses in Schizophrenic Disorders P roject (Nuechterlein, Edell, Norris, & Dawson, 1986; N uechterlein et al., 1986). The bipolar sample consisted of data from 24 patients and their families who partici­ pated in a study by Miklowitz and colleagues (Miklowitz, Goldstein, Nuech­ terlein, Snyder, & Mintz, 1988). Thus, data from 40 patients and their par­ ents are presented in these analyses. Of the 16 families of patients with schizophrenia, there were 8 in which both the m other and father partici­ pated in the interaction task and 8 in which one parent participated. Among the families of bipolar patients, th ere were 14 with both parents participat­ ing and 10 with one parent. For details of the study procedures including sample selection and inclusion criteria, see Nuechterlein, Snyder et al. (1986) and Miklowitz et al. (1988). The data for the study were collected as follows: A family assessm ent session was held a short time after the patient was discharged from the

152

WUERKER

hospital. EE was m easured at that time with the Five Minute Speech Sample. Each person was asked to speak without interruption for 5 minutes about “what kind of a person (th e patient) is and how you two get along together.” T hese speech sam ples were coded according to a system developed by Magana (M agana et al., 1986), rating them on several dim ensions including critical com m ents, hostility, em otional overinvolvement, and the emotional valence of the patient-parent relationship. The assessm ent session also included a direct interaction task, in which two conflictual issues, one brought up by the patient and one by the family, were each discussed by the patient and p aren t(s) for 10 minutes. The re­ sulting dialogues, recorded on audiotape and subsequently transcribed, served as the primary data set. The data were next coded, preserving the sequential nature of the interaction, into the RCCCS. Two research assis­ tants were trained in the RCCCS by the investigator over 1 month, at which time agreem ent for all codes exceeded 85%. Each cod er coded one of the two dialogues for each family; w hether the problem discussed was one brought up by the patient or by the parents was random. Coders were blind to EE status and diagnosis. Interrater reliability was checked several times during the coding procedure, as was consistency over time. Reliability as measured by unweighted kappa was .85 for gramm atical form codes, .79 for response mode codes, and .76 for control direction. An inspection of errors in each set of cod es revealed an essentially random pattern.

Log-Linear Analysis of Message-Response Sequences A sequential data set was constructed consisting of each interaction unit (m essage) and the interaction unit following (resp on se). Information about each m essage and each response was the control direction, who initiated the m essage, and to whom the m essage was directed. The total num ber of sequ ences was 3,547 patient initiated and 4,333 parent initiated. Log-linear modeling was then used to examine the relationship betw een m essages and responses as that relationship varied by EE and diagnosis of the son or daughter. Dyadic (one parent and the patient) interactions were modeled separately b ecau se early analyses showed dyadic and triadic data to have very different ch aracteristics. As described earlier, 18 of the families in this study were single-parent, while 22 were dual-parent.

Dyadic Family Results. Log-linear analysis of the sequential patterning of m essages and responses in dyadic families showed that parents were sig­ nificantly more likely to respond to controlling m essages with symmetrical assertions of control. On the other hand, neutral m essages by patients were likely followed by parent’s statem ents yielding control. Bipolar patients and their parents were m ore likely to a ssert control com pared to schizophrenia

7. MENTAL ILLNESS AND EXPRESSED EMOTION

153

patients and their parents. The patterning of control also varied with diag­ nosis, in that families of persons with bipolar illness were more likely to in­ teract with competitive symmetry, and families of persons with schizophre­ nia were more likely to interact with complementarity. Thus families of persons with bipolar disorder appeared to be more competitive, and fami­ lies of persons with schizophrenia appeared to treat control more gingerly. However, when EE status was considered, high-EE parents of persons with schizophrenia were the most likely to respond in a controlling manner.

Triadic Family Results. As in the dyadic data, patients were significantly more likely to assert dominance than to give messages yielding or neutraliz­ ing control but parents responded with neutral statements more than in any other control direction. However, there are striking differences between fami­ lies with high- and low-EE parents. Families with high-EE parents interacted more quickly, competing for control. Patients were more competitive than their parents; parents often responded neutrally. This pattern was signifi­ cantly more likely to be present in families with a schizophrenic patient. Patterning o f Relational Control. To illustrate the patterning in triadic families of persons with schizophrenia, Table 7.1 shows cross-tabulations of messages and responses in two of the study families, one with high-EE par­ ents and one with low-EE parents. Responses by the patients are shown separately for messages from the mother and from the father. The mes­ sages from the mother were control attempts more than half of the time and neutral less often, but rarely yielding control. Responses by the patient were even more controlling or challenging control, with 60% one-up. The patterning was one of the patient rigidly asserting control to either control­ ling or submissive statem ents by the mother, although neutral statements were somewhat less likely to get that response. Responses to the father were quite similar, except that 37% of his messages were submissive and they were almost uniformly responded to by a control attempt. Mother and father did not interact. In the family with low-EE parents, the patterning was strongly comple­ mentary, with a submissive message from the mother eliciting a dominating response from the patient, and an assertion of control followed by a re­ sponse yielding control. The father gave even more neutral messages than the mother but the patient responded less submissively to him. There was again complementarity in the patient’s one-down response to the father’s one-up message, but the patient was rarely dominating, no matter what the message. Again, the mother and father did not interact. Discussion. The primary issue addressed by this study was whether EE reflects high intensity interpersonal social control. Patterning of relational control in families of low- and high-EE parents indicates that EE may be a

154

WUERKER TABLE 7.1 Percentage of Control Direction of Patient's Response by M other’s and Father’s M essages in a High-EE and Low-EE Family

EE Level

Control Direction o f Patient's Response

Family A (Iligli-EE) Control direction of m other’s response

T A -» Total

Control direction of father’s response

T A Total

Family B (Low-EE) Control direction of m other’s response

T A -► Total

Control direction of father’s response

T A Total

t

A

->

Total

77% 78 50 69%

9% 11 22 13%

15% 11 28 18%

56% 15 29 N = 61

60% 94 50 71%

8% 6 0 6%

32% 0 50 22%

51% 37 12 N = 49

T

A

-»

Total

30% 67 8 23%

60% 33 85 69%

10% 0 8 8%

38% 12 50 N = 26

14% 12 13 13%

86% 13 61 55%

0% 75 26 32%

18% 21 61 N = 38

T = dominance attempt; A = inviting/allowing dominance; -» = neutralizing control.

form of control, but it is clearly not a unidirectional process of parents try­ ing to control their young adult children. Patients are m ore verbally con ­ trolling than their parents, and the picture that em erges, particularly in triadic families of schizophrenic patients, is one similar to Haley’s idea of confused hierarchies and parents struggling unsuccessfully to gain control (M adanes, 1980). Low-EE families, particularly parents, seem able to respond neutrally and thus avoid negative escalation. This finding parallels results reported by Hahlweg and colleagues (Hahlweg et al., 1989) examining nonverbal in­ teraction in the sam e families in which high-EE families escalated nega­ tivity, while low-EE families were able to dampen the escalation. Relational patterns in families of bipolar patients differed from families of schizophrenic patients in important respects. Control patterns differ by EE status in both types of families but bipolar families were highly control­ ling across EE status. Social control may be only one dim ension of EE, or the family qualities tapped by EE may vary by diagnostic groups. For exam ­ ple, social control behaviors, or really, the battle for control, may be the

7. MENTAL ILLNESS AND EXPRESSED EMOTION

155

m ost important elem ent of high EE in families of schizophrenic patients, while the elem ent of criticism may be m ore salient in affective disorders. The data on the sam e bipolar families presented by Miklowitz and col­ leagues (Miklowitz et al., 1988) pointed to this; only patients with low-EE parents whose parents also primarily used benign (noncritical) statem ents during the discussions were unlikely to relapse. Expressed emotion seem ed clearly to reflect a transactional process; pa­ tients were as much a part of it as parents. Parents in low-EE families seem ed b etter able to stay neutral, however, while patients in low-EE fami­ lies often yielded control. There were intriguing differences betw een dyadic and triadic families. Al­ though the control patterning was similar, the triadic situation seem ed to be more intense in several ways. T he question arises as to w hether that was a laboratory effect, with “two against one” intensifying control strug­ gles, or w hether it represented m ore stable qualities of one- versus twoparent families. The early studies of families of schizophrenic patients were couched alm ost entirely in term s of triads (e.g., Bowen, 1978; Haley, 1977). B ecau se the num ber of single-parent families is increasing dramatically, the special problem s (o r possibly advantages) posed by this family structure will becom e increasingly relevant.

Markov Models of EE and Communication Patterns A second study com pared com m unication patterns in the study families us­ ing Markov model analyses. As Rogers, Millar, and Bavelas (1985) noted, the study of family patterns on a system s level requires system level analysis. Data must be collected and analyzed sequentially to understand process at the m ost basic level of m essage and response. However, analysis of data on a true system s level also requires the inclusion of change over time to cap­ ture the dynamics of a process. Markov process analysis allows the re­ search er to incorporate time, and thus dynamics, in a truly system ic fash­ ion, without concepts of linear causality and with a probabilistic framework that seem s to suit human com m unication system s very well. Communica­ tion patterns generally, and relational control patterns specifically, have been shown to be Markovian (M anderscheid, McCarrick, Rae, & Silbergeld, 1982; Vuchinich, 1984).

M arkov M odels. A Markov p rocess is a sequ ence of events in which each event, or state, depends on one or more previous states. The probabil­ istic nature of the process can be represented by an initial distribution of states and a transition matrix that specifies the probabilities of moving from one state to another. A sim ple example would be the probabilities that a control attem pt by a patient would be followed by either a parent’s at­

156

WUERKER

tem pt to control, to yield control, or to neutralize control. An important quality of Markov models is indeterm inacy: although individuals may vary widely, the overall pattern is maintained, resulting in a statistical approach that may be m ore reflective of actual behavior. Discrete-state, discrete-tim e Markov models have appeal in part becau se they allow for both the indeter­ minacy of human interaction and the dependency of one person’s response on the other. The standard assum ptions underlying Markov models are order, stationarity, and hom ogeneity. Order refers to the number of states needed for prediction of the present state of the system . First-order means that only the immediately prior state and the transition probabilities representing the dynamics of the system are needed; second-order m eans that informa­ tion from two prior time points is required. Stationarity means that the tran­ sition probabilities do not change over time, although the distribution of the states might. Homogeneity m eans that the sam e transition probabilities hold for all m em bers of the population. Order, stationarity, and hom ogeneity can be readily assessed with loglinear models. The assum ptions of order, stationarity, and hom ogeneity can be used as hypotheses in a study or the focus may be on the transitions probabilities that define the dynamics of the system (Gottman & Roy, 1990). See Gottman and Roy (1990) for a general discussion of the use of log-linear models for sequential analysis and McCarrick and M anderscheid (1990) for exam ples using relational com m unication control. To form the dataset for the Markov analysis, contingency tables were constru cted with four dim ensions; the control direction at t, t + 1, t + 2, and t + 3 (A, B, C, and D, respectively), using a moving window approach, in which / is moved successively by single coding units. Dyadic data, in which there was one parent and the patient, and triadic data, in which th ere were two parents and the patient, were analyzed separately. M other and father were collapsed to “parent” in the triadic sequ ences. Parent to parent inter­ action (of which th ere was very little) was excluded. In previous analyses, patterns of parents’ responses in any given family did not differ markedly from one another, so collapsing acro ss parents was unlikely to distort se­ quential patterning. The total num ber of four-unit interacts from dyadic families was 3,598; the total number from triadic families was 2,716. Loglinear analyses were then used to assess order, stationarity, and hom ogene­ ity, as well as to com pare the stoch astic models statistically. D y a d ic F am ilies— T e stin g f o r O rd e r. Order was assessed for low- and high-EE families, com bining diagnostic groups. The results suggested that for low-EE families, the p ro cess of relational control was second order. The p rocess in high-EE families was second-order as well, but m ore com plex ef­ fects were significant, implying more responsiveness in high-EE families.

7. HOW TEXTS COME INTO BEING

157

The analyses for hom ogeneity and stationarity dem onstrated that the proc­ ess of negotiation of control in single-parent families did not change during the discussion and was also stable acro ss roles. The tests for order, homogeneity, and stationarity examine differences in the patterning of communication in the study families. Differences in the pat­ terns of relational control were examined by again using log-linear analysis. These analyses showed that families with bipolar disorder differed slightly by EE status in that high-EE families were likely to respond to neutral mes­ sages with a control attempt. Patterns in families of persons with schizophre­ nia differed more by EE status, in that low-EE families were very unlikely to com pete for control, and high-EE families were likely to respond to either a neutral or a dominating m essage with a statem ent asserting control. In com paring low- and high-EE families, there were clear differences in pathways to neutral symmetry. In low-EE families, both one-up, one-across and one-down, one-across often led to neutral symmetry. In high-EE fami­ lies, only one-up, one-across did. An interesting feature of the high-EE fami­ lies was that the system often moved from com plem entarity (ti) to neutral transitions ( i - ») to m ore com petitive transitions ( - > i ) to com petitive sym­ m etry (tt). In this se rie s of slow shifts tow ard dom inance, neutral sp eech es had quite a different function than to dampen escalation; rather they seem ed to be a way to gradually a ssert control. In examining param e­ ter estim ates of the effects that differentiate low- and high-EE families of persons with schizophrenia, this use of neutral to shift from subm issive to com petitive was statistically significant in high-EE families. To summarize the dynamics in the dyadic families of persons with schiz­ ophrenia, the high-EE families were more com petitive than the low-EE fami­ lies, and were less apt to move to neutral sym m etry than low-EE families. The m ost striking difference in the high-EE families, however, was the use of neutral to escalate control rather than to dampen it. T ria d ic F a m ilie s. T e sts of ord er in th e low-EE dual-parent fam ilies show ed th at the stru ctu re of com m unication was second order, sim ilar to the dyadic low-EE fam ilies. However, high-EE fam ilies show ed third-order stru ctu re, implying m ore resp onsiveness in th e se fam ilies. Patterning in both high- and low-EE fam ilies was stab le a cro ss the dialogues and a cro ss roles. Comparison of patterns showed that t t t was m ore com mon in high-EE families, as was l-»t, while low-EE families were more likely to show se­ quences ending in -* or 4. Low-EE families of persons with bipolar disorder were more likely to show patterns of com petitive sym m etry com pared to low-EE families of persons with schizophrenia. However, in high-EE families, it is the families of persons with schizophrenia who show more pathways to dom inance with sequ ences such as -»it or 4-»t.

158

WUERKER

Digraphs using observed transitions probabilities were constructed to il­ lustrate the processes in each set of families. In the digraph for high-EE fam­ ilies of persons with schizophrenia, virtually every state eventually led to competitive symmetry (see Fig. 7.1). The digraph for high-EE families of per­ sons with bipolar disorder also showed a strong tendency toward competi­ tive symmetry, but there were more possibilities for interaction to move to­ ward neutral symmetry in these families (see Fig. 7.2).

Discussion. In this study, it was expected that the communication proc­ ess in high-EE families would exhibit more sequential dependency, that is, would be a higher order Markov process. This was not true of dyadic fami­ lies, although they did show more complex dependencies than low-EE fami­ lies. The process in triadic high-EE families was of a higher order, however. The importance of this difference in structure is that it is indicative that EE is not just a pattern of parental attitudes, or even a family emotional cli­ mate, but that high-EE families have a different type of family system, a more tightly joined system, than low-EE families.

FIG. 7.1. Diagraph of transitions for triadic high-expressed emotion families, schizophrenia (n = 585 sequences; 4 families).

7. MENTAL ILLNESS AND EXPRESSED EMOTION

159

FIG. 7.2. Digraph of transitions for triadic high-expressed emotion families, bi­ polar disorder (n = 1,225 sequences; 7 families).

Single- and dual-parent families showed similar patterning, but the pat­ terns were more intense in the dual-parent families. In the single-parent families, high-EE families showed some tendency toward greater respon­ siveness and competition for control. Families of persons with bipolar dis­ order were more competitive in general than families of persons with schizophrenia, with the only difference by EE status the moves from neutral to control attempts in high-EE families. In contrast, in families of persons with schizophrenia, low-EE families avoided attempting control, and highEE families were likely to respond to either control attempts or neutral statem ents with assertions of control. Patterns in triadic families were similar but more dramatic. High-EE fam­ ily patterns showed much more serial dependency (i.e., more responsive­ ness). Control patterning differed in the same way as in the single-parent

160

WUERKER

families, but m ore strongly. High- and low-EE families of persons with bipo­ lar disorder were com petitive, low-EE families of persons with schizophre­ nia rarely com peted, and high-EE families strongly com peted for control. The digraph shown in Fig. 7.1 illustrates the rigid patterning in these latter families. Thus, families high in expressed em otion seem ed to have a family sys­ tem that is both m ore responsive and more conflictual. Dual-parent families with sons or daughters with schizophrenia show th ese qualities m ost dra­ matically and are rem iniscent of the family system s early family therapists described (e.g., Bateson, Jackson , Haley, & Weakland, 1956). However, these differences were not limited to families of persons with schizophrenia, but were displayed by families of offspring with bipolar disorders as well, and the patient is as much a part of the system as the parents. Furtherm ore, al­ though these early formulations of family p ro cesses in schizophrenia pro­ posed that faulty com m unication patterns caused the illness, it is likely they are instead a result of the problem. Digraphs are like maps, illustrations of the most heavily traveled routes and the most com mon destinations. For high-EE families, m ost routes led to com petitive symmetry, “one-upmanship.” In fact, for triadic families with a person with schizophrenia, all routes led to one-upmanship. This might be considered a d esperate attem pt to assert control on the part of the parents, as Greenley (1986) posited, but becau se the patient was as much a part of the process as the parents, using the sam e “routes,” it seem s m ore like an intense battle for control in a system with too few options. Families with sons or daughters with bipolar disorders showed very similar differences in structure and dynamics according to EE status and are m ore generally con ­ trolling, but the triadic bipolar families were not as extrem e nor as rigid as the families of persons with schizophrenia. T hese findings expand on the research of Hahlweg et al. (1989), which was based on interaction in som e of the sam e families. The escalation of negativity reported in high-EE families by Hahlweg and colleagues may re­ flect the power struggle betw een parents and patients, whereas low-EE fam­ ilies may be able to handle control issues better, perhaps becau se the par­ ents are able to stay neutral. The differences between dyadic and triadic families remain intriguing. Having an adult child with a major mental illness would seem to be a greater burden in a single-parent family, but the results in this study point to a som ewhat less constricted system . An exception is the study by Parker, Johnson, and Hayward (1988) in which EE was related to outcom e only in single-parent families. There are several possibilities for these disparate findings. One is that these results reflect a task effect of conversation in which there are two parents and one patient. Another is that com m unica­ tion in the laboratory accurately reflects com m unication in m ore ordinary

7. MENTAL ILLNESS AND EXPRESSED EMOTION

161

circum stances, and that the presen ce of two parents intensifies control struggles, particularly when their control patterns are alike, as they were with these parents. However, it is also quite possible that the gradual shift toward control in high-EE dyadic families, that is, the use of neutral as a stepping stone to attem pted dominance, may have reflected a situation in which a single parent and child had to deal with one another m ore gingerly. In other words, perhaps single- and dual-parent high-EE families simply deal with control issues differently, with dual-parent families dealing with con­ trol m ore directly. Why responsiveness should be greater in these high-EE dual-parent fami­ lies is more difficult to understand. As Parker et al. (1988) pointed out, it is of­ ten assumed that single parents are more emotionally involved with their children. Of course, emotional involvement and responsiveness in communi­ cation patterns are not the sam e phenomena. At any rate, the influence of composition of families on EE, control patterns, and outcom e needs to be studied as the understanding of EE moves beyond the relationship of one rel­ ative’s attitudes and relapse in schizophrenia. Further research might illumi­ nate the differences in single- and dual-parent family system s as parents and children struggle with the consequences of a major mental disorder. Jenkins and Karno (1992) com m ented on the disparate elem ents of hos­ tility, criticism , and em otional overinvolvem ent in the EE construct. These com ponents of high-EE may not be disparate, but rather part of the com mu­ nication patterns characterizing these families. Although em otional over­ involvement did not always contribute to the high-EE score, all of the highEE family types (bipolar disorder, schizophrenia; dyadic, triadic) in the current study showed som e degree of increased responsiveness to one an­ other and a greater tendency to com pete for control. This com bination may create m ore stress than either overresponsiveness or control struggles would alone.

STU D IES BASED O N D A T A FROM T H E T R E A T M E N T STRATEGIES IN S C H IZ O P H R E N IA (TSS) S TU D Y The remaining studies used data from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded Treatm ent Strategies in Schizophrenia (T SS) Collabo­ rative Study (Schooler et al., 1997). In the TSS study, su b jects had to have a family m em ber willing to participate in the family therapy com ponent of the study; this family m em ber was usually a parent, but could be an relative serving in loco parentis (e.g., an aunt, an uncle, or a grandparent). All fami­ lies in the TSS study were first invited to attend a psychoeducational work­ shop modeled on the survival skills workshop developed by Anderson and cow orkers (Anderson, Reiss, & Hogarty, 1986). They were then assigned to

162

WUERKER

a family m anagement clinician. Families assigned to the Supportive Family Management (SFM ) condition were encouraged to attend monthly fam­ ily group meetings that continued through the 2 years of the study. The family m anagement clinician also provided case management and consulta­ tion for problem s when the family asked for assistance. Families assigned to Applied Family Management (AFM) had the sam e opportunities but in addition they received family treatm ent sessions in their hom es for the first year. All families received either AFM or SFM. At the conclusion of the study, the investigators reported there were no clinical or outcom e differ­ ences in the two groups (Sch o oler et al., 1997). The studies of relational con­ trol used the audio portion of videotapes collected by Bellack and col­ leagues (Bellack, Haas, & Tierney, 1996) in the context of the larger study.

Gender and Racial Differences in EE and Interpersonal Control A m ajor issue in EE research is that m ost of the studies have been of White middle-class patients, despite the num ber of countries in which this re­ search has taken place (Jenkins & Karno, 1992). The few exceptions have found interesting differences, in that Mexican-American families (Karno et al., 1987) and families in India (Leff et al., 1987) have far lower levels of high EE. With the exception of one study (Moline, Singh, Morris, & Meltzer, 1985), few have included African Americans. Jenkins and Karno (1992) argued that culture defines what kind of behavior deserves criticism , and that crosscultural studies of EE could provide som e of the theoretical grounding that EE research needs. Although m ost of the su b jects in the earlier studies were male, more re­ cent research has included substantial num bers of females. However, none of the studies has examined gender differences except to point out that the relationship betw een EE and relapse seem s to hold equally for men and women. The problem s in a family might well differ depending on whether the young adult with schizophrenia is a son or daughter. To address these two issues, gender and racial differences, this study examined differences in family patterns of interpersonal control with respect to EE level in fami­ lies of persons with schizophrenia, com paring patterns of families with sons to families with daughters, and patterns of Caucasian families to those of African-American families. Relational control patterns have been shown to differ betw een men and women (e.g., McCarrick, M anderscheid, & Silbergeld, 1981). In the McCarrick et al. study, men were found to com pete verbally with both other men and women, but women com peted only with men and only when chal­ lenged. The ample literature on gender differences in com m unication shows that men are m ore com petitive in conversation, whereas women are

7. MENTAL ILLNESS AND EXPRESSED EMOTION

163

m ore deferring and work to keep the conversation going (Steen & Schwartz, 1995). For example, men are m ore likely than women to issue directives in a conversation. Women are m ore likely to use “tag questions” (e.g., “Okay?” “don’t you agree?” or “isn’t that so?”) which convey a need for confirmation from the other and thus a m ore subm issive rather than dominant position vis-à-vis the other speaker (Lakoff, 1973; Steen & Schwartz, 1995). Most of the literature on gender differences in com m unication considers relations betw een peers. There is less understanding of what is normative in dialogues betw een parents and children, particularly adult children. However, Davis, Goldstein, and Nuechterlein (1996) reported that, in a group of 110 recent-onset patients with schizophrenia, males were more likely to be recipients of harsh criticism com pared to females, and, in gen­ eral, parents were m ore critical of their ill sons than their ill daughters. Unlike gender, differences in com m unication style betw een African Am ericans and Caucasians have rarely been studied in term s of control. However, in his classic Black and White Styles in Conflict, Kochman (1981) wrote of African Am ericans being m ore com fortable with expressing em o­ tion com pared to Caucasians. Kochman noted that em otionally intensive expressions are favored in African-American culture as long as they reflect genuine feelings, while restraining the expression of feelings is considered “cold,” or “not for real” (Kochman, p. 107). In a similar vein, McGoldrick (1993) wrote of African Am ericans being more em otionally aware and com ­ fortable with the full range of their feelings, in com parison to Irish Ameri­ cans. T hese observations suggest that the association between EE attitudes and interaction in African-American families could very likely differ from that in Caucasian families, and that African-American high-EE parents might be more likely to express critical attitudes directly during interaction, and so be m ore verbally controlling. Negative feelings do not necessarily result in attem pts at control, but, as attribution theorists point out, if a parent’s criticism is based on a behavior that the parent believes is controllable, that critical attitude may be reflected in controlling interaction. The sam ple for the study consisted of 60 families, 30 that were low EE at the first assessm ent at which interaction data were obtained, and 30 that were borderline high EE or high EE at that first assessm ent. Data from the 6 families (3 Hispanic, 2 Asian, 1 other) who were neither African American nor Caucasian were excluded, becau se earlier analyses showed interaction patterns that differed betw een Asians and Hispanics, as well as from Cauca­ sians and African Americans. Thus data for the study were from 54 families; 34 Caucasian and 20 African-American families. Forty-one (76%) of the patients were male, of which 27 were Caucasian and 14 African American; 13 (24%) of the patients were female, of which 7 were Caucasian and 6 African American. The primary relative was the m other in 38 (70%) of the families, the father in 9 (17%). The remaining 7

164

WUERKER

family members who were acting in loco parentis were 4 sisters, a grand­ mother, an uncle, and one women identified as “other.” All four of the pa­ tients with sisters as the primary caregiver were Caucasian men. The mean age of the patients was 29.1 years. The analyses were based on interaction and FMSS (Expressed Emotion) data from each of 139 assessm ents (2 or 3 per family) rather than aggregating by family, because a parent could be high EE at one point and low EE at another. Thus the focus was on how the interaction at the time of the FMSS assessm ent reflected the EE level of the parent at that time. Log-linear analysis was then used to examine gender and racial differences in control patterns. Results. Results from the log-linear analyses show ed that AfricanAmerican patients in high-EE families were significantly more likely to as­ sert control compared to Caucasian patients in high-EE families. High-EE African-American parents are also significantly more likely to be verbally controlling, and patients in high-EE African-American families were signifi­ cantly more likely to respond symmetrically. Thus there was evidence that high EE and competitive control patterns were more strongly related in African-American families. There were also interesting gender differences. Male patients in families with high-EE parents were significantly more likely to assert control com­ pared to female patients with high-EE parents. High-EE parents were very likely to attempt control with sons but responded in a submissive manner to daughters. To illustrate the findings, cross-tabulations of messages and responses by level of EE, race, and gender are shown in Table 7.2. Interac­ tions from assessm ent points at which parents were low EE did not vary substantially by either race or gender of the patient, nor did borderline high-EE interactions. However, interactions from high-EE assessm ents var­ ied considerably. Patterns in Caucasian high-EE families of male patients were not remarkable, but interactions in African-American families at highEE assessm ents showed a high level of competitive symmetry; patients and parents seemed to be challenging one another for control. High-EE patterns in families of female patients appeared to be quite dif­ ferent from those in families of males. In both Caucasian and AfricanAmerican families, parents responded submissively to their daughters. The description of this submissive patterning in families of daughters with highEE parents was based on relatively few families—four Caucasian and two African-American families—but the results were quite interesting and should be explored further with a larger sample. Control patterns were also compared according to whether the parent was a mother or father. Mothers and fathers interacted with their sons and daughters very similarly, but both sons and daughters were more control­ ling and less neutral when the parent was a mother, compared to interac-

TABLE 7.2 Differences by Race and Sex in Control Directions of Patient's M essage and Parent’s Response, for Interactions at High-EE A ssessm ent Points3

Caucasian Families Control Direction o f R elative 's R esponse S ex o f Patient Male

Female

Control direction of patient’s m essage

Control direction of patient’s m essage

African-American Families Control Direction o f R elative’s R esponse

t

1

-»

Total

t

1

-»

Total

->

35.7% 39.1 34.4

Total

36.0%

30.5% 30.1 29.1 29.8%

33.8% 30.8 36.4 34.2% (n = 1957)

34.2% 24.2 44.6 100%

53.9% 49.3 44.2 49.5%

23.4% 30.4 31.4 27.5%

22.7% 20.3 24.4 22.9% (n = 944)

46.2% 15.7 38.2 100%

t

32.1% 37.2 23.2 29.6%

36.8% 31.4 40.8 37.1%

31.1% 31.4 35.9 33.2% (n = 334)

31.7% 25.7

26.1% 23.7 25.0 25.0%

54.4%

19.6% 26.3 28.7 25.6% (n = 164)

28.1% 23.2 48.8 100%

t

-> Total

aFrom Wuerker, Haas, and Bellack (1999).

42.5 100%

50.0 46.3 49.4%

166

WUERKER

tions with a father. Thus in term s of patients and parents, gender differ­ ences were largely as expected, with women less controlling than men. Both men and women patients were more controlling with m others than with fathers, reflecting the conventional power balance, although it is inter­ esting that this usual pattern was maintained despite the fact that the pa­ tients are adult children who are chronically mentally ill. These patterns were stronger in African-American families than in Cauca­ sian families, and stronger in families of male patients, particularly males in African-American families. Families with high-EE parents and women pa­ tients showed quite different patterns, with parents responding subm is­ sively. The dialogues betw een high-EE parents and their daughters reveal that the parents tended to plead with their daughters to change their be­ havior, rather than ask or order them to change. High-EE relatives were equally or m ore controlling when the rating was based on em otional overinvolvement. Perhaps it does not m atter whether the basis for asserting control is disapproval of a behavior or concern for consequences of that behavior. For example, a com mon them e in the dia­ logues was the worry of aging parents that their offspring would not be able to care for them selves when the parent could no longer do it. The relationship of control patterns and EE levels was similar to past findings, as described earlier, even though the sam ple was quite different. The earlier studies were of younger, mostly middle-class patients, who had not been ill for long. The patients in this study were, on the average, 7 years older and m ore diverse racially. These findings again pointed to the possi­ bility that interpersonal control is central to the transactional patterns un­ derlying EE.

Markov Analyses: Change O ver T im e in EE and Interpersonal Control Many studies have shown that family interventions d ecrease the relapse rate of persons with schizophrenia who have high-EE parents. Neverthe­ less, several problem s remain, the m ost serious of which is that relapse may be simply postponed rather than avoided. At least two studies have re­ ported that positive results failed to be maintained beyond the first year (Hogary, 1985; Lam, 1991). A second problem is that the whole process is poorly understood. Why EE should be such a powerful predictor is not clear, nor is it clear why family interventions are helpful. Another important issue is that EE is often m easured only once, and des­ ignating families or households as high- or low-EE adds to the im pression that EE is a stable marker of a family attitude. The studies that m easure EE at m ore than one time point show that there is a great deal of change in EE attitudes. Most studies show EE moving from high to low, but Dulz and

7. MENTAL ILLNESS AND EXPRESSED EMOTION

167

Hand (1986) and Scazufca and Kuipers (1998) reported shifts from low to high ranging from 11% to 18% of study families. One explanation offered by Hooley and Richters (1995) for change over time in EE is that there are both trait and state elem ents in EE. For example, a parent may have a critical view of the patient in general but it may becom e heightened when symp­ tom s increase. In this study, com m unication patterns in families of persons with schizo­ phrenia were described as they changed over the 2 years of the study. They were described in term s of interpersonal control, assessed through the use of the RCCS at each of the assessm en t points. The resulting com m unication seq u ences were then analyzed as a Markov process. Most Markov studies of dyadic com m unication have found second- or third-order patterning (e.g., M anderscheid et al., 1982; Vuchinich, 1984). Pre­ vious studies of transactions in high-EE families have found a more “tightly joined” system (Cook, Strachan, Goldstein, & Miklowitz, 1989) and greater serial dependency (Hahlweg et al., 1989), implying a higher order structure. In the study described earlier in this chapter, patterns in low-EE families were second order, but patterns in high-EE dual-parent families were third order, perhaps reflecting this “m ore tightly joined system .” Most of these studies found that the patterns were hom ogeneous and stationary. Based on previous studies, therefore, it was expected that the low-EE families in the current study would show second-order patterning and the high-EE fam­ ilies would initially show third-order structure. We also expected communi­ cation patterns in all families to be hom ogeneous and stationary initially, becau se these were relatives and patients who had been relating with each other for years, and would be expected to have very stable patterns. How­ ever, participation in a study could affect patients and relatives differently, so we e x p e cte d th e re would be ch an g e in h om og en eity ov er tim e. Stationarity could change as well, although it is less likely than is the case for hom ogeneity, becau se the dialogues on which the patterns are based are short (10 minutes). B ecau se EE was assessed at all three time points, and EE status of many of the relatives changed during the study, the patient-relative dyads were grouped according to their patterns of EE. Group 1, designated as LLL, were dyads in which the relatives were low EE throughout the study (n = 23); Group 2 (HHH) relatives were high EE at all th ree points (n = 9). Group 3 (LHL, n = 9) relatives were low EE at baseline, high EE at Year 1, and low EE again at Year 2. Conversely, Group 4 relatives (HLH, n = 5) were high EE, then low EE, then high EE again at Y ear 2. The remaining families were cate­ gorized by their initial EE level and their Y ear 2 level only. Group 5 (L - H, n = 5) were low EE initially but high EE at Y ear 2, and Group 6 (H - L, n = 11) were initially high EE but low EE at Year 2. The six groups of families did not differ significantly in term s of age, gender, or race. The symptoms and func­

168

WUERKER

tioning of the patients were m easured at each of the assessm en t points dur­ ing the TSS study (Scho oler et al., 1997). T here were no significant differ­ ences among the six groups in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS; Overall & Gorham, 1988), the Scale for the A ssessm ent of Negative Symp­ tom s (SANS; Andreasen, 1989), or the adjustm ent m easures of the Social Ad­ justm ent Scale (SAS II; Schooler & Hogarty, 1986) at any of the assessm ent points. However, both the relative’s and the interview er’s report of the de­ gree of satisfaction the relative felt with the patient varied with the EE groups at baseline and Y ear 2. At baseline, relatives in groups who were high EE w ere som ewhat less satisfied than those who were low EE. At Y ear 2, relatives in groups who were high EE at that point were significantly less satisfied with their offspring. Interestingly, the EE group with the highest (least satisfied) mean sco re for satisfaction (5.2 in a 1 to 7 sca le) was the group that was low EE initially and then were high EE, closely followed by the group of relatives that stayed high EE throughout the study (m ean 5.1).

Results. The first analyses addressed the issue of structure of the six sets of dialogues. Each set of dialogues was assessed for order, stationarity, and role hom ogeneity separately (th at is, dialogues of stable low-EE fami­ lies at baseline, stable low-EE families at Y ear 1, and so forth). Table 7.3 dis­ plays results from the analyses of order for all six groups. Dialogues in the stable low-EE and the stable high-EE dyads were rath er similar initially. Both were second order and hom ogeneous, although the low-EE parents and patients differed in their immediate responses to each other, and the high-EE dyads did not. After the first year of the study, both sets of families showed m ore responsivity in the dialogues, and both p ro cesses were third order. However, in Y ear 2 of the study, low-EE and high-EE dyads differed greatly. The low-EE dyads appeared to continue to develop com plexity, but the p ro cess in high-EE dyads was once again second order with no sequen­ tial dependencies beyond the tendency to stay in the sam e control mode. The high-EE dyads also differed from the low-EE dyads in that by the sec­ ond assessm ent and continuing in the third assessm ent, the process difTABLE 7.3 Results of T ests of Order

EE at Base—Year l—Year 2

N

Base Year

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

23 9 9 5 5 11

2nd < 2nd < 2nd < 2nd < 2nd < 2nd
MD:

R ig h t...(b a c k c h a n n e l)

-» PT:

I’d g e t re a lly s h a rp p a in s in m y kid n ey s.

-» MD:

Uh h u h ..o k a y ... ( b a c k c h a n n e l)

The phase analysis also depicted m ore tran sitory exchanges made in middle portions of the interview which typically involves an expanded dis­ cussion of the illness with an exam ination of the patient. The m ost fre­ quent tran sitory exchanges included patient one-ups followed by physi­

188

WIGGINTON CECIL AND VON FRIEDERICHS-FITZWATER

cian one-across resp on ses, and w ere least likely to include a physician one-across with a patient one-down response. Thus, th ese tran sitory mid­ dle segm ents also signify the willingness of patients to a ssert definitional control in the clinical encounter. For exam ple, the following tran scrip t ex­ cerp t provides an interesting con versation to illustrate the patient one-up tran sitory pattern.

I MD: Any problems with your ears? t PT:

Uh, you know, I did have an ear infection, I think, about two months, or three months ago, and I had pain and I had an earache. I’ve never been so sick in my life except for the past two months, never. -» MD: You’ve got a lot of wax in this ear. t PT: - - It’s this one, not that one! (talk-over) -* MD: That one looks fine. T PT: That hurts! OW! Jeez, Louise! - STOP IT! The final portions of the clinical interview typically include the regimen proposal which was represented in the phase analysis by a substantial amount of com petitive symmetry. It was expected that physicians would appear more assertive during these final portions of the interview, surpris­ ingly, both physician and patient showed domineering behaviors. Through a closer examination of the transcripts it appears that much of this com pet­ itive sym m etry is displayed through “topic changes” and patient “talk­ overs” as illustrated in the following transcript sam ples w here *- -’ indicates a talk-over attem pt and topic changes are noted in parentheses. t MD: t PT:

I need you to start to take the 2.5’s. - - Two point five’s? That’s what I’m taking. I’ve been on estrogen since I was like 11 years old. (talk-over)

4 MD: t PT:

Yeah, uh, so that’s like four of the ,625’s? - - Like I said, my other medications, I think the pharmacy already has got my refills, (talk-over)

t MD:

Well, when you get that filled I want you to ask the pharmacist,

t PT: t MD:

- - Well, I phone stuff... okay, (talk-over) Well, when you call, ask the pharmacist or you can always call here Friday morning and I’d be happy to call that in.

4 MD: T PT: t MD:

Okay. But it’s gettin’ better? It’s getting better, yeah. I, I gotta do my laundry, s o ----------’s (per­ son’s name) gonna babysit for me. (topic change) Okay. Is he hungry? (topic change)

t PT:

- - He might be. 1 brought him some food, (talk-over)

8. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT INTERACTION

189

t MD:

Can you bring him in next week again? (topic change)

i PT:

Yes, I could. I’m also glad the nurse is coming to help you out with him. (topic change) Yeah.

t MD: -»PT: t MD: t PT:

Okay, well, was that little bell - was that circumcision too hard to take care of, or was that okay for you? (topic change) -- It was okay, it’s not stingin’ anymore when he urinates, (talk-over)

t MD:

Right. Is that your wedding band? When did you get married? (topic change)

i PT:

About a year ago.

It must be emphasized that com petitive sym m etry made up a sm aller por­ tion of the total transactional exchanges (11%) and the average phase length was nine transactions. Therefore, these phases do not have lengthy sequ ences of one-up assertions. Instead, the phase analysis indicates com ­ petitive sym m etry is m ore likely to occu r near ending portions of the clini­ cal visit, rather than in initial or middle portions. The phase analysis study begins to establish the utility of this method for depicting more global patterns of com m unication control processes. Not only does the phase analysis allow us to understand how the RCCCS fits within the formal structure of the medical interview, but how relational con­ trol patterns are manifested in a dyadic system . Thus, this method may prove to be a useful tool for expanding the search for higher level relational control descriptions in other interpersonal settings such as family, marital, and organizational relationships.

C O N C L U S IO N A N D FUTURE RESEARCH Relational control m ethodology provides a way to examine the physicianpatient relationship, rather than single utterances, and seem s well suited to provide information about the process of com m unication in the health care setting. Obviously, m ore research needs to be done to b etter understand the physician-patient relationship and to further define the com m unication strategies that will move the clinical encounter away from a doctor- or disease-centered model to a patient-centered model. Future research on how relational control patterns differ within various medical settings would en­ hance this understanding. Specific areas of interest could include acuity of illness, as in nonem ergency versus em ergency settings or chronic versus routine or minor, short-term illness, palliative and end-of life visits when terminally ill. Also of interest would be exploring the possibility of pattern

190

WIGGINTON CECIL AND VON FRIEDERICHS-FITZWATER

differences among the myriad of medical encounters in fields such as Fam­ ily Medicine, Internal Medicine, Oncology, Pediatrics, O bstetrics-G ynecology, and so forth. Limited investigation has been given to understanding how the physi­ cian -p atien t relationship unfolds over tim e. As such, future research should continue to explore how the physician-patient relational control patterns change over the life of the relationship and as the patient’s health changes. Further insights are needed for explaining different controlling be­ haviors between physicians and patients who are interacting for the first time and those who have developed relationships over several visits (Wig­ ginton Cecil, 1998). Also, the physician-patient relationship when the pa­ tient is relatively healthy and only needs periodic preventative check-ups may be different than the relationship that the patient might desire if he or she is diagnosed with a serious chronic illness. T hese new avenues of re­ search will clarify the relational needs of patients and how th ose needs are met through com munication. Relational control behaviors could also be analyzed from nonverbal mes­ sages. O’Hair (1989) suggested control direction conceptualizations and re­ lational meanings are variables available for nonverbal study in the physi­ cian-patient relationship. Likewise, Siegel, Friedlander, and Heatherington (1992) conducted a study in which they suggest “nonverbal relational con­ trol behaviors can be reliably identified and that these behaviors enhance com m unicative meaning in predictable ways” (p. 117). Utilizing Gottman, Notarius, Markman, and M ettel’s (1977) Nonverbal Affect Schem e, Escu­ dero, Rogers, and Gutierrez (1997) successfully com bined nonverbal affect with the RCCCS by coding “gestural, proxemic, and paralinguistic m odes of com m unication” (p. 6). As these studies suggest, the incorporation of non­ verbal aspects of relational control in the clinical encounter represents a potentially beneficial research extension. Future studies should also consider the contextual nature of question us­ age in the clinical encounter. The RCCCS’ original utilization in the marital context typifies questions that function as a deference to another for advice or information leading to a one-down control direction. However, the clini­ cal context n ecessitates the use of questions as part of the process by which physicians structure the interview. In fact, Wigginton Cecil (1998) found physician questioning made up alm ost one third of the physician m essages in her study. Gilgun (1997) found that patients answered 95% of the questions asked by physicians. This question and answ er structure re­ sults in many physician one-down com plem entary exchanges that may not appropriately display the definitional control behaviors. Siebold, Cantrill, and M eyers (1985), H eatherington and Friedlander (1987), and Folger and Sillars (1980) have also addressed the RCCCS question-answ er coding by suggesting the use of open and closed ended ques­

8. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT INTERACTION

191

tion coding. Siebold et al. (1985) illustrated this by considering a physician asking a closed-ended question such as, “Did you just forget to take your m edicine?”, which seem s more domineering than an open question like, “What kind of things interfered with you taking your m edicine?” The open question can be thought of as a physician attempting to keep his or her con­ tribution low, while allowing the patient m ore responsibility in the com mu­ nication setting. However, the closed-ended question seeks little contribu­ tion from the patient. B ecau se questions and answers play a unique role in the clinical encoun­ ter, differentiating open versus closed questions and answers seem s like a useful way to modify the RCCCS. However, consideration must also be given to the control function that all m essages provide (i.e., the regulative nature of a m essage coded as a subm ission clearly has control influencing implications). For example, if an individual were to develop assistanceseeking com m unicative patterns and a relational partner were to fulfill those needs, these subm issive behaviors becom e very controlling in that relationship. Thus, further investigation is needed to assess the merits of question and answer coding modification to avoid allowing subjective con­ siderations to enter into the coding schem e which em phasizes m essage form, rather than content. Other areas of exploration for relational control coding that would be ad­ vantageous to examine include the application of control intensity m eas­ ures reflecting the “differing units or ‘am ounts’ of upness, acro ssn ess and dow nness” (Rogers, Courtright, & Millar, 1980, p. 202). For example, a physi­ cian m essage categorized as an “order” would seem to be a stronger at­ tem pt at control than simply providing an instruction. Similarly, asking for assistance may appear m ore subm issive than providing agreem ent to a statem ent. The relational control intensity m easures capture this intensity continuum that underlies the RCCCS m ethods and thus would offer a more detailed inquiry into the physician-patient relational control dim ensions. Likewise, measuring transactional redundancy would aid in understand­ ing m essage pattern variability. Support has been given for the benefits of flexibility in control patterns (B roderick & Pulliam-Krager, 1979; Courtright, Millar, & Rogers, 1980; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). As McNeilis et al. (1995) emphasized, “W here we think physicians and patients can en­ counter problem s is in the predom inance of an interact where the doctor is in the one-up position as a strategy during the entire interview or con­ stantly in a one-down position where the patient does not take control” (p. 302). This information is useful to physicians who may be able to provide m ore flexible control patterns that help m eet their patients’ needs for greater or less relational control in the interaction. Finally, future research should continue to establish the utility of phase analysis for depicting longer sequential patterns of relational control. For

192

WIGGINTON CECIL AND VON FRIEDERICHS-FITZWATER

instance, it would be m ost helpful to establish system atic rule structures for describing and com paring individual physician-patient phase maps and clustering sim ilar maps together. It would also be important to incorporate phase lengths to identify longer and shorter sequ ences. The mutually exclu­ sive phases illustrated by the current phase mapping procedures does not allow for the repeat of a phase that may be ju st as likely to occu r in initial or ending portions of an interaction. Instead, with current analysis, each phase can only occu r once. T hese suggestions are feasible adaptations for future phase analysis application to relational control research. As the focus in the medical encounter has shifted “from a diseasecentered (o r doctor-centered) model of practicing m edicine to the patientcentered partnership model, issues of control, trust, and intimacy will be­ com e even more significant factors in the goal of providing optimum heath care ” (von Friederichs-Fitzwater et al., 1991, p. 31). Thus, the relational com ­ munication approach provides a useful way to conceptually and m ethod­ ologically d escribe the physician-patient relationship by considering both the physician’s and patient’s part in the exchange of information. The re­ sulting patterns of com m unicative behavior provide rich understandings of how relational control is manifested during the clinical encounter.

REFERENCES Altman I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bates, B. (1987). A guide to physical examination and history taking (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. Baxter, L., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Communica­ tion Research, 12, 469-493. Bennett, K. C., & Irwin, H. J. (1997). Shifting the em phasis to “patient as central": Sea change or ripple on the pond? Health Communication, 9(1), 83-93. Berger, C. R., & Calbrese, R. J. (1993). Som e explorations in initial interaction and beyond: To­ ward developmental theory of interpersonal communication. In S. Petronio, J. Alberts, M. Hecht, & J. Buley (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on interpersonal communication (pp. 40-53). Madison, Wl: Brown & Benchmark. Bertakis, K. D., Roter, D., & Putnam, S. M. (1991). The relationship of physician medical interview style to patient satisfaction. The Journal of Family Practice, 32(2), 175-181. Broderick, C. B., & Pulliam-Krager, H. (1979). Family process and child outcom es. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. 1. Nye, & I. E. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Volume I (pp. 604-614). New York: Free Press. Brown, J. B., Stewart, M., & Tessier, S. (1995). Assessing communication between patients and doc­ tors: A manual for scoring patient), and less m em ber initiated discussion followed by leader control attem pts (i.e., through talkovers or instructions ( M ^ L t ) . Additional findings reveal m ore subtle effects. For example, the m ajority of the significant findings were m em ber initiated com m unication patterns, which may be a m ore sensitive barom eter of how inertial forces may be limiting the realization of STS goals. Perhaps the m ost powerful implication of this study is the subtle way in which the inertial forces reside in organizational units bent on change. Indi­ viduals may not be conscious of the underlying relational control p ro cesses that may undermine STS effects and working relationships. Changes in re­ porting relationships, changes in jo b titles, retraining, or work redistribu­ tion—the stock and trade of m ost OD interventions—do not target underly­ ing control patterns that structure the relationship. If these patterns were identified, analyzed, and framed as consistent or inconsistent with an STS philosophy, perhaps the effects of the inertia could be greatly reduced. The rem ainder of this chapter considers the implications of these findings and others for the field of organizational com munication.

9. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONAL CONTROL RESEARCH

207

T H E IM P L IC A T IO N S OF O R G A N IZ A T IO N A L STU D IES OF R E L A T IO N A L C O N T R O L Increasingly, organizational com m unication scholars have been concerned with the precise nature of the relationship betw een com municating and or­ ganizing. Initial conceptualizations of this relationship cast organizations as “containers” that conversations reflect or represent (Fairhurst & Putnam, 1998; Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001; Smith, 1993). Communication is cast as an actualizing process in or within the organization (Cooren & Taylor, 1997). Because the container view has been criticized for trivializing com m unica­ tion, reifying the organization, and its lack of attention to organizational change, m ore recent characterizations of the organization-com m unication relationship draw from production and equivalency m etaphors. In the case of the production m etaphor, the organization can produce com munication, com m unication can produce the organization, or they can coproduce each other. Thus, the em phasis is on p ro cess and change, and com m unication is no longer trivial. However, the production m etaphor still maintains an as­ sumption of organizational primacy. By contrast, the equivalency m etaphor holds that organization can be found in the maneuverings and interpreta­ tions of its many conversations. Organizing takes place in com m unication as manifested in its relational properties (Cooren & Taylor, 1997). Commu­ nication and organization form a monistic unity (Sm ith, 1993). T here is no relationship betw een them per se becau se like holonic images, the sam e re­ ality is expressed in different ways. Although a container view is not necessarily precluded, relational con­ trol research seem s well suited to production or equivalency views of the organization-com m unication relationship. This is becau se organizing is achieved in the turn-by-turn sequential pacing of talk, which relational con­ trol analyses are dedicated to capturing. As Boden (1994) noted in her book on conversation analysis in organizations, becau se action coheres as a se­ quence , turn taking m echanism s reveal the articulation points of action and thus its structuring properties. Stated otherwise, that which is interactional is sim ultaneously organizational. The last two studies reported in this chapter, in particular, show the in­ tertwining of the relational and the organizational. Speaking of the Courtright et al. (1989) study, Schnell and Sims (1993) wrote:

(T)he conversational comparisons between organic and mechanistic struc­ tures is an important “micro to macro” linkage, and future studies should at­ tempt to make actual measurements of critical structural dimensions. This type of study is particularly interesting because a direct relationship can be drawn between control/power differentials represented in the organization’s

208

FAIRHURST

structural philosophy and control/power differentials in leader-member inter­ actions. (p. 26) Schnell and Sim s’ (1993) quote is m ore suggestive of a production m eta­ phor, which presupposes the existen ce of the organization as one of the poles in the process of coproduction. The organization is still reified de­ spite a primary focus on com m unication (Cooren & Taylor, 1997). However, an equivalency view is also possible when the organizing potential of the coding sch em e’s relational distinctions (e.g., such as betw een an order and a requ est) are further analyzed. The work of Jam es Taylor and colleagues provides a model in this regard (Taylor & Cooren, 1997; Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996; Taylor & Van Every, 2000). With either m eta­ phor, relational control analyses show us how com m unication is the sine qua non of organizing. Support for a production or equivalency view of organizational commu­ nication notwithstanding, som e lingering problem s remain for organiza­ tional relational control research due to the com plex nature of power and control in organizations. Although status and power differences certainly exist betw een husbands and wives, m em bers of a group, or among friends, the organizational context com plicates m atters considerably. Our first indi­ cation of this issue cam e from the heavy use of the one-across code.

The One-Across Problem As mentioned previously, leaders and their m em bers were much more in­ clined to use the one-across code than husbands and wives, which meant more constrained middle ground movement and control dynamics played out in safer control zones. But what does m ore “constrained middle ground movem ent” actually mean? M oreover, why do we see the heavy presen ce of the one-across code in this context and not in others? In answer to the first question, m essages that are coded one-across are frequently idea exten­ sions, noncommittal statem ents (e.g., “1 don’t know”), or backchannels that suggest active listening. All of these m essage types are either neutral or lev­ eling with resp ect to the issue of the control. The question of why there were m ore one-across codes in the organiza­ tional context has several possible answers. First, taking this finding at facevalue suggests that the organization under study has plant cultures that are highly egalitarian, participative, and discussion-based. Eschewing tradi­ tional leadership models, leaders don’t give direction to m em bers, but en­ gage in joint problem solving through idea extension. As the second and third studies suggest, given the sociotechnical system s philosophy this or­ ganization was seeking to implement, this argument has som e merit. How­ ever, at the time of both data collections, the implementation of STS was

9. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONAL CONTROL RESEARCH

209

not com plete. There were plenty of vestiges of the old-top down manage­ ment culture especially in Courtright et al. (1989), which com pared an STS plant with a traditional one. Thus, this explanation seem s only partial. A second answer com es from other d iscourse analyses of the tran­ scripts, which suggests a high percentage of strategically ambiguous com ­ munication becau se com m unicators have multiple goals (Eisenberg, 1984). The interactants seem keenly aware of status and power differences and the need to manage im pressions as they com plete a task (Fairhurst, 1993a; Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). M embers, leaders with participative management styles, and female leaders were among those who tended not to openly dis­ agree, instruct, order, interrupt or, for that m atter, directly submit to an­ o th er’s control m aneuvers (perhaps for fear of appearing weak). A ssertions of control were couched in extended discussions, politeness strategies, or both. A cquiescence was often accom panied by extension. When assertions of control were couched in discussion, the inherent am­ biguity required a judgment call beyond the capability of most coders. A cod er might have to assess w hether an acto r is extending a discussion and adding a note of concern, in which ca se the utterance would be designated as an idea extension only (-> ). Alternately, a cod er might also determ ine that the note of concern tacked on to the initial idea extension was really a rejection of a previous idea, which would result in a double code ( - > i ) . The b asis upon which cod ers make their judgments com es from the fact that they are m em bers of the sam e language community as the actors (Folger, 1991). Thus, they identify the meaning of m essages on a general, conven­ tional level. When an utterance is strategically ambiguous, there is a good chance the recipient of the m essage may have difficulty assigning meaning b ecau se couching strategies presen t m ore interpretive options. Obviously, if the actors have difficulty interpreting a m essage, coders will as well. How­ ever, even if actors can accurately interpret the strategic ambiguity, coders will still have difficulty becau se they do not have the relational history that allows them to select from among various meanings. Second, as in the case of an idea extension that is followed by a rejection of a previous idea ( —>T), the case of acq u iescen ce accom panied by discus­ sion (4'-», -» 4 ) autom atically signals a double code. Double codes are a problem with an analytic strategy like the GSK, which was limited to consid­ ering only one code per turn-at-talk. Thus, the coding schem e isn’t at fault here, but our analytic strategy was. Unfortunately, we could find no way around the dilemma. We either had to take the first code assigned, which fa­ vored the one-across, or select the code that appeared more important to the exchange. We ch ose the latter option and still produced high numbers of one-across moves. Three solutions to this problem seem in order. First, the coding schem e may need further refinem ent to deal b etter with the issue of strategically

210

FAIRHURST

ambiguous com m unication. Second, other stoch astic analyses (e.g., lag se­ quential, Markov chain) should be considered especially to the extent they can overcom e the problem s the GSK experienced with the double code. Third, perhaps routine work com m unication is not the venue in which we are likely to find leaders and m em bers engaged in direct assertions of con­ trol or subm issions to another’s control m aneuvers. Based on Dugan’s (1989) work with Ellis’ (1979) coding schem e, the perform ance review may be one such venue when a greater num ber of one-up and one-down moves would be likely to occur. Alternately, organizations other than manufactur­ ing settings, which force people to work collaboratively, may produce more dynamic control moves.

Deep Structure A second concern for organizational relational control research is that it may be a narrow basis upon which to understand power and control dy­ namics. This is becau se relational control analyses largely ignore m atters of context (excepting the previous utteran ce) and content, thus excluding other power dynamics. For example, Frost (1987) argued that the exercise of power and control is expressed through organizational games. In an­ other discourse analysis of the Fairhurst et al. (1994) study, game playing was evident (Fairhurst, 1993a). Consider the conversation betw een a female team leader, who was also African American, young, educated, and new to the organization, and her male mem ber, who was Caucasian, older, less for­ mally educated, but m ore tenured than the leader. Dyad 123, p. 34 Cl) L: (2) M: (3) L: (4) M: (5) L:

[So you come here sayin’ me and Ann don’t wanna fix stuff. It’s Joan and Kurt were the same way.] No, no. I’m gonna disagree I asked around. (And I’m gonna*****it well) [I don’t think it was all that great when they were here from talkin’ to them.]

(6) M:

Well, let me talk

(7) L: (8) M:

[And talkin’ to other people, I mean] [Well, if you’d like me to tell you]

(9) L: (10) M: (11) L:

[*****Ju st tell me]

(12) M:

(Because) [why you think it was so great] (Because)

(13) L:

[when they were here]

9. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONAL CONTROL RESEARCH

(14) (15) (16) (17)

M: L: M: L:

(18) M:

(you’re) [Just let me know) [You’re getting very defensive because I said] [ Yeah, I am! i mean, 1don’t think*****it was all that great when they were here.] [Well,*****how do you know it was all that great if you weren’t here?]

Relational control analysis has no problem picking up a very a clear pat­ tern of one-up moves: successful (1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21) and un­ successful (5, 12, 14, 16) talkovers, face-threatening charges (e.g., “You’re getting defensive,” 18) and statem ents of nonsupport throughout. But what a relational control analysis misses is that the member often appears to be arguing just to be arguing. As soon as the leader satisfied the member’s complaint, agreed with him, or otherwise did not take issue with his pointof-view, the member redirected the conflict to other subject matter (Fair­ hurst, 1993a). As this was done throughout the conversation, and in no other conversation in the data set was the conflict so overt or sustained, it raises the possibility that chronic complaining and the brute force of open conflict may have been a kind of male power-game, an interpretation sup­ ported by studies of dispute management in boys (Maltz & Borker, 1982; Sheldon, 1990) and adults (Fitzpatrick & Winke, 1979; Kimmel et al., 1980). According to Frost (1987), despite its very visible components, (P)ower is a more subtle phenomenon, being imbedded in the symbols and systems that evolve out of contests and struggles among organizational ac­ tors. Such contests are in many cases preserved and renewed through the perpetuation of earlier power relations, hidden beneath the surface of current organizational functioning, (p. 505) Influenced by Giddens (1979), Frost (1987) argued that power is a mix of

power in action and power in conception. Power in action is a surface manifes­ tation of power carried out within and through the existing structures of the organization. Relational control analyses with its focus on evolving pat­ terns in actors’ reciprocal control moves is an example of research from this view of power. Power in conception suggests a deep structure of power directed at framing and reframing surface aspects of structure so as to pur­ sue self-interested action (p. 521). Deep structure power focuses on the sys­ tem of influence and the structure and meanings within which organiza­ tional life occurs. Another obvious demonstration of deep structure power was the fre­ quent use of military metaphors by one of the autocratic plant managers in the Fairhurst et al. (1994) study. As critical theorists have long noted, the

212

FAIRHURST

heavy use of m etaphor may structure a set of perceptions and practices that make one way of looking at the world (in this case, an autocratic phi­ losophy) seem natural, logical, and not open to question (Deetz & Mumby, 1985). B ecause military m etaphors privilege asym m etrical power relations, they may do as much or m ore to block an STS team -based intervention as the number of directives a plant manager issues. This discussion is not intended to be dism issive of the very real contri­ butions that relational control research or any power-in-action perspective can make, or to say that power-in-conception research is more important. However, given the com plexity of power and control in institutionalized set­ tings, no one perspective or theory will suffice. More research is needed that adopts a both/and orientation to the different theories, levels of analy­ sis, and m ethods that might be employed to study power and control. The obvious question is how do we com bine disparate theories, levels of analy­ sis, and m ethods? Relational control research and other forms of interac­ tion analysis differ markedly from more qualitative discourse analyses. The form er often focuses on function, frequency, and regularity, the issues of concern suggested by the Scientific Method, whereas the latter often em­ phasizes intelligibility, meaning, and structural possibilities. Other differ­ ences include small versus large sam ples of discourse, idiosyncratic versus conventional interpretations, and argument-by-example versus statistical testing. Ironically, neither a focus on meaning alone and nor a focus on fre­ quency alone will answer all of the questions about the discourse-organization relationship. Ultimately, one arrives at the other’s door. Unfortunately, as a scientific community we have few solutions to this di­ lemma at this point. However, much of the problem may not lie in the differ­ ences that exist betw een approaches as much as in our unwillingness to look for com mon ground betw een them or to triangulate an approach to problem solving. If m ore re sea rch problem atized multiple th eoretical fram es, multiple levels of analysis, or multiple m ethodologies, m ore equifinal solutions may be found (e.g., Eisenberg, Murphy, & Andrews, 1998). For a su b ject as com plex as power in control in organizations, this may be our only hope of achieving a satisfactory understanding of its surface and deep structure power dynamics.

C O N C L U S IO N The purpose of this chapter has been to review the research on leadership com m unication using a relational control perspective. Many challenges re­ main for research of this nature due to the com plexity of power and control in institutionalized settings. N evertheless, it rep resents a system ic ap­ proach to the study of lead er-m em ber relationship that is all too often

9. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONAL CONTROL RESEARCH

213

overlooked b ecau se of so m uch focus on the leader in the cu rren t litera­ ture. Perhaps m ost im portantly, relational co n tro l’s view of leadership as or­ ganizing can lead the way in securing a m ore sophisticated understanding of the organization-com m unication relationship.

REFERENCES Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Cooren, F., & Taylor, J. R. (1997). Organization as an effect of mediation: Redefining the link be­ tween organization and communication. Communication Theory, 7, 219-260. Courtright, J. A. (1984). Methods of integrating observational and traditional data analysis. Com­ munication Quarterly, 32 , 197-206. Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Rogers, L. E. (1989). Interaction patterns in organic and m ech­ anistic system s. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 773-802. Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers-Millar, L. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: Rep­ lication and expansion. Communication Monographs, 46, 179-192. Dansereau, F., Green, G., & Haga, J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Deetz, S., & Mumby, D. (1985). Metaphors, information and power. Information and Behavior, 1, 369-386. Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessm ent of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56-60. Dugan, K. M. (1989). Ability and effort attributions: Do they affect how leaders com municate per­ formance feedback information? Academy of Management Journal, 32, 87-114. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242. Eisenberg, E. M., Murphy, A., & Andrews, L. (1998). Openness and decision making in the search for a university provost. Communication Monographs, 65, 1-23. Ellis, D. G. (1979). An analysis of relational communication in ongoing group systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Fairhurst, G. T. (1990). Supplemental coding rules and modification of the relational control coding scheme. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati. Fairhurst, G. T. (1993a). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351. Fairhurst, G. T. (1993b). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks Total Qual­ ity. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 331-371. Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualisms in leadership communication research. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 379-399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Commu­ nication Monographs, 56, 215-239. Fairhurst, G. T., Green, S., & Courtright, J. (1994). Inertial forces and the implementation of a socio-technical system s approach: A communication study. Organization Studies, 6 , 168-185.

214

FAIRHURST

Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (1998). Reflections on the organization-communication equiva­ lency question: The contributions of Jam es Taylor and his colleagues. The Communication Review, 3, 1-19. Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. A. (1987). Leader-member control patterns and judg­ ments about the relationship. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 395-415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tactics in interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 27, 3-11. Folger, J. P. (1991). Interpretive and structural claims about confrontations. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 14 (pp. 393-402). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Frost, P. J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 503-548). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Grizzle, J. E., Starmer, C. F., & Koch, G. G. (1969). Analysis of categorical data on linear models. Biometrics, 25, 489-504. Hannen, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-940. Haslett, B. J. (1987). Communication: Strategic action in context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473. Kimmel, M. J., Pruitt, D. G., Magenau, J. M., Konar-Goldband, E., & Carnevale, P. J. D. (1980). Ef­ fects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 9-22. Krone, K. J., Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1987). Communication theory and organizational com ­ munication: Multiple perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 18-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465. Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead them selves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128. Millar, F. E., Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Relational control and dyadic under­ standing: An exploratory predictive regression model. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 213-224). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 78-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rogers, L. E. (1972). Relational communication control coding manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah. Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. ( 1975). Relational communication analysis: New measurement pro­ cedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239. Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: A transactional view. Human Communication Research, 5, 238-246. SAS Institute Inc. (1985). SAS user's guide: Statistics, version 5 edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

9. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONAL CONTROL RESEARCH

215

Schnell, E. R., & Sims, H. P., Jr. ( 1993, August). The language of leadership: A review of observational studies of leader verbal behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management Association, Atlanta, Georgia. Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Process, 1 3 ,5-31. Singh, J. V., & Lumsden, C. J. (1990). Theory and research in organizational ecology. Annual Re­ view of Sociology, 16, 161-195. Smith, R. C. (1993, May). Images of organizational communication: Root metaphors of the organiza­ tion-communication relation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC. Taylor, J. R., & Cooren, F. (1997). What makes communication ‘organizational’? How the many voices of a collectivity becom e the one voice of an organization. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 409-438. Taylor, J. R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. (1996). The communicational basis of organi­ zation: Between the conversation and text. Communication Theory, 6, 1-39. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and sur­ face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Watson, K. M. (1982). An analysis of communication patterns: A method for discriminating leader and m em ber roles. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 107-120. Weick, K. E. (1987). Theorizing about organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 97-112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

PART

III REFLECTIONS O N THE RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

C H A P T E R

10 O verview and Future Directions L. Edna Rogers University o f Utah

Valentin Escudero University o f La Coruña

Interaction research has a relatively long history, reaching back to the early 1930s (Carr, 1929; Parten, 1932; Thomas, Loomis, & Arrington, 1933) and tak­ ing firmer hold with the work of Chappie (1940) on the cyclic rhythms of in­ teraction activity and Bales’ (1950) system for analyzing small group inter­ action, but it wasn’t until several decades later that this research mode becam e a more established method for studying interpersonal relation­ ships. Yet, even with its lengthy history and the continuing call in the social sciences for the necessity of studying interaction, it has been a less trav­ eled research road. With tongue in cheek, a memorable comment by one re­ searcher was that everyone ought to do interaction research—once! As this comment suggests, this mode of research is typically described as being “labor-intensive,” and no doubt this is the case, but most research efforts of value are. Other factors such as the inclusion of time and the use of sequential analysis procedures, although considerably eased with pres­ ent technology, may present additional constraints on choosing this re­ search path. It is also the case that interaction research bumps against more traditionally established research orientations, evidenced by the most frequent types of questions confronted by interaction researchers. These questions typically take the form of “But how do you know . . . that the interaction is ‘real’, . . . that this is how people ‘truly’ interact? or . . . that’s what people ‘really’ mean?” which carry the implication that other forms of data, typically self-report data, are somehow more real than actual behavior. Clearly, a different set of assumptions frame these questions than

219

220

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

those that guide an interactional approach. By reframing these common modes of criticism within the epistemological assumptions of interaction analysis, Holmes and Rogers (1995) proposed a more productive forum for addressing these concerns in a more appropriate and beneficial manner. Critiquing one perspective from the point of view of another, although typi­ cally unfruitful, is not that uncommon, but in this case it illustrates the point that the basic assumptions of interactional research are often seen as going against the more commonly accepted, person-centered, epistemo­ logical currents for studying relationships. A rather adamant expression of this view is that this type of research is based on “the level of mere behav­ ior” (Heyman & Shaw, 1978, p. 231). Despite potential forms of resistance and the complexities of incorporat­ ing a temporal dimension in the study of relationships, interaction research has, nevertheless, continued to gather momentum, and recently increas­ ingly so (e.g., Cappella, 1996; Gottman, 1994; Warner, 1991; Watt & VanLear, 1996). The study of relational communication is one of the approaches that has added to this line of research and the growing contemporary emphasis placed on the study of process. With more than three decades of develop­ ment, the research on relational communication provides a substantial ba­ sis for reflecting on this perspective in terms of the challenges met and those that remain. In this final chapter, we briefly reflect on the general con­ tributions of the relational perspective to the study of interpersonal rela­ tions, and then consider more fully, directions that will continue to advance relational communication research.

A BRIEF OVERVIEW The most com plete representation of the perspective’s contributions to re­ lationship study rests on the programmatic research efforts presented in the previous six chapters. Both separately and in combination, the results of these research programs provide a wide array of evidence of how rela­ tional communication has promoted and enhanced the study of relation­ ships. Through these cumulative efforts, the research approach has been further developed and expanded in a number of significant ways. The modi­ fications and fine tuning of the coding system and the expansion of the rela­ tional dimensions studied have allowed more of the subtleties and interre­ lated dynamics of the communication process to be examined. With the application of different sequential analytical techniques, the research pro­ grams profile a range of available research options for depicting interaction patterns and the impact of these patterned events. Likewise, the investiga­ tion of different types of relationships have expanded the contextual, so­ cial, and cultural, aspects incorporated in the research studies. Each of

10. OVERVIEW

221

these program s have opened im portant research avenues which have broadened the scop e of relational com munication. In reflecting on the perspective in view of the central goal of promoting the study of relational process, we note several basic accom plishm ents. Most basically, and hopefully without being overly redundant with earlier d iscussions, the relational approach provides a m ethodology for putting into effect the theoretical and analytical shift of focus from individual be­ havior to interaction. Corollary with this change in focus, is the em phasis placed on the study of com munication, levels of m essage meaning, sequ en­ tial p ro cesses, co-constructed patterns, em ergent pattern configurations, and system level forms of analysis. The seemingly sim ple enough idea of switching from the study of action to the study of interaction, however, in its application, presented a num ber of conceptual and methodological chal­ lenges. But with a fair degree of su ccess, th e procedures developed have provided a way of mapping relational level patterns of com m unication for d escribing relationships in term s of their enacted, formative nature, and in turn, have allowed the investigation of the relational con seq u en ces of these patterns. One gauge of this su ccess is the amount of research spawned by the perspective. The relational approach has been found to be applicable across different types of relationships and settings; in its application it has reached across disciplinary lines, language, and cultural contexts. Of particular relevance for observational research, most of the studies have been based on data gathered in the naturalistic settings of the participants. In addition, the re­ search has included self-report data and other relational indices and is characterized by what Cappella (1987) defined as third-order research con­ cerns by investigating the relationship betw een com m unication patterns and outcom es such as relational m aintenance, therapeutic su ccess, rela­ tional satisfaction, levels of understanding, medical com pliance, conflict m anagement and the like, with more recently initiated research moving to­ ward the inclusion of the in teractors’ em otional and cognitive meanings of the interaction process. A cross these program m atic efforts, the relational com m unication approach has made substantial theoretical, as well as prac­ tical, contributions in the study of relationships. But as with m ost perspec­ tives, further work remains. By design, in the developm ent and subsequent application of the rela­ tional perspective, the m ajority of the research focused on the control di­ mension of dyadic relationships based on the sequential observation of verbal-paralinguistic behaviors. This research focus has been both productive and foundational in establishing this approach, and no doubt will continue to be a mainstay of relational research. At the sam e time, it served as a ba­ sis for considering possible extensions of the paradigm (Millar & Rogers, 1976, 1987; Rogers & Millar, 1982) that would further enhance and enlarge

222

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

the scope of study. In proposing future developments, no one perspective can be all inclusive without losing integrity. Thus, the directions considered are those that are bounded by the perspective’s primary goal of studying relationships relationally.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS With the view that research perspectives are best seen as works in process, the directions envisioned are not so much new research paths as those which build-off of previous proposals for expanding the perspective and re­ search developments that have recently been initiated. With these consid­ erations in mind, the directions we see as central to the progress of future research are highlighted next: Expansion o f R e la tio n a l Dim ensions. In order to more fully capture re­ lational processes the inclusion of other dimensions in addition to control, represents a primary research direction. The investigation of the interrela­ tionship between control and other dimensions has been initiated, but clearly remains a key area for further development. Inve stig a tio n o f M u ltip le M e m b e r Systems. Given the dyadic focus of prior research, the study of larger interactional system s, such as the family, friendships, or small groups, has been limited. However, presently designed coding proced u res for studying multiple m em ber relationships more readily invites the investigation of larger relational systems. E x p lo ra tio n o f D iffe re n t Perspectives o f R e la tio n a l Processes. The pos­ sible benefits of applying different approaches for studying relational proc­ ess, based on other external views of interaction and the interpretative per­ spectives of the interactors’ relational meanings of these processes, have not been sufficiently explored. The expansion and potential integration of differ­ ent view points represents an important area for future research. Expansion o f P ra c tic a l A p p lic a tio n . Although we presently have effec­ tive means for describing relational communication processes, the direct application of these methods for assessing and facilitating more immediate, practical situations (e.g., therapeutic interventions, conflict negotiation, health care management, etc.) although promising, is still limited. If more accessible methods were developed for use in applied settings, the impor­ tance of the research would take on increased relevance.

10. OVERVIEW

223

Expansion of Relational Dimensions How best to conceptualize and investigation basic, generic dimensions of relationships has been a longstanding concern for relational researchers. The development of a three-dimensional model of relationships by Millar and Rogers (1976, 1987) offers a conceptual frame for expanding the study of relational communication. The model is based on the proposal that con­ trol, intimacy, and trust represent universal dimensions which form an in­ teractive matrix descriptive of the socially constructed processes of inter­ personal relationships. These three dimensions are indexed in terms of the observed interactional patterns of constraint (control), patterns of senti­ ment (intimacy), and patterns of predictability (trust). Control refers to the mem bers’ jointly negotiated definitional rights; intimacy, or affect, taps the mutually expressed behaviors that reflect the emotional closeness or sepa­ rateness of the relational members; trust rests on the potential uncertainty and vulnerability of relational dynamics and reflects the extent to which trusting behaviors are met with trustworthy behaviors which form the ba­ sis of the mem bers’ mutual predictability of one anothers’ actions. These three dimensions are conceived as the primary dialectic processes for regu­ lating interpersonal distance. Although not ruling out additional dimen­ sions, this model provides a central framework for empirically developing and mapping basic, interactive patterns descriptive of interpersonal rela­ tionships. The control dimension or power, as it is more often called, has been identified as a central theme across the entire spectrum of interpersonal re­ lations (Berger, 1994). It has, likewise, been highlighted as one of the key ar­ eas of research in marital interaction (Gottman & Notarius, 2000). At the same time, researchers working on various issues of power (e.g., decision making, conflict resolution, interpersonal violence, etc.) have made explicit reference to the lack of appropriate methods for analyzing the influencing processes of power relations. With much of the research utilizing the more established views of power, defined as the result of certain interaction tasks (e.g., decision-making situations) or as the resource differential of social ex­ change, the ongoing process of relational influence or regulation, has obvi­ ously received less attention. The study of interpersonal power from the viewpoint of relational control amends this situation by focusing on the in­ fluencing process per se. The study of relational control enables us to research what Broderick (1993), in a review of family process research, referred to as the regulation of “vertical space.” Research on relational control has tackled questions re­ lated to the continual process of defining and redefining “vertical distance” through measures of dominance, domineeringness, intensity, triadic coali­ tions, and other related patterns. The intimacy or affect dimension repre­

224

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

sents another basic com ponent for defining interpersonal relationships in term s of distance regulation, not in a vertical sense, but in a horizontal sen se of affective closen ess and sep arateness. As with control, the study of affect is also identified as a central area of relationship research. In a re­ view of marital interaction research , Gottman and Notarius (2000) clearly confirmed the key role the affect dim ension plays in the regulation of inter­ personal distance. The m ost prominent interaction-based m easures of af­ fect are based on Gottman’s (1979, 1994) m ethods for indexing nonverbal expressions of positive, neutral, and negative affect. Of the three dimen­ sions com prising the relational com m unication model, the trust dimension has received the least empirical attention. Although possible indices of trust have been proposed (se e Millar & Rogers, 1987), specific interaction procedures for indexing this dimension have not been devised. Several dyadic and interpersonal trust scales based on self-report m easures exist (e.g., Larzelere & Huston, 1980; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985), but the de­ velopm ent of a com m unication-based method for describing patterns of re­ lational trust remains a direction for future research. In view of the fact that in relational com m unication the control dimen­ sion has received the m ajority of attention, the investigation of the other di­ m ensions is seen as an essential direction for the expansion of relational re­ search. The benefits of this approach have been born out by those studies, although limited in number, that have been based on a com bination of di­ m ensions. The research on both affect and control, described in chapter 4, dem onstrated that each of these dim ensions, but m oreso when studied in com bination, expanded the descriptive and analytical power for investigat­ ing interaction p rocesses and their relational impact. The dual investigation of relational control and nonverbal affect behaviors of clinical and non­ clinical couples confirmed that each dim ension provided nonredundant in­ formation for describing interaction patterns. Both dim ensions were found to differentiate clinical from nonclinical couples, m ost notably with stron­ ger associations betw een dom ineeringness and negative affect, and higher proportions and longer chains of escalating, com petitive negative symme­ try characterizing the clinical cou ples’ interactions. The research carried out by W uerker on expressed em otions and rela­ tional control in families with a m em ber with mental illness, presented in chapter 7, is a further exam ple of how two com m unication-based dimen­ sions, each with predictive value, can provide a new explanatory context when they are studied jointly. To review briefly, the em otions expressed by family m em bers with a mentally ill person have traditionally been studied by conducting interviews with these families. Based on the level of criti­ cism, hostility, or emotional overinvolvem ent exhibited toward the patient, families are classified as high or low in expressed emotion (EE). Different studies have shown that patients in high versus low EE families are four to

10. OVERVIEW

225

five times more likely to relapse in the year following hospitalization. Faced with these results, the thinking behind the clinical interventions was pa­ tently evident—teach high-EE families to change their expressed em otions toward the patient. However, controlled evaluation of psychoeducative in­ terventions in high-EE families showed that all it achieved was to delay rather than prevent relapses. It was also found that som e low-EE families later becam e high-EE families. This gave rise to the belief that despite the predictive power of the expressed emotion, the p ro cess of mutual influence among the m em bers of these families was far from being fully understood. By expanding this area of investigation with the inclusion of relational control, W uerker and her associates in an extensive set of studies have been able to identify the different types of interaction patterns that are as­ sociated with families with different levels of expressed em otion and fur­ ther, have identified that the p ro cesses by which these control patterns are maintained or changed vary by gender of the patient and the racial make­ up of the family. The study of relational control added specific insights to the coping p ro cesses of high versus low EE families with a mentally ill mem­ ber and the im plications of these patterned differences regarding patient relapse and potential intervention strategies. T hese studies illustrate the im portance of the inclusion of additional di­ m ensions and the use of both verbal and nonverbal coding for capturing m ore of the interactive dynamics played out in the interaction process. The added com plexity of the research is offset by the advantages afforded in ad­ vancing relational research and our understanding of interpersonal rela­ tions. Different dimensional models of interaction, such as Kantor and Lehr’s (1975) delineation of power, affect, and meaning, Danziger’s (1976) m atrix of influence, intimacy, and integration, Hinde’s (1987, 1997) extended set of relational dimensions, among others, offer possible guidelines for ex­ ploring additional dimensions.

Investigation of Multiple M em ber Systems Given the interpersonal im portance of the dyad as the fundamental social unit of relationships, it is not surprising that the dyad has been the preva­ lent focus of relational study. As the sm allest social unit, it has also been the most m anageable to research. It seem ed difficult enough to shift from the study of the individual to the dyad, but even more so to study relation­ ships consisting of three or m ore m em bers. Although the original relational coding system (RCCCS) provides for the identification of multiple speakers, the study of larger m em ber system s was significantly enhanced by Heath­ erington and Friedlander’s (1987) adaption of the coding system to the study of the family. Their modifications of the coding procedures in the de­ velopm ent of the Family Relational Communication Control Coding System

226

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

(FRCCCS) provides a method for studying the direct and indirect implica­ tions of communication among multiple interactors. An important feature of this system (see chap. 5) is the provision for cod­ ing triadic sequences which reflect a member’s attempt to define their rela­ tionship with two (or m ore) members simultaneously. These patterns oc­ cur when messages that are directed to one member, also have relational implications for other members of the interaction. With these procedures, this system is able to track the added complexities of multiple member in­ teractions. When an interaction sequence relates directly to specific mem­ bers without implications for others, the sequence represents a dyadic in­ teraction taking place within the larger context. The FRCCCS, although designed for studying families, is applicable to any relational system with more than two members. With the development of these coding proce­ dures, a very workable and useful method is now in place for expanding re­ lational communication research beyond the dyad.

Exploration of Different Perspectives of Relational Process With the relational communication perspective providing an external view of relationships, a proposal for future research, as outlined earlier, rests on the exploration of different approaches for studying relational process, both from the view point of other outside observer-based systems and the relational members’ internal, interpretive perspective.

Observer-Based Perspective. The first suggestion is based on the appli­ cation of observational procedures that are designed to capture different aspect of the communication process which would complement and ex­ pand the relational approach. A number of presently developed coding sys­ tems might well hold the promise of providing added insights to the study of interactional processes, much like the previously described combined coding of control and affect. The benefits of this proposal would rest on whether the different forms of analysis provided nonredundant relational information. Although even if this was not the case, the comparisons of dif­ ferent observational systems would offer useful information on the concep­ tual or empirical overlap of the approaches. However, assuming the system s tap different aspects, an obvious advan­ tage of applying different methods is that the potential richness of the interactional data would be more fully examined. In view of the efforts in­ volved in gathering adequate samples of interaction, too often large propor­ tions of the data go unanalyzed, and in this sense, are “thrown away.” When only one type of analysis is carried out, additional and potentially impor­ tant process information is lost. Interaction research (perhaps through col­

10. OVERVIEW

227

laborative efforts) would be far more efficient and further enhanced with additional coding and analysis of the same data base. One’s theoretical in­ terest and research questions would guide the choices made, but these might include, for illustration, systems of analysis based on interaction con­ tent codes or nonverbal affect (Gottman, 1979, 1994), verbal response modes (Stiles, 1978), conflict strategies (Sillars, 1980), intimate negotiation codes (Ting-Toomey, 1983), etc. These combined, investigative efforts would pro­ mote the type of comparative or integrated studies that are often suggested for advancing interaction research, as well as complement the expansion of the relational dimensions studied. An additional consideration, is the exploration of more qualitative forms of discourse analysis. The verbatim transcriptions of interaction data in combination with the audio and video tape recordings offer a richly layered interactional “text” for study. Fairhust and Cooren (in press) provided a recent example of this type of exploration with their application of three different forms of analysis to an em ergency police radio transcript. The approaches utilized were the relational communication control system, conversation analysis, and speech act schem atics. The purpose of the study was to provide an initial comparative examination of the three sys­ tem s’ applied commonalities and differences in the interpretative analysis of the interaction. This type of effort is useful in clarifying specific qualities of these different communication approaches and providing a basis for in­ formed choices for possible multiple or layered analyses of the organizing properties of discourse.

Interpretive Perspective. The second consideration for expanding rela­ tional research is the exploration of relational meaning from the interactors’ perspective. A frequent critique if not criticism of the relational approach is the lack of attention given to the cognitive or emotional interpretations of the interaction process by the participants. Whereas efforts have been made, particularly in the clinical area, on how to appropriately interrelate internal perspectives with the relational communication locus of meaning in the be­ havioral patterns, the task is, nevertheless, a challenging and a potentially slippery one. The critical concern is how to expand the research in this di­ rection without compromising the basic principles of a relational focus. Relational communication patterns of interaction have been related to the participants’ subjective perceptions regarding different qualities of their relationship, but not to their interpretations of the interaction p ro cess per se. Recently initiated research, however, incorporating par­ ticip an ts’ em otional and cognitive meanings generated within the com ­ munication process, is now underway. The interrelations between the be­ havioral and interp retative p ersp ectiv es, guiding th e se efforts, are visualized in Fig. 10.1, which synthesizes, from a system ic viewpoint, the

228

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

FIG. 10.1. Relational perspective for a dyadic interaction integrating emotions, cognitive construction and interpersonal behavior.

circular intrapersonal and interpersonal relationsh ip p ro cesse s occurring in a dyadic interaction. From the theoretical perspective of relational com m unication, the funda­ mental objective in describing relationship p ro cesses is not to reduce the ongoing events to the sum of individual descriptions. In studying subjective or intrapersonal perspectives, the main goal is also to generate relational descriptions of em otional and cognitive meanings for analyzing how these are linked to em ergent com m unication patterns occurring in the relation­ ship. If we reduce the subjective meaning of the interactors to individual and isolated questions of intentions or m essage impact, or m isconstrue

10. OVERVIEW

229

these aspects as the cau se of com m unication, we will miss the relational de­ fining quality emanating from the com m unication process of the inter­ actors. In the model presented, the m em bers’ em otional and cognitive in­ terpretations are seen as dynamic elem ents generated within and taking on meaning in the context of the continuous flow of the interaction. The fundamental construct that gives relational meaning to both behav­ ioral and interpretive descriptions is pattern. Based on relational thinking, the interpretative meanings of relational m em bers can be defined in term s of their similarity or dissimilarity, the type and degree of shared meaning, or other forms of sym m etry or asymmetry. And importantly, just as interac­ tion patterns are defined in term s of sequential order, intrapersonal mean­ ings can be studied as a continuous process for tracking the participants’ definitions and redefinitions during the course of an interaction, or a series of interactions overtim e. Time-ordered descriptions of interpretive mean­ ings allow the identification of definitional continuity or change and how these are related to different interaction-based asp ects of the relationship. Thus, in mapping patterns of synchrony or asynchrony, stability or fluctua­ tion of the m em bers’ perceptions of their com m unication behaviors and em ergent cognitive constructions of their definitions of the relationship, the dynamic interplay of these relational p ro cesses could be m ore fully de­ scribed. In researching the com plexities of interactional system s, the chal­ lenge lies in creating a relational language that enables a com parable, inte­ grated analysis of the interpretive and behavioral approaches to the study of relationships. A growing research agenda in relationship studies is the investigation of affective, cognitive and behavioral associations (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham, 1989, 1991; Gottman, 1994; Ickes & Tooke, 1988). Several of the research m ethods that have been used to investigate the affective and cognitive as­ p ects of interaction from the participants’ point of view are given as illustra­ tion of different ways of incorporating an interpretive perspective. Based on internal rating procedures, one strategy rests on having the relational m em bers evaluate their com m unication after com pleting their discussion, as they observe a videotape of their interaction (Gottman, 1994). Another strategy, based on a refinem ent of the earlier “table talk” format (Gottman, 1979), uses what is referred to as the “com m unication box” method (Mark­ man & Floyd, 1980) for obtaining the participants’ evaluation during their in­ teraction. This method involves having each m em ber rate their emotional response to their partn ers’ individual statem ents on a small recording de­ vice as the com m unication is taking place. One of the procedures used by Ickes and his colleagues (Ickes, Robertson, Tooke, & Teng, 1986; Ickes, Stinson, Bissonnette, & Garcia, 1990) asks participants to mark segm ents of their videotaped conversation where they experienced an affective or cog­ nitive response, then as the participants view the tape again they are di­

230

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

rected to respond to the segments marked by their partner in terms of their own affect and cognition, and their inferences of their partner’s meanings. Fincham and Bradbury (1987; Bradbury & Fincham, 1992) have focused on the attributions made by the interactors about a relational problem and how different types of attributions are related to the discussion of the prob­ lem and the emotional responses experienced in the discussion. In line with the research concerning cognitive attributions, but applying a different approach, Friedlander and Heatherington (1998) developed a method for describing the construction of cognitive meaning as illuminated in the content of the participants’ discourse within the context of their on­ going interaction. Sequences of discourse are identified in which members describe a problem and give their explanations for the problem. Based on the identified episodes of problem elaboration, a series of judgments are made about the cognitive constructions of the participants in terms of sev­ eral coded dimensions, including the type and emotional configuration of the problem, whether the problem is due to internal aspects or external events, the locus and level of responsibility in terms of self, other, both, or neither, and whether the problem is attributed to a simple linear cause, multiple causes, or a more circular set of explanations (Friedlander, 1995). In a recent case study of marital interaction, sampled over a 3-year period, Escudero, Heatherinton, and Friedlander (2001) utilized this approach in combination with relational communication coding and internal ratings of emotional affect in an integrated, sequential analysis of relational control, cognitive construction, and emotional affect. This study is part of a larger research investigation based on the sequential integration of the external behavioral and internal interpretive qualities of relationships. With this re­ search, the model presented in Fig. 10.1 is brought full circle.

Expansion of Practical Application An important consideration for relationship study is the practical value of the research. As we have seen in the research programs presented in this volume, the practical implications of the research has been a noted aspect. One of the most basic ways to continue to expand the practical utility of the relational perspective, is through continued research efforts that not only advance the theoretical development and predictive ability of relational study, but also, through their design add to our practical knowledge and understanding of relationships. One of the clear advantages of an interactional approach to the study of relationships is the type of information provided. By focusing on detailed descriptions of the interaction process, specific information is provided on how particular message behavior patterns are related to and impact the re­ lational system. In each of the research programs, the research has been

10. OVERVIEW

231

oriented toward investigating under what conditions, when and how, differ­ ent com m unication behaviors and patterns appear to work for, or against, the relational system within the different contexts studied. For instance, when and in what situations is too much com plem entarity or symmetry problem atic, when is com petitive sym m etry functional, what patterns pre­ cede successful interventions, what types of control moves alter escalating sequ ences, which tend to facilitate negotiated resolutions, are among a host of targeted questions that interaction research can and has addressed. As Gottman and Notarius (2000) suggested, a notable strength of an interac­ tion approach is “the power of observational data to reveal a replicable portrait of com plex social interaction that lies beyond the natural aware­ ness of even the m ost keenly sensitive spouse or partner . . (p. 927). The insights provided by this type of data offer relational information of rele­ vance to professionals and laypersons alike. W hether in the context of ev­ eryday interpersonal relations or counseling, organizational, or other pro­ fession al settin gs, the p ractical benefits stem m ing from interactional research rest on the identification of the influencing effects of particular in­ teractive p ro cesses and patterned configurations. To strengthen these in­ sights, a continuing research priority of relational com m unication is to move toward the analysis of sequentially ordered patterns that capture more of the tem poral quality of the interactive process. Another research direction with practical implications and one of partic­ ular im portance for practitioners involves the exploration of m ore a ccessi­ ble, less “labor intensive” m eans for indexing and analyzing relational com ­ munication patterns. One approach for lessening the “intensity” of the research effort is to focus the analysis on th ose asp ects of the interaction that are of particular interest. In applying this strategy, only the identified interaction sequ ences of interest are coded for examination, such as differ­ ent types of q uestion-answ er responses, relational episodes, intervention strategies, etc. This method of selective application could prove to be bene­ ficial in providing m ore readily available, useful types of information for professional practitioners working in applied settings. However, an evalua­ tion of the research utility and thus practical value of this approach re­ quires an investigation based on a com parative analysis of the sam e inter­ action data fully coded in order to provide a basis for verifying what is lost or gained in predicting designated relational outcom es. This type of investi­ gation would be a worthwhile effort with potential im plications not only in applied settings, but for relational research in general. A different tack to take for increasing the practical use of the relational com m unication coding procedures is to investigate the utility of a more global method of coding interaction. A strategy that seem s a natural for this consideration, is to base the coding procedures on the m ore general desig­ nations of the three m essage control directions. T hese coding decisions

232

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

should be consistent with the established definitions of m essage control, and coded in relation to the preceding m essage. Further the coding judg­ ments should take in to account the sam e type of considerations regarding the gramm atical format and response mode of the m essages, but these as­ pects would not be specifically designated. Prior training in the use of the basic relational coding system procedures (RCCCS) would provide a funda­ mental knowledge of this approach, which would allow informed coding de­ cisions at the m ore general level. In judging the utility of this m ore global, stream lined version of the coding system , these coding procedures would need to be tested through com parative analyses with the full coding proce­ dures of the RCCCS applied to the sam e interactions, as well as demon­ strate sim ilar high levels of reliability. The proposed purpose of developing a global method of coding is primarily for its use in applied settings and not as a replacem ent for the use of the RCCCS or FRCCCS in carrying out more rigorously designed research investigations. However, the developm ent of a simpler, easier-to-use coding procedure would extend the practical utility of the relational approach by facilitating a practitioner’s ability to d escribe and assess com m unication control mes­ sages and patterns, which could provide additional insights for evaluating the situation of clients seeking their professional assistance. T hese proce­ dures would also provide an easy to understand, graphic mapping of the control m ovements over time, which could be a valuable method for allow­ ing clients to visualize their interaction patterns, reflect on these patterns, explore alternatives, and possibly refram e aspects of their relationship. There are no doubt other ways of extending the practical application and thus, relevance of the relational approach. The suggestions given here may stim ulate additional considerations. Likewise, in highlighting the re­ search directions we see as central for future work, we recognize that this list too could be extended to include different pathways for further devel­ opment. Several of the research chapters also note specific aspects for ad­ vancing relational com m unication research. Perhaps we can take solace by viewing the research directions yet to be developed, as evidence of the heu­ ristic value of the relational com m unication perspective.

C O N C L U S IO N S With this concluding chapter, we have traveled a cro ss a fairly broad space, from the beginning foundations of the relational approach to future direc­ tions for continuing to build on and expand the present research accom ­ plishments. In bringing this volume together, our goal was to provide a full reading of the theoretical and research contributions of the relational com ­ munication perspective to the study and understanding of interpersonal re-

10. OVERVIEW

233

lationships. A b asic p rem ise of this p e rsp ectiv e re s ts on th e in terrelated na­ tu re of co m m u n icatio n and relationship s. R elationships a re view ed as being actively c re a te d and sh ap ed in th e ongoing co m m u n icatio n p ro ce ss of in­ terrelatin g with one an o th er, yet in sim ilar m easu re, th e evolving relational form s sim ultaneously influence and sh ap e th e co m m u n icatio n p ro c e s s e s by w hich they a re cre a te d . The interw oven n atu re of p ro ce ss and form is at th e c o re of th e relational a p p ro ach . Th e stu d y of th e s e m om en tarily visible, influencing p ro c e s s e s w hich can so profoundly effect o u r lives, sp eak s to th e h eart of th e hum an co n n ectio n and th e valu e of viewing relationsh ip s from a co m m u n icatio n p ersp ectiv e.

REFERENCES Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Berger, C. R. (1994). Power, dominance, and social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 450-507). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1989). Behavior and satisfaction in marriage: Prospective me­ diating processes. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 119-143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1991). A contextual model for advancing the study of marital interaction. In G. J. 0 . Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 127-150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 613-628. Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cappella, J. N. (1987). Interpersonal communication: Definitions and fundamental questions. In C. R. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 184-238). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cappella, J. N. (1996). Dynamic coordination of vocal and kinesic behavior in dyadic interaction: Methods, problems, and interpersonal outcomes. In J. H. Watt & C. A. VanLear (Eds.), Dy­ namic patterns in communication processes (pp. 353-386). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Carr, L. J. (1929). Experimental sociology: A preliminary note on theory and method. Social Forces, 8, 63-75. Chappie, E. D. (1940). Measuring human relations: An introduction to the study of interaction of individuals. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 22, 3-147. Danziger, K. (1976). Interpersonal communication. New York: Pergamon Press. Escudero, V., Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). Observing couples’ interaction: Inte­ grative analysis of interpersonal control, cognitive constructions and emotional impact. Metodologia de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 3, 247-265. Fairhurst, G., & Cooren, F. (in press). Organizational language-in-use: A comparison of interac­ tion analysis, conversation analysis and speech act schematics. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, N. Phillips, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse. Lon­ don: Sage. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The impact of attributions in marriages: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 510-517.

234

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

Friedlander, M. L. (1995). Cognitive Construction Coding System. Unpublished coding manual, De­ partment of Counseling Psychology, State University of New York at Albany. Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1998). Assessing clients’ constructions of their problem s in family discourse. Journal o f Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 289-303. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and mari­ tal outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 6, 927-947. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family relational communication control coding sys­ tem . Unpublished coding manual, Department of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown, MA. Heyman, R., & Shaw, M. (1978). Constructs of relationships. Journal for the Theory of Social Behav­ ior, 8, 231-262. Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press. Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Susses, England: Psychology Press. Holmes, M. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1995, February). Let me rephrase that question: Five common criti­ cisms o f interaction analysis studies. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the W estern States Communication Association, Portland, OR. Ickes, W., Robertson, E., Tooke, W., &Teng, G. (1986). Naturalistic social cognition: Methodology, assessm ent, and validation. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 66-82. Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathy accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730-742. Ickes, W., & Tooke. W. (1988). The observational method: Studying the interaction of minds and bodies. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook o f personal relationships (pp. 79-97). Chichester, England: Wiley. Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). inside the family: Toward a theory o f family process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interper­ sonal trust in close relationships. Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 42, 595-604. Markman, H. J., & Floyd, F. J. (1980). Possibilities for the prevention of marital discord: A behav­ ioral perspective. American Journal o f Family Therapy, 8, 29-48. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 87-103). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1987). Relational dimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Explorations in interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 117-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal o f Abnormal and So­ cial Psychology, 27, 243-269. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., &Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal o f Personal­ ity and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112. Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1982, May). Reflections on relational communication research: Issues, patterns and refinements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communica­ tion Association, Hartford, CT. Sillars, A. L. (1980). Communication and attributions in interpersonal conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Stiles, W. B. (1978). Verbal response modes and dimensions of interpersonal roles: A method of discourse analysis. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 693-703.

10. OVERVIEW

235

Thom as, D., Loom is, A., & Arrington, R. (1933). Observation studies o f human behavior, Vol. /. New Haven, CT: Y ale University Institute of Human Relations. Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis of verbal com m unication pattern s in high and low m arital adjustm ent groups. Human Communication Research, 9 , 306-319. W arner, R. (1991). Incorporating time. In B. M. M ontgom ery & S. Duck (E d s.), Studying interper­

sonal interaction (pp. 82-102). New York: Guilford P ress. Watt, J. H., & VanLear, C. A. (E d s.). (1996). Dynamic patterns in communication processes. Thou­ sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

A u th o r Index

A Abbot, R., 14, 20 Adelman, R. D., 180, 192 Aditya, R., 198, 214 Agra, S., 133, 148 Albrecht, T., 14, 20 Aldrich, H. E., 205, 213 Allen, G. J., 104, 105, 106, 107, 127 Altman, I., 184, 192 Altuna, A., 135, 147 Andaluz, L. V., 133, 148 Anderson, C. M., 161, 174 Anderson, H., 125, 126 Andreasen, N., 168, 174 Andrews, L., 212, 213 Aparicio, M., 133, 148 Arauxo, A., 133, 148 Arias, I., 97, 101 Arrington, R., 219, 235 Ayers, J., 44, 46

B Bagarozzi, D. A., 57, 79, 103, 108, 118, 128 Bailin, M. C., 138, 141, 142, 147

Bakeman, R., 40, 46, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 75, 78, 79, 139, 147 Baker, L., 110, 118, 119, 128 Bakhtin, M., 6, 19, Balea, F. J., 133, 148 Bales, R. F., 219, 233 Barbatsis, G. S., 41, 47 Barké, K. H., 41, 48, 104, 105, 128 Barling, J., 97, 101 Barry, W. A., 83, 101 Bates, B., 185, 192 Bateson, G., ix, x, xi, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 23, 47, 69, 78, 103, 118, 126, 160,

174, 202, 213 Bavelas, J. B., x, xi, 14, 17, 19, 51, 69, 72, 78, 79, 84, 87, 90, 101, 151, 155, 176 Baxter, L., 7, 19, 185, 192 Beavin, J. H., x, xi, xiv, xv, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 34, 44, 46, 48, 49, 103, 113, 125, 128, 129, 132, 133, 148, 191, 195 Beckman, H., 184, ia5, 193 Bedi, H., 162, 175 Bellack, A. S., 161, 162, 165, 168, 174, 176, 177 Bennett, K. C., 179, 192 Berger, C. R., 184, 192, 223, 233 Berger, P., 4, 19 Berio, D., 14, 20

237

238

AUTHOR INDEX

Bernstein, A., 83, 101 Berscheid, E., 9, 20 Bertakis, K. D., 179, 192 Bertalanffy, L. von, 13, 21, 132, 133, 147 Beyebach, M., 45, 47, 57, 72, 78, 104, 107, 108, 124, 126, 133, 135, 138, 141, 147 Bhrany, V., 185, 194 Bissonnette, V., 229, 234 Bochner, A. P., 83, 100 Bock, D. G., 44, 47 Boden, D., 207, 213 Bohn, E., 44, 47 Border, L. M., 184, 194 Borker, R., 211, 214 Bowen, M. B., 110, 113, 126, 155, 174 Boyce, M., 180, 183, 184, 195 Bradbury, T. N., 229, 230, 233 Brenock, K., 104, 105, 106, 127 Brewin, C. R., 150, 174 Broderick, C. B., 191, 192, 223, 233 Brouillet, M., 43, 47 Brown, G. W., 149, 174 Brown, .1. B., 179,180, 181, 184, 192, 194, 195 Brown, M. B., 64, 78 Browne, W., 173, 176 Brugman, S. M., 149, 177 Bryk, A. S., 172, 174 Buber, M., 6, 20, Budney, S., 114, 129 Bullis, C., 185, 192 Burns, T., 204, 213

c Caceres, J., 91, 100 Calbrese, R. J., 184, 192 Callahan, E. J., 180, 182, 183, 192, 195 Campbell, R., 149, 175 Cantrill, J. G., 190, 191, 195 Caplow, T., 8, 20 Cappella, J. N., 84. 100, 220, 221, 233 Capra, F., 13, 20 Carnevale, P. J., 211, 214 Carr, L. J., 219, 233 Carter, W. B., 179, 180, 184, 185, 193, 194, 195 Castillo, J. M., 142, 148 Castleton, A., 97, 101 Catherall, D. R., 117, 128 Cegala, D. J., 105, 126 Chandler, T. A., 199, 213

Chappie, E. D., 219, 233 Charon, R., 180, 192 Chenail, R. J., 105, 128 Chevron, E., 104, 127 Chewning, T. G., 105, 126 Christensen, A., 9, 20 Claiborn, C. D., 105, 129 Clark, L. T., 183, 192 Cohen, J., 40, 47, 90, 94, 100, 111, 126 Comstock, L. M., 179, 193 Conrad, P., 183, 193 Cook, W. L., 167, 169, 174 Cooren, F., 207, 208, 213, 215, 227, 233 Cope, D. W., 185, 194 Coser, L., 8, 20 Courtright, J. A., 25, 30, 47, 48, 57, 79, 87, 88, 100, 191, 193 194, 199, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214 Covington, C. G., 105, 126 Cromwell, R. E., 85, 101 Cronen, V. E., 7, 20, Cureton, E. E., 66, 78, Cutler, C., 46, 47, 114, 115, 127

D Dadds, M. R., 150, 175 Dansereau, F., 203, 213 Danziger, K., 225, 233 Davis, J. A., 163, 174 Davis, M. S., 183, 193 Dawson, M. E., 151, 176 Day, R., 162, 175 de la Cueva, F., 104, 126, 133, 138, 140, 147 de la Selva, A., 162, 175, 135, 141, 142, 147 de Shaver, S., 107, 125, 126, 134, 135, 141, 142, 147 Deaudeline, C., 43, 47 Deetz, S., 199, 212, 213 Del Vecchio-Good, M. D., 184, 193 Dell, P., 10, 20 Dickson, R., 105, 127 Dillard, J. P., 85, 100 Doane, A., 154, 160, 167, 169, 175 Doane, J. A., 150, 176 Docherty, N., 171, 174 Donohue, W. A., 186, 193 Dornan, M. C.t 184, 193 Dotson, V. A., 41, 48 Draper, D., 173, 176

239

AUTHOR INDEX D recksei, G. L., 25, 30, 44,

47

213 Duda, K., 150, 174 Dugan, K. M., 210, 213 Dulz, B., 167, 174 Duncan, H. D., 3, 20

Duchon, D., 203,

E 100 193 Edell, W. S., 151, 176

Fogelson, D., 151,

47, 114, 126, 193, 209, 211, 214 Fon tecilla, G., 133, 134, 148 F ran ces, A., 161, 162, 168, 176 Frankel, R., 184, 185, 193 Freem an, J., 205, 214 F reem an, T. R., 181, 195 Fried lander, M. L., 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 48, 75, 78, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 190,

Eagly, A. H., 88, Earp, J . A., 184,

213 193, 194 Ellis, D. G., 11, 20, 25, 30, 44, 47, 198, 210, 213 Ellis, M. V., I l l , 113, 117, 120, 126, 128 Erchul, W. P., 41, 47, 105, 126, 128 E ricson, P. M., 24, 25, 47, 104, 110, 118, 126, 150, 174 E rnberg, G., 162, 175 Erno, K. O., 31, 48 E scu d ero, V., 33, 45, 47, 54, 57, 66, 72, 75, 78, 90, 91, 93, 100, 104, 107, 125, 126, 190, 193, 230, 233 Estany, E., 90, 101 E isenberg , E. M., 209,

176

Folger, J. P., 25, 30, 33, 43, 44,

113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121,

126, 127, 128, 139, 144, 148, 193, 195, 225, 230, 233, 234 Frost, P. J., 210, 211, 214 122, 125, 190,

E isenthal, S., 185, 186,

F Fairhurst, G. T., 26,

47, 87, 100, 197, 199, 200,

202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211,

213,

214, 227, 233 176 Farace, R. V., xiii, xv, 14, 20, 24, 25, 44, 48, 85, 101, 104, 110, 128, 150, 176, 198, 199, 204, 214 Fau nce, E. E., 113, 128 Feingold, D., 150, 176 Feu erb ach , L., 6, 20 Feurer, I. D., 65, 66, 67, 79 Filsinger, E. E., 92, 97, 102 Fincham , F. D., 229, 230, 233 Fisch, R., 18, 21, 134, 135, 148 Fisher, B. A., 4, 20, 25, 30, 44, 47 Fisher, L., 84, 101 Fishm an, C., 118, 119, 128 Fitzpartrick, M. A., 41, 47, 211, 214 Fleiss, J. L., 40, 47, 94, 100 Fletch er, R. H., 184, 193 Floyd, F. J., 229, 234 Flynn, N., 180, 182, 183, 192, 195 Falloon, I. R. H., 149, 152,

G 100 148 G arcia, S., 229, 234 Gaul, R., 46, 47, 114, 115, 127 Gavin, L. A., 149, 177 G ergen, K. J., 125, 128 G hosh, A., 162, 175 G iddens, A .,199, 211, 214 Gilgun, J., 179, 190, 193 Girouz, N., 208, 215 Gitlin, M., 151, 176 Glick, I. D., 161, 162, 168, 176 Goffm an, E., 8, 20, G oldstein, H., 173, 176 Gage, R. B., 96,

G arcia, M. J., 133,

G oldstein, M. J., 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 160, 163, 167, 169, 171, G onzalez, M., 133, 134, Good, B. J., 184,

174, 175, 176

148

193

193 193 G oolishian, H. A., 125, 126 G orham , D. R., 168, 176 G ottm an, J. M., 9, 20, 40, 46, 52, 69, 78, 83, Goodwin, J. M., 179, Goodwin, J. S., 179,

89, 92, 99, 100, 156, 174, 190, 193, 220, 223, 224, 227, 229,

231

214 G reen, G., 203, 213 G raen, G., 203,

213 127, 128

G reen, S., 199, 202, 203, 205, 210, 211, G reen berg, L. S., 117, 120, 124,

193 192 G reenfield, S., 183, 193 G reen e, J., 184, 185, G reen e, M. G., 180,

G reen ley, J. R., 150, 160,

175

240

AUTHOR INDEX

214 148 Gurm an, A. S., 117, 127

Grizzle, J. E., 202,

H ooley, .1. M.,149, 150, 165, 171,

G rovas, I., 133,

H ooper, E. M., 179,

G utierrez, E., 54, 57, 66, 125,

78, 90, 91, 93, 100,

126, 190, 193

175

193 House, R. J., 198, 214 Hughes, J. N., 105, 126 H usserl, F., 179, 193 Huston, T. L., 9, 20, 224, 234

H

I 174, 177 H aberm an, S. J., 62, 64, 78 Haga, J., 203, 213 Hahlweg, K., 96, 101, 154, 160, 167, 169, 175 Haley, J., 24, 47, 104, 105, 109, 110, 155, 160, 174, 175 Hall, J. A., 179, 180, 184, 193, 194 Hand, I., 167, 174 Handel, G., 83, 100 Hannen, M. T., 205, 214 H a rg re a v e s, W . A ., 161, 162, 168, 176 H arrison, C. A., 150, 175 Harvey, J., 9, 20, H aslett, B. J M 199, 214 Hawkins, R. P., 41, 48 H aynes, R. B., 183, 193 Hayward, L., 160, 161, 176 Healy, M., 173, 176 Haas, G. L., 162, 165,

H eatherington, L., 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 45, 46,

48, 75, 78, 104, 105, 106, 107,108,

109, 110,

111,113, 114,

115, 116, 117,

127, 128, 139, 144, 148, 190,193, 195, 225, 230, 233 Heck, E. J., 104, 106,128 Hendin, D., 183, 193 H endriksen, A. H. M., 38, 48 Henley, N. M., 88, 100 Herek, G. M., 41, 47 H ertel, R. K., 83, 101 H ess, R. D., 83, 100 H ewes, D., 43, 44, 47 Heym an, R., 220, 234 Hickman, D. H., 184, 194 Hiller, J. B., 150, 175 Hinde, R. A., 9, 20, 83, 84, 100, 225, 234 H inrichsen, G. A., 150, 175 Hoch, D., 25, 30, 44, 47, H ogarty, G., 161, 168, 174, 176 Hogary, G. E., 166, 175 H olm es, J . G., 224, 234 H olm es, M. E., 186, 193, 220, 234 Holte, A., 26, 31, 48, 49 119, 120,

121,122, 125,

Ickes, W., 229,

234

Inui, T. S., 179, 184, 185, Irwin, H. J., 179,

193, 194, 195

192

J 175 214

Jab len sk y , A., 162, Jab lin , F. M., 197,

Ja c k s o n , D. D., x, xi, xiv, xv, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18,

20,

21, 34, 49, 103, 125, 132, 133, 148, 174, 191, 195 Ja c o b , M., 161, 162, 168, 176 Ja n s e n , H., 38, 48 Ja n s e n , R. G., 38, 48 Jen k in s, J., 149, 152, 161, 162, 175, 176 Jo h n so n , B., 121, 122, 125, 127 Jo h n so n , D., 104, 105, 129 Jo h n sto n , P., 160, 161, 176 Jo n a s , A. P., 105, 126 Jo o s , S. K., 184, 194 160,

K 176 20, 83, 101, 225, 234 K aplan, S., 183, 193 Karno, M., 149, 152, 161, 162, 175, 176 Katz, N. R., 179, 194 K azarian, S. S., 149, 175 K eeney, B., 13, 20, Keith, S. J., 161, 162, 168, 176 K elley, H., 9, 20 K ellner, H., 4, 19 K iesler, D. J., 104, 127 Kimmei, M. J., 211, 214 K lausner, E., 149, 175 K lerm an, G. L., 104, 127 Knapp, M. L., 184, 194 K och, G. G., 202, 214

Kane, J. M., 161, 162, 168, K antor, D., 14,

241

AUTHOR INDEX K ochm an, T., 163,

175

K oenigsberg, H. W., 149, K oestler, A., 84, K okes, R. F., 84,

M agana, A. B., 149, 152,

175

101 101

214 193 K orten, A., 162, 175 Kravitz, R. L., 185, 194 K reps, G. L., 180, 194 K rone, K. J., 197, 214 Kruskal, J. B., 118, 127 K uipers, L., 162, 167, 175, 176 K veseth, K., 31, 48

175,

Konar-G oldband, E., 211,

M alone, J., 97, Maltz, D., 211,

101 175 Lam, D. H., 166, 175 Laing, R. D., 83,

Lakoff, R., 163,

127 194 Langford, I., 173, 176 L arzelere, R. E., 224, 234 L azare, A., 185, 194 Leake, B., 185, 194 L ed erer, W. J., 12, 20 Leff, J. P., 149, 162, 175, 177 Lefley, H., 150, 175 Lehr, W., 14, 20, 83, 101, 225, 234 Lennard, H. L., 83, 101 L evenson, R. W., 92, 99, 100 L evenstein, J. H., 180, 194 Levinger, G., 9, 20 Lewis, T., 173, 176 L ich ten berg , J. W., 41, 48, 104, 105, 106, 127, 128 Liden, R. C., 203, 214 L ieberm an, J. A., 150, 161, 162, 168, 175, 176 Liebm an, R., 118, 128 Like, R., 184, 194 Lloyd, S. A., 97, 101 Loom is, A., 219, 235 López, S., 33, 47, 162, 175 Lum sden, C. J., 205, 215 Lam ude, K. G., 105, Lane, S. D., 183,

176 214

M agenau, J. M., 211,

K oopm an, C., 186,

L

101 214

Mamlin, J. J., 184, 185,

174 176

M acC arthy, B., 150, M adanes, C., 154,

193 176

M ance, R., 161, 162, 168,

M and erscheid , R. W., 155, 167, Manz, C. C., 205,

176

214

48 101, 190, 193, 229, 234 M artens, B. K., 105, 128 M artin, A. R., 184, 194 Marx, K., 6, 20 M atthew s, S., 161, 162, 168, 176 M cA rthur, D., 40, 46, 65, 78 M cCall, G., 3, 8, 9, 20 M cC arrick, A. K., 155, 167, 176 M cC lintock, E., 9, 20 M cC racken, E. C., 180, 194 M cGee, D. S., 105, 126 M cG oldrick, M., 163, 176 M cN am ee, S., 125, 128 M cN eilis, K. S., 43, 48, 105, 126, 182, 191, 194 M cW hinney, I. R., 180, 181, 194, 195 M cW illiam, C. L., 181, 195 M ead, G. H., 8, 20 M ead, M., 13, 19 M eitzer, H., 162, 176 M enon, D., 162, 175 M ettetel, G., 190, 193 M eyers, J., 105, 126 M eyers, R. A., 190, 191, 195 M iars, R. D., 41, 45, 49, 104, 105, 129 Mark, R. A., 24, 25, 44,

M arkm an, H. J., 85, 99,

Miklowitz, D. J., 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 160, 167, 169, Milford, D., 113,

174, 175, 176

126

47, 48, 51, 57, 69, 72, 78, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 100, 101, 151, 155, 176, 191, 193, 194, 203, 213, 221, 223, 224, 234

Millar, F. E., 25, 30, 44,

Mintz, J., 154, 160, 162, 167, 169, 175 M inuchin, S., 109, 110, 118, 119, M iura, S. Y., 44,

46

176 19 M orley, D. D., 65, 66, 78 M orris, A., 162, 176 M orris, G. H., 105, 128 M otley, M., 17, 20 M umby, D., 212, 213 M oline, R. A., 162,

M ontgom ery, B., 7,

M

176

M agana-Am ato, A. B., 150, 154, 160, 167, 169,

128

242

AUTHOR INDEX

213

M urphy, A., 212,

Putnam , S. M., 179,

N

192

Q, R

193 175 N elson, R. R., 199, 214

N assi, A. J., 184,

67,

Ninan, P. T., 161, 162, 168, Noldus, P. J. J . L , 38, N orris, M., 151,

176

48

176 101, 190, 193, 223, 224,

N otarius, C. I., 99, 231

N uechterlein, K, H., 150, 151, 154, 160, 163, 167, 169,

174, 175, 176

o 48 48, 105, 128, 181, 182, 183, 190, 191, 194 O’Hanlon, W. H., 125, 128 O’Leary, K. D., 97, 101 O’M alley, M. S., 184, 193 O lson, D. H., 85, 90, 101 O verall, J. E., 168, 176

O ’D onnell-Trujillo, N., 45, O ’Hair, D., 43,

P Palenzu ela, D. L., 72, 135,

78, 107, 108, 124, 126,

147

Palm er, M. T., 85,

100 176

P arker, G., 160, 161, P arks, M., 14,

20

194 234 Pelino, D., 149, 175 Peplau, L., 9, 20 P eterso n , D., 9, 20 Phillips, S., 84, 101 Pinsof, W. M., 117, 128 P iqu eras, R., 135, 147 P latas, L., 33, 47 Plew is, I., 173, 176 P oole, M. S., 43, 44, 47, 114, 126, 186, 193 P arro tt, R., 179,

Parten, M. B., 219,

Pruitte, D. G., 2 1 1 ,2 7 4 Puck, S., 44,

47

Pulliam -Krager, H., 191, Putnam , L. L., 197, 207,

46, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 75, 78, 79, 90, 101, 139, 147 Rae, D., 155, 167, 176 Ram os, M. M.t 104, 126, 133, 134, 147, 148 R ansom , D. D., 84, 101 Rappe, S., 151, 176 R asb ash , J., 173, 176 R audenbush, S. W., 172, 174 Raush, H. L., 83, 101 Raw lins, W. K., 7, 21 Raym ond, L., 111, 113, 116, 117, 120, 126, 127, 128 Real, M. A., 142, 148 R eiss, D. J., 161, 174 Rem pel, J. K., 224, 234 R evenstorf, D., 96, 101 R evuelta, C., 133, 148 Rice, L. N., 124, 128 R ich ters, J. E., 149, 175 Riskin, 1 , 113, 128 R o berto , A. J., 186, 193 R o b ertso n , E., 229, 234 R obichaud , D., 208, 215 R obinson , B. F., 64, 67, 78 Rodríguez M orejón, A., 72, 78, 107, 108, 124, 126, 135, 14 7 Rodríguez-A rias, J. L., 72, 78, 104, 107, 108, 124, 126, 128, 133, 134, 135, 142, 144, 14 7, 148 R o esler, T. A., 149, 177 R ogers, E. M., 14, 21 Rogers, L. E., xiii, xv, 12, 14, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, 44, 47, 48, 51, 54, 57, 66, 69, 72, 78, 79, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 108, 110, 118, 125, 126, 128, 132, 148, 150, 151, 155, 174, 176, 185, 190, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 213, 214, 220, 221, 223, 224, 234 Rogers-M illar, L. E., 25, 48, 88, 87, 101, 203, 213, 214 R osenbaum , A., 97, 101 R osm an, B. L., 110, 118, 119, 128 Rosnick, P., 149, 175 R ost, K., 184, 194 R oter, D. L., 179, 180, 192, 194 Q uera, V., 40,

N eale, J. M., 149,

192 214

243

AUTHOR INDEX

127 78, 156, 174 Rueda, A., 133, 148 Russell, R. L., 114, 129 Rutter, M. L., 149, 174 Ryder, R. G., 90, 101 Rounsaville, B. J., 104,

Sm ith, R. C., 207,

Roy, A. K., 69,

Snow, J . C., 183,

215 194

Snyder, K. S., 150, 151, 154, 160, 167, 169,

175,

176

100

So bral, J., 90,

100 102 S p encer-Brow n, G., 11, 21 S talker, G. M., 204, 213 Starm er, C. F., 202, 214 S teen , S., 163, 176 S te ts, J. E., 98, 102 Stew art, J., 5, 21 Solom on, D. H., 85,

S painer, G. B., 92, 97,

S 102 193, 194 S ack ett, G. P., 106, 128 Safran, J. D., 124, 128 S antana, F., 162, 175 Sabourin, T. C., 96,

S ack ett, D. L., 183,

128 100, 197, 199, 202, 209, 214 SAS Institute Inc., 202, 214 Satoriu s, N., 162, 175 Scazu fca, M., 167, 176 S ch eflen , A. E., 44, 48 Sch in dler, L., 96, 101 Sch nell, E. R., 207, 208, 215 S ch o o le r, N., 161, 162, 168, 176 Sch u d d er, J., 105, 127 Schulm an, B. A., 184, 194 Schw artz, P., 163, 176 Segal, L., 14, 17, 19, 134, 135, 148 S ev ere, J. B., 161, 162, 168, 176 Shann on, C., 13, 14, 21, 106, 128 Shaw, M., 220, 234 Sheldon, A., 211, 215 S h o tter, J., 3, 7, 21 Siebold, D. R., 190, 191, 195 Siegel, S. M., 26, 34, 48, 104, 105, 106, 113, 114, 126, 127, 128, 190, 195 Sigm an, S. J., xiii, xv, 17, 21 Silbergeld , S., 155, 167, 176 Sillars, A., 25, 30, 44, 47, 190, 193, 227, 234 Silver, M., 118, 128 Sim m el, G., 7, 18, 21, 84, 102 Sim m ons, J., 3, 8, 9, 20 Sim on, L., 46, 47, 114, 115, 127 Sim pson, G. M., 161, 162, 168, 176 Sargen t, J., 111, 117, 118, 120, Sarr, R. A., 87,

Sim s, H. P., Jr., 205, 207, 208, 214, 215

215 176

Singh, J. V., 205, Singh, S., 162,

Skow ron, E., 121, 122, 125,

127

Sluzki, C., xiv, xv, 23, 24, 34, 44, 46,

128, 129 Sm ith, G., 150, 175 113,

192, 194, 195 129, 179, 195, 227, 234 S tin son, L., 229, 234 Stoek le, J. D., 186, 193 S trach an , A. M., 150, 167, 169, 174, 176 S trau ss, M. A., 97, 102 S tre e t, R. L., Jr., 179, 195 Strong, S. R., 105, 129 Suen, H. K., 43, 49, 114, 115, 129 Sullivan, H. S., 104, 123, 129 Swain, M., 83, 101 Stew art, M., 179, 180, 181, 184,

48, 103,

S tiles, W. B., 117,

T

T ab e r, T. D., 203,

213

T arnop olsky, A., 113, T ate, P., 180,

129

195 192, 193 213, 215

T aylor, D. W., 183, 184, T aylor, J. R., 207, 208, T elles, C., 162, Teng, G., 229,

175 234

192 129 T h eu n issen , M., 6, 21 T hom as, D., 219, 235 T hom p son, T. L., 43, 48, 105, 128, 182, 191, 194 T ierney, A. M., 162, 174 Ting-Toom ey, S., 227, 235 T ooke, W., 229, 234 T racey , T. J., 41, 45, 49, 104, 105, 129 T rien es, R. J. H., 38, 48 Tullar, W. L., 41, 49 T yree, A., 97, 101

T e ss ie r, S., 179, 184,

T h am es, T., 104, 105,

244

AUTHOR INDEX

U,v

W eick, K. E., 204,

215

W einberger, M., 184, 185,

195 215 Vangelisti, A. L., 184, 194 V anLear, C. A., 220, 235 Vaughn, C. E., 149, 150, 177 V eron, E., 113, 129 V icen te, D., 133, 148 Vogel, B., 96, 101 V olosinov, V., 6, 21 Uhlmann, R. F., 185,

Van Every, J., 208,

von Fried ericks-Fitzw ater, M. M., 180, 182, 183, 192,

195

V u chinich, S., 155, 167,

W einer, N., 114,

W einer-Davis, M., 125, W eintraub, S., 149, W eiss, R., 84, 101

128

175

127 47 W eston , W. W., 180, 181, 194, 195 W ich strom , L., 26, 31, 48, 49 W iener, N., 13, 21 Wig, N., 162, 175 W eissm an, M. M., 104, W erbel, W., 25, 30, 44,

W igginton, C ecil, D., 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 190,

177

195

21, 103, 129 47, 111, 116, 127 W illiam s, J M 180, 182, 183, 192, 195 W ilm ont, W., 9, 21 W inke, J., 211, 214 W inter, S. G., 199, 214 W ish, M., 118, 127 W itt, J. C., 105, 128 W o ern er, M. G., 161, 162, 168, 176 W ong, M. R., 41, 47 W ood, L., 114, 129 W oodh ouse, G., 173, 176 W uerker, A. K., 151, 165, 169, 177 W ilder-M ott, C., 16, W ildman, J., 33,

W W am boldt, F. S., 149, W am boldt, M. Z., 149,

177 177

W am pold, B. E., 65, 66, 69,

79

193 W arner, R., 220, 235

W are, J., 183,

W asserm an , L., 185, W atson , K. M., 198, W att, J. H., 220,

194 215

235

W atzlaw ick, P., x, xi, xiv, xv, 4, 10, 16, 17, 18,

21, 34, 49, 103, 125, 129, 132, 133, 148, 191, 195 W eakland, J. H., 4, 16, 18, 21, 103, 129, 134, 135, 148, 160, 174 W eaver, W., 13, 14, 21, 106, 128 W eber, M., 8, 21 W egener, C., 96, 101

193

129

Y ,Z Yang, M., 173,

176

Y od er, P. J., 65, 66, 67,

234 Zyzanski, S. J., 184, 194

Zanna, M P., 224,

79

Subject Index

A Analysis of variance (ANOVA), 202 Approach to GSK, 202, 209-210

B Backchannels, 187 Bonferroni correction, 63 Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, 168 Buber’s “the between,” 6-7

C Camberwell Family Interview (CFI), 149 Change event research, 120 Chicago School, 8 Chi square likelihood-ratio, 61 Pearson’s, 60 Coefficient of Variation (CV), 30, 87 Cognitive immutability, 171 Cohen’s Kappa, 40-41, 65 Command, see Relational messages Communication style, 163

Complementarity, 11-12, 16-18, 99, 105, 106, 107, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122, 132-133, 136, 139-140, 142, 145-146, 153, 157, 186, 231 complementary transacts, 27, 105 metacomplementarity, 105 reciprocal complementarity, 12 Conflict intimate negotiations, 227 marital, 69-72, 87, 90, 98, 108, 117 organizational, 211 strategies, 227 Conflict Tactic Scale, 97 Content messages, 14, 16 Control intensity, see Relational Communication Control Coding System Cybernetics, 4, 10, 13, 18 self-organizing processes, 13 self-regulation, 13-14

D Demand-withdrawal, 88-89 Depression, 149 Dyadic Adjustment Scale, 91, 93, 97

245

246

SUBJECT INDEX

Dialectic of process and form, 16 Disconfirmation, 31, 33 Disqualification, 31, 113 Dominant, 89, 117 Dominance, 30, 58, 87, 89, 157, 182-184, 203 comparative dominance, 203 total dominance, 203 Domineeringness, 57-58, 87-89, 91, 104 107, 108, 188 Double bind, 15 Double description, 11, 16

E Ecology of form, 10 Expressed emotion, 149-174, 224-225 families of persons with bipolar disorder and with schizophrenia, 151-174 gender and racial differences, 162-166 treatm ent strategies, 161-174

F Family Relational Communication Control Coding System (FRCCCS) 32-34, 45-46, 55, 74, 104, 107, 109-126, 225-226, 232 criterion validity, 114 coalition sequences, 34 coalitionary move, 113, 119 content validity, 114 development and validation, 112-114 direct and indirect m essage targets, 32 disengagement styles, 122 engagement, 121 interception, 32, 119 nonverbal, 124 overview, 110-112 parallel triadic sequences, 33 research on, 115-123 simple triadic sequences, 33 structural family therapy, 116-118 sustaining engagement, 121 system ic therapists, 116 validity of, 114 Figure-ground, 17 Five Minute Speech Sample, 149, 152

G General Sequential Querier (GSEQ), see Sequential Data Interchange Standard General Systems Theory, see Systems theory GSK approach, 202, 209-210

H, I Hegelian idealism, 6 Hierarchical Linear Modeling, 172 Holon, 84 Indirectness, 113 Information theory, 10, 13-14 Intergenerational coalitions, 118 Intergenerational triangulation and enmeshment, 119 Interpersonal closeness-distance, 118 Interpersonal dominance perceptions of, 30-31 Interpretive perspective, 227-230 Intimacy, 223-224 Intrusiveness, 113 Inventory of Marital Conflict, 90 Iterative proportional fitting, 61

L Leader-Member Exchange, 203 Levels of meaning, see Content and Relational messages Logical types, theory of, 15

M Marital Communication Research, 85-99 nonverbal affect, 90-96 physical aggression, 96-99 relational control, in, 85-90 Markov models, 14, 155-161, 166-169 homogeneity, 156 order, 156 stationary, 156 Mental Research Institute, see Palo Alto Group M essage control intensity, 30, 57, 87 Metacommunication, 15

247

SUBJECT INDEX M ultidim ensional Scaling (M DS), 118-119

review of re se a rch , 181-189 Pow er, 181, 183, 199, 210-212, 223 in actio n , 211-212 in co n ce p tio n , 211

N

Pragm atic axiom s, 17, 132 National Institute of M ental H ealth, 161

Punctuation, 10, 17

N onverbal A ffect S ch em e, 190 N onverbal behav ior, 114-115, 190, 224, 227 N onverbal relation al con tro l, 3 4 -3 8

Q,

r

answ ering-qu estions, 35 n onsu p p ort-d isagreem en t, 35

Q ualitative an alysis, 76, 121, 227

ord er-in stru ction, 35

R ecip ro city, 12

su p p ort-ag reem ent, 35

R ecu rsiv en ess, o rd e rs of, 15 Redundancy, 14, 87, 106 R elational C om m unication C ontrol Coding

O

System (RCCCS), 23-46, 55, 57, 93, 104, 105, 106, 109, 132-133, 136, 150-152, 181, 184-185, 189-191,

O b serv er-b ased p ersp e ctiv e s, 226 -2 2 7

197-199, 225, 232

O b se rv e r Video-Pro Instrum ent, 38 O dds Ratio, 65

d eferen ce, 30

O n e-acro ss, 26, 59-60, 63, 9 4 -9 5 , 132, 139-142, 146, 152-153, 188, 204,

dev elop m ent of o p eratio n al p ro ced u res, 2 3 -3 8

208-210

equ iv alen ce, 30

One-down, 26, 59-60, 63, 94-95, 132, 136,

reliab ility and validity a sse ssm e n t of cod ing sy stem s, 3 8 -4 6

139-142, 146, 182, 185-186, 204 One-up, 26, 59-60, 63, 94-96, 105, 132,

structuring, 30

139-140, 144-146, 169, 182-183,

Relational m e ssag e s, 14-16

185-187, 204, 206, 211

Reliability, 3 9 -4 3

O rganizational R e search , 197-213 d eep stru ctu re, 210-212

Report, see C ontent m essag es Role-identity m odel, 8 -9

im p lications of organizational stud ies, 207-213 lead er-m em ber re se a rch , 202-207

S

m eth od and setting, 198-202 o n e-acro ss p ro blem , 208-210

S ch ism o g en esis, 11-12, 18-19, 23

organic and m e ch an istic sy stem s, 204-205

Sch izop h ren ia, 149-174

socio -tech n ical sy ste m s (S T S ), 2 0 5 -2 0 9 ,2 1 2

Sequ en tial an alysis, 14, 51-78, 219-220 ad ju sted resid u als, 62, 65 an alysis of sp e cific relation al pattern s,

P

62-64 com p ariso n of d ifferen ces betw een

Palo A lto Group, 5, 16, 104 P aradox, 15 Parallel, 12

groups, 6 4 -6 7 exam in ation of com p lex relation al p attern s, 6 7 -7 5

P atien t-cen tered m ed icine, 180, 184

co n textu al m arkers, 7 4-75

P ersonality, 132

d irection ality, recip ro city , and

P h ase A nalysis, 186-189, 192 Phi, 6 5 -6 6 P hysical ag g ressio n , see M arital C om m unication R e sea rch P hysician-patient in teractio n , 179-192

p rep o n d eran ce, 6 8 -6 9 e p iso d es, 69-74 graphic d isplays, 7 2-74 exam in ation of e x iste n ce of relation al stru ctu re, 5 9 -6 2

248 Sequential analysis (cont.) examination of frequency of behaviors, 55-59 representation of relational communication sequences, 53-55 Sequential Data Interchange StandardGeneral Sequential Querier (SDISGSEQ System), see also Sequential analysis, 53-55, 63, 74-75, 106, 139, 151 analysis commands, 77-78 event sequences, 54 interval sequences, 54-55 multievent sequences, 54 state sequences, 54 timed event sequences, 54 winnowing technique, 64-65 Social action, 8 Sociation, forms of, 7 Submissiveness, 30, 57, 90, 117, 132, 136, 143, 146, 153, 173, 182-184 submissive joining, 136, 147 Support, 119-120, 141 expression of, 88 withholding of, 88 Symbolic interaction, 8 Symmetry, 11-12, 16-18, 27, 105, 106, 132, 136, 145, 152, 231 competitive symmetry, 86, 90-91, 95-96, 106, 108, 113, 117, 119, 121, 122, 125, 133, 136, 143-145, 153, 157-158, 160, 164, 169, 181-182, 186, 188-189, 231 neutralized symmetry, 86, 95, 139, 143, 157-158, 169, 182-183, 203 submissive symmetry, 133, 136, 139-140, 146 transitory symmetry, 185-187 Systems Theory, 4, 10, 13, 18, 227

SUBJECT INDEX

entropy, 14, 106 redundancy, 14, 106

T Talk-overs, 88, 186, 211 Therapy, brief family, 131-147 attempted solutions, 134 exceptions, 134 therapeutic processes, 135-147 Therapy, individual and family, 103-126 family therapy, 108-126 gender effects of, 106, 116 individual psychotherapy, 104-108 solution-focused approach, 107 Transitory transacts, 27, 92, 98, 133, 157, 181-183, 186 transactional redundancy, 87, 191 transitory patterns, 86 Triadic Interaction Analysis, see Family Relational Communication Control Coding System Triangulation, 113 Trust, 223-224 Type I error, 63, 84 Type II error, 84 Type III error, 84

V, Y Validity, 43-46 construct validity, 44, 106 discriminant validity, 44 predictive validity, 44 representational validity, 44 Yule’s Q, 65-67