HQW £30 gfieem mm

AN EXPLQRAYQE’ AflALYSw 6?
iEEG-H'E‘ 3‘“! as

The“: gate! {'Em Dame cg M. A.
MECHEGAN STE-TE UKEVERSETY
Audrey Daria Landers

3%?

 

   
     

LIB R A R Y b
Miclngan Sta”
University

TH E3818

ABSTRACT
HOW DO PEOPLE FIGHT?
AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF FIGHT STYLES
By

Audrey Doris Lande rs

At present, fight styles are an interesting clinical
observation, with some measure of consensual validation. The
purpose of this investigation was to determine if the concept of a
fight style, as described by Each, is a meaningful one, in a more
rigorous sense. It attempted to answer several questions: Do
fight styles really exist? If so, have they been characterized accu-
rately? What variables are related to fight styles?

A fight questionnaire containing sixty-five statements of
ways people behave when they disagree was constructed. Two
hundred twenty—three introductory psychology students rated
each statement according to how well it described their fight behav—
ior. Information regarding sex, fight partner (the person with
whom one disagrees), and fight topic (the topic about which one dis-

agrees) was also obtained.

Audrey Doris Lande rs

The following thirteen fight styles were identified by means
of a factor analysis of the data obtained from the fight questionnaire:
Carom fighting; Withdrawal-evasion; Interference; Indifference;
Analysis; Overloading-Undermining; Double-binding; Vengeance;
Ego-smashing; Silence; Avoidance; Heckling; and Withholding.
These fight styles indicated that previous characterizations of fight
styles by Bach are, for the most part, accurate.

Of the variables selected as variables of interest in this
investigation, only sex emerged as significantly related to fight
style. However, sex differences in fight styles were due to a quan-
titative, rather than a qualitative, difference between males and
females—-the sexes rank-ordered their use of the fight styles quite
similarly, but males made greater use of them. It appears that
males fight more intensively than females do, but they use the same
tactics!

A comparison of the frequency of usage of the fight styles
suggests that, in general, people would rather not engage in a fight.
The fight styles which subjects reported they used most are those
which avoid fighting. The fight styles used least are those which
involve more active participation in a fight.

Possible explanations of the results, methodological con-
siderations, and limitations of the present investigation were

discussed. Directions for future research were suggested.

HOW DO PEOPLE FIGHT?

AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF FIGHT STYLES

By

Audrey Doris Landers

A THE SIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1969

 

\‘I VII-III]? It ill.!l y

 

5 {8/370

/€r/2 2/59

"I was angry with my friend:
"I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
"I was angry with my foe:

”I told it not, my wrath did grow. "

William Blake
1757 -1 827

ACKNOWLEDGME NTS

The author wishes to express her sincere appreciation
to Dr. Lawrence Messé, chairman of the thesis committee, for
his guidance and encouragement during the planning and execution
of the study and for his patience during the writing of the thesis.

Thanks are also extended to Dr. Dozier Thornton and

Dr. Gary Stollak for their willingness to serve on the committee.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TAB LE S

LIST OF FIGURE S

Chapter

I.

II.

III .

IV.

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF
THE LITERATURE .

Statement of the Problem
HOW PEOPLE FIGHT

The Fight Questionnaire
The Fight Styles

THE WHO, WHAT, HOW RELATIONSHIP .

Dichotomization of the Independent
Variables . . . . . .
Relationship Within and Between
the Dichotomies . . . . .
Do Sex, Partner, and Topic Affect
Fight Style?

DISCUSSION .

Methodological Considerations and
Directions for Future Research

iv

Page

vi

. viii

.4

19

19

20

21

36

42

Appendix

A. A CHECKLIST TO ANALYZE
MARITAL FIGHT STYLES

B. THE FIGHT QUESTIONNAIRE .

C. THE INTERCORRELATION MATRIX .

REFERENCES

Page

43
48
53

64

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

LIST OF TABLES

ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS

PARTITION OF CHI $2UARE

OVERALL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:

EVA$0N
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
UNDERMINING

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:

ANALY SIS OF VARIANCE:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:

vi

CAROM FIGHTING

WI THD RAWAL —

INTERFERENCE
INDIFFERENCE
ANALYSIS

OVERLOADING-

DOUBLE-BINDING
VENGEANCE.
EGO-SMASHING
SILENCE
AVOIDANCE

HE CKLING

WI THHOLDING .

Page

21
22

24

24
25
25

26

26
27
27
28
28
29
29

30

Table Page

17. THE PARTNER x TOPIC INTERACTION
INCAROMFIGHTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31

18. THE SEX X TOPIC INTERACTION IN SILENCE . . . 32

19. TESTS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
RANKED FIGHT STYLE MEANS. . . . . . . . . . 34

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. COMPARISON OF MALE AND FEMALE
RATINGSOF THE FIGHT STYLES. . . . . . . . . 23

2. RANK ORDERING OF THE FIGHT STYLES . . . . . 33

viii

CHAP TE R I

INTRODUCTION AND

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In the fifth century B. C. , Socrates fought with his wife.
Her name, Xanthippe, has become proverbial for a scolding, nag-
ging, shrewish spouse. Xanthippe felt that Socrates spent too little
time earning a living for them and too much time engaging in philo-
sophical activities. Many stories are told about Xanthippe' 8 bad
disposition and Socrates' indifference to it. It is said that on one
occasion, after berating Socrates for some time and getting no
response, she threw a bucket of water over him. Socrates acted
undisturbed and remarked, "Xanthippe' s thunder often ends in
rain. "

Thus, as the preceding anecdote illustrates, hostile,
injury-oriented aggression has been recognized for a long time. On
the other hand, nonnoxious, therapeutic aggression is a rather new
concept. It is only in recent years that the constructive potential

of aggression has received both clinical and theoretical recognition.

In a discussion of hate and aggression in psychotherapy,
Bach (1965) expressed the opinion that direct expression of aggres-
sion can be therapeutic. He stated that he would like to teach
schizophrenic patients to fight in a straightforward manner; to
accept their hostility; and to express it in a meaningful context,
instead of a destructive, bizarre, and confusing one. Wagner (1968)
has attempted to facilitate the expression of anger in psychiatric
patients. He found that anger expression increased for a group of
patients who received a positive reaction to expression of anger in
a role-playing situation.

Bach (1967a) found that aggression confrontation is a par-
ticularly growth-stimulating part of the helping process. Partici-
pants in Marathon groups were asked to report in what way(s) they
received help from the group member who was most helpful to them.
Of five items, each representing a dimension of helpfulness, the
”aggression-confrontation item"--"(S)He aggressively confronted
me with what I had done in the group, even at the risk of my becom-
ing angry with (her) him. "--accounted for 17% of the responses.

The participants also reported the way(s) they gave help to the group

 

1The four other dimensions of helpfulness and the per-
centage of responses that each accounted for were: empathic identi-
fication, 21%; acceptance-warmth, 19%; self-understanding, 25%;
and problem—solving, 18%.

member whom they helped most. The "aggression-confrontation
item"--"I was willing to candidly express my thoughts and observa-
tions about (her) him, even at the risk of his criticizing or becoming
angry with me. "--accounted for 20% of the responses.

In a companion study, Bach (1967b) found that aggression
phobia, i. e. , avoidance of aggressive confrontation, is one of the
least helpful kinds of interpersonal contacts. Participants in
Marathon groups were asked to report why they did not receive
help from the group member who was least helpful to them. Of five
items, each representing a dimension of "least helpfulness, " the
"aggression-phobia item"--"He was not willing to share candidly
critical thoughts or feelings with me or the group or to risk any-
one' 8 being angry with (her) him for being criticized. "-—accounted
for 26% of the responses. 2 The participants also reported why they
were least helpful to the group member they helped least. The
"aggression-phobia item"--"I was not willing to share candidly my

critical thoughts or feelings about him (her) or to risk (her) his

 

1Empathic identification accounted for 18%; acceptance—
warmth, 19%; self-understanding, 25%; and problem-solving, 18%.

2The four other dimensions of "least helpfulness" and the
percentage of responses that each accounted for were: strange-
ness, 18%; non-caring indifference, 23%; narcissism, 19%; and
disjunctive communication, 14%.

becoming angry with me." --again accounted for 26% of the
responses.

These findings, taken together, support the notion of the
constructive potential of aggression. Bach (1963, 1968), in attempts
to formulate a theory of constructive aggression, begins by reject-
ing the assumption that the primary aim of human aggression is to
hurt, injure, or kill. He distinguishes between fights in the context
of intimacy and fights in the context of alienation. In fights between
intimates, the above assumption need not hold. Bach has developed
a "fight -training" approach to conflict resolutions of intimates.
Intimate fighters are instructed in a ”creative style of fighting
whereby both partners can win. " According to Bach, a constructively
fought fight facilitates the emergence of intimacy.

Part of Bach' 5 fight training approach involves "style
analysis."2 Bach attempts to help fight partners recognize their
style of communicating with each other, for "before you restyle
anyone' 8 communication, you have to know what it is. "

Alexander (1963) summarized the many d_estructive fight

styles which Bach has witnessed in his clinical work. He reported

 

1Strangeness accounted for 21%; non-caring indifference,
27%; narcissism, 15%; and disjunctive communication, 11%.

2
Hurley (1963) took notes on a demonstration of style
analysis.

that husbands and wives who participate in Bach' s fight training
program usually recognize their fight style among those which Each
has categorized. If they do not recognize their own fight style, they
invariably recognize their partner' 5.

Schneider (1963) constructed a checklist based on Bach' 3
work to analyze marital fight styles. Schneider' 3 checklist appears
in Appendix A. It is divided into twelve sections, each representing
a fight style. The sections are labelled as follows: withdrawal or
evasion; open noxious attack; pseudo-accommodation; attack or
reduction of someone or something treasured by the partner; double-
binding; character analysis or interpretation; blamesmanship;
interference; overloading the system or relationship; underloading
the system or relationship; withholding; and arousing anxiety and
fears. The sections are composed of phrases or sentences which
describe the fight styles. Spouses are told that the checklist is
designed to aid in identifying the presence or absence of injurious,
destructive fight styles. They are asked to indicate which styles
they feel are characteristic of themselves and which they feel are

characteristic of their partner.

Statement of the Problem

 

At present, fight styles are an interesting clinical obser-

vation, with some measure of consensual validation. It remains for

an experimental investigation to determine if the concept of a fight
style is a meaningful one, in a more rigorous sense, i. e. , do fight
styles really exist? If so, has Bach characterized them accurately?
What variables are related to fight styles? The present study

attempted to answer these questions.

CHAPTER II

HOW PEOPLE FIGH T

The Fight Questionnaire

 

The questionnaire constructed for this investigation appears
in Appendix B. It contains sixty-five randomly ordered statements
of ways persons may behave when they disagree with other persons
who are important to them. These statements were derived, pri-
marily, from the checklist prepared by Schneider (1963) to analyze
marital fight styles.

The fight questionnaire was presented to 223 students
enrolled in the introductory psychology course at Michigan State
University. Subjects were instructed to rate each statement accord—
ing to how well it described their "fight behavior" (the way they
behave when they disagree with someone about whom they care).

The rating scale ranged from 0 to 4: 0 designated an action which
the subject never does; 1, an action the subject rarely does; 2, an
action he sometimes does; 3, an action he frequently does; and 4,

an action he always does.

Subjects were requested to list their relationship to the
people with whom they disagreed most often and to list the topics
about which they disagreed most often. Information. regarding age,

sex, race, and religion of the subjects was also obtained.

The Fight Styles

 

The intercorrelations among the 65 items in the question-
naire were computed. The intercorrelation matrix appears in
Appendix C.

The matrix was then factor analyzed using Guttman com-
munality estimates. Factors were extracted by the principal com-
ponents method and rotated to the verimax criteria. An eigenvalue
threshold of 1. 00 and a Kiel-Wrigley option of one were used as
criteria for the number of factors to be rotated. A 13—factor solu-
tion emerged. The rotated factor loadings for the 65 items on the
13 factors appear in Table 1.

Subsequently, 13 sub-scales were derived from the 13
factors. Each sub—scale consisted of those items whose loading on
the factor had an absolute value greater than .40. Composite
scores for subjects were obtained by using their mean rating of the
items within each sub-scale. The sub-scales corresponding to each
factor are underlined in Table 1. The 13 fight styles identified by

these sub-scales are described below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- -- S -- 2- fl 2. S- S- .. .: 8 8 mm
mo 8. .: -- -- mo- -- S -- mo- .3. m mo 5
ow- S- 2 .. cw om- mo -- 8- mm mm m em 2..
fl- -- mo 2 mo 2- 2 no- no mo -- N no mm
.. 8- .3 mm 2 2- -- 8 2 -- no mm... -- on
we 2 3 a -- S S- -- -- mo mo- mw -- S
-- 5 mo- 2 S .. m: .. -- 3 S a 2- fi
-- 2 NH -- om 2 on mo 2 -- S .mle -- A
mo 3 3 mo -- 2 2 8. 2. mo -- m E N
we 3 E S S .2- 3 mm 3 -- 2 -- mm 3
-- -- em -- 3. mo- mm mm -- em 2 mo- m em.
.. -- mo -- mo 2- 2 3 2 mm -- -- mm mm.
.. 2 S- 3. mo 8 .: 3 mo 2 S 2 mm My
Ex an an x on E> :> S > E E = H 8:88:85
muouomm mhw”:

 

 

 

mUZHaOA .mOH 015nm QHHamHom

H Mdmdwfi

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 mo 2 -- -- mo- 2- 2 2 m 2 8 8 Am
2 -- 2 S 2 S- 2 mm 8 S. Mw -- .. on
2 -- 2 .. -- mo- 2 2 2 ea Mm .. 2 3
we 2- mo- 2- .. 2 8 2 8 mo Mm 3.. 2 mm
2.. mo 8 2- -- 5. we no 2 8 ml”. 2 2.. mm
2 S- .. -- 2 2- mm 2 mo 2 Ale -- 2 mm
2 8 mo -- 2 m2 2 mo -- 2 Wm mm 2 3
mo- 2 mo -- g -- S 2 mo -- .HIN. -- 2- m

2 mo 8 S .. .2. 2 2 2 2 mm 2- 2 2.

-- mm 2- -- -- 2- .. 2 -- 2 «m -- co m.
-- 2- mm -- mm -- mo- 2 mo mm -- «w -- 2.
2 2 2 2- 2- mo- 2 .. em 2 -- mm -- 2.
2 2 2 -- no- 2.. mo- 2 -- -- 2 M2... -- 2
EM an an N 2 E> => S > 2 E a 2 8228285

230mm mm“:

 

 

 

6253550 In .H MAm<H

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2N mo 2- mo - 2- 2 mm 2 2 2 mo 2 22
2- 22 2- no mo. 2- S ale - mo- 2 2- - 2
2 2 - - mm mo- 8- W 2 - on 2 2 2
-- - - 2 2 - - elm - 8 mm - mo 22
2- 2 - 2- 2 - 25 Mm 2 2. 2 2 2 m
- 2- - 22 - 2- 2 22 m - 2 - 22 3
be mm m2 - 22 Am. em m2 mm mo m2 -- 22 2e
22- mm 22 - - mo - 22 mm mo mm 22 mm m2
2 - no- - 2 - S- 8 m -- .:. S- - 2
mo 2. S - 22.. S- S 22 - ww- Nm - .2 2}.
2 2 2 - 2 m- - 2 2 Hm mo- 5 - 2
2 - 2 - 22 -- mo - - mm 2 2 2m 2.
S- 2 2 - - 8- 2 22 - a 2 2 mo 22:
22222 2222 222 22 222 22222 2> 222 22 .2 222 22 2 922228223220
m2ouomm "222222232

 

 

 

«5222232200 In .H magma;-

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 - mm 2 2- 2- 2 - 2 2 S 2 2 2
2 2 S - fl 2- 8 2 2 2 2 mo 22.. 2
- 22 2- 2 Wm 22- 2 2m 2 2 2 - 22 222
O2 22 22 - mm mo- o2 22 m2 - 2m - 22 m
- S 2 - 2 mm- 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2m
- 2 2 - 22 .2-m- 2 2 S - 2 2 2 22
-- - S we. om 2- mm 2 - - 2 -- 2 2m
2. 22 2 2 2 22- Wm 22 2 2 2- -- 22 2
mo 2 -- - - 8- m - - 2 2 mo 22 22
2 22- S 2 2 -- mo Mm 222 2 2 - S 2.22
2 S - - 2- 2- 22 mm 8- .2- 2 2 2 2
- - - S- 2 2- 2 mm 2 2 - we we 2.
2- 2 2 22- 8 - mo «w 8 2 -- - 2 2
22222 2222 222 22 222 22222 2> 222 22 2 222 22 2 922282226
2020mm mhwfi

 

 

 

62222222200 -- .2 Exam/29H

$222232 20 ommo 20.2 22322220 92¢? mo .o 2223 mmm: .0632, 222222 22222222 2m2222omm 6qu

 

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 mo 2 - 2 22- 2 2 22 2 2 -- 2m 2
2 2 2 2 2 2- 2 2m - 2 22- 2 2- 2
2- - .2 - - 2- 2 2 - 2 S 2 2.. 2
2- 2 2m 2- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 mo. 2 2
mo 2 B - 2- 2 2 2 2 - 2 - 2 2
- 2- 2- 2 2 2- 2 2 2 2 2 2 - 2
- - - -- 2 22..- 2 2.22 2 2.. 2 - 2 2
mm - 2 2 - - 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2..
m 2 2 2 2 mo. 22 2 S 2 2 2 2- 2
S- m 2- 22 22 2- 2 2 2 mo 2 - 2 2
2 2.|2. 2 2- 2 - .2 2 2 2 2 2m - 2
-. elm S- 22 2 2- 2 2 - 2 2 2 2 2
2 -- M2- 2 - 2- - 22- 2 2 - 2 2. 2
22222 2222 222 22 222 22222 22> 222 > .2 222 22 2 829228223220
muouomm mficwfi

 

 

 

22222222280 - - .2 2.2.2222

14

Carom fighting (questionnaire items #6, 55, 56, 65). -- The

 

first factor suggests a fight style which is characterized, for the
most part, by an attack upon something of value to the fight partner,
rather than an attack upon the fight partner himself. Users of this
fight style are indirectly aggressive. They speak against something
their fight partner stands for, say that they dislike something their
fight partner likes, or attack something they know is important to
their fight partner. Since the items which compose this fight style
were derived, primarily, from Bach' 3 description of "Carom

Fighters, " this fight style will be referred to as ”carom fighting. "

Withdrawal-evasion (questionnaire items #2, 7, 12, 17,

 

20, 22, 23, 27, 32, 33, 45, 47). -- The second factor suggests a

fight style which is characterized by evasion of the fight partner
and/or the fight topic. Users of this fight style refuse to engage in

a fight. When their fight partner mentions the topic of the disagree-
ment, they try not to respond. When they feel a fight impending,
they leave the situation. They try not to do or say anything associ-
ated with the fight topic. They refuse to listen when the fight partner
tries to discuss an area of disagreement. Since such fighters cor-
respond closely to Bach' 3 description of the "Withdrawal-Evaders, "

this fight style will be referred to as "withdrawal-evasion. "

15

Interference (questionnaire items #3, 4, 9, 24, 25, 28, 29,

 

40, 50). —- The third factor seems to describe Bach's ”interference"
fight style. "Interferers" attempt to impede their fight partner' s
independence or self-fulfillment. They interfere with their fight
partner' s strivings toward a goal. They make it difficult for their
fight partner to pursue his aims, and they try to impose restrictions

on his freedom of movement.

Indifference (questionnaire items #37, 44, 49, 52, 54). --

 

Factor IV contains elements of several fight styles which Bach
describes. Taken as a whole, the factor suggests a fight style
characterized by "Indifference. " "Indifferent" fighters refrain
from doing anything that would make it easier to enjoy things with
their fight partner. They refrain from doing anything that would
please their fight partner. They fail to defend their fight partner;
they act as if they do not care what their partner does; and they try

not to feel or show sympathy for him.

Analysis (questionnaire items #18, 19, 41, 53). -- Factor V
suggests a fight style which is characterized by interpretation of
the fight partner' 3 behavior and analysis of the fight partner' 5
personality. Such fighters tell their partner that he has motives or

values other than those he, himself, thinks he has. They explain

16

to their partner what his real, subconscious, or hidden feelings are.
They act as if they know what is best for their fight partner, even

if the partner does not agree; and they tell their partner that he
really is not what he thinks he is and never was that way. Since
this fight style clearly refers to those fighters which Bach calls the
"Character Analysts, " this fight style will be referred to as “analy-

sis. "

Overloading-Undermining (questionnaire items #5, 11, 13,

 

16, 36, 38, 46, 58). -- Factor VI seems to be composed, primarily,
of elements from two fight styles described by Bach: the "Over-
loading the System" fight style and the "Undermining" fight style.
"Overloaders" are over-demanding; they demand actions that their
fight partner finds difficult to accomplish. "Underminers" try to
keep their fight partner on edge. They arouse anxieties and fears

in their partner and encourage him to feel anxious or depressed.

Double-binding (questionnaire items #43, 60, 61). --

 

Factor VII appears to reflect the fight style that Bach has called
”Double-binding. " "Double —binders" set up expectations in their
fight partner but make no attempt to meet them. They make prom-
ises to their partner and then rebuke him for being so stupid as to

even expect fulfillment of them.

17

Vengeance (questionnaire items #21, 51, 52). -- Factor VIII

 

does not correspond to any of the fight styles which Bach discusses.
Since it seems to be characterized by some elements of revenge, it

I

will be referred to as "Vengeance.’ Users of this fight style will
”rub it in" when their fight partner fails in an area that is important

to him; they-will encourage outsiders to attack their partner; and

they will try not to feel or show sympathy for their partner.

Ego-smashing (questionnaire items #8, 31, 48). -- The

 

ninth factor suggests a fight style which is characterized by an
open, noxious attack upon the fight partner. Users of this fight
style try to cut their fight partner down to a smaller size. They

let their fight partner know that they feel he is inferior. They bring
up sensitive issues. Since such fighters correspond closely to
Bach' 3 description of the "Professional Ego-smashers, " this fight

style will be referred to as "ego-smashing. "

Silence (questionnaire items #17, 20). -- The tenth factor
suggests a fight style characterized by "Silence. " The "silent-
type" just "clam up. " They respond to their fight partner only with
silence. While Bach does not refer to the exclusive use of silence
as a fight style, he does note its presence in the repertoire of

"withdrawal-evaders" and fighters who underload the system.

18

Avoidance (questionnaire items #57, 62). -- Factor XI

 

appears to describe a fight style 1characterized by avoidance of the
fight partner. When "avoiders" disagree with someone, they try to
avoid coming into contact with him. Bach refers to avoidance
behavior as part of the ”Withdrawal-evasion" fight style, but he

does not discuss ”Avoidance" as a fight style per se.

Heckling (questionnaire items #1, 2, 10, 15). 7” Factor XII
does not seem to correspond to any of the fight styles which Bach
describes. This factor, however, appears to reflect, forthe most
part, a "Heckling" fight style. "Hecklers" make fun of their fight
partner' 3 anger. They pretend to agree with their fight partner,
even though their tone of voice lets their partner know that they
really do not agree. They heckle their partner without really having

an issue.

Withholding (questionnaire items #14, 34). -- Factor XIII

 

appears to be derived from Bach' s "Withholding" fight style. ”With-
holders" withhold things that are important to their fight partner
and cues which would make communication with the fight partner

easier.

CHAPTER III

THE WHO, WHAT, HOW RELATIONSHIP

As previously stated, subjects reported their age, sex,
race, and religion. They also listed their relationship to the people
with whom they frequently disagreed (i. e. , their fight partner) and
the issues about which they disagreed (i. e. , their fight topic).
Three of these variables--sex, fight partner, and fight topic--were
selected for further analyses vis a vis the fight style data. These
variables intuitively seemed to be the ones most likely related to
fight styles. Discussion of these additional analyses appears below.

Dichotomization of the
Independent Variables

 

 

Sex. -- Subjects were divided into males and females. The

sample contained 97 males and 91 females.

Partner. -- Subjects were divided into those who fought with

peers and those who fought with superiors. Typical "peer" responses

 

1These analyses were based on responses of 188 subjects,
since 35 subjects failed to complete the questionnaire.

19

20

included "roommate, " "other students, " ”boyfriend, " and "sister. "

H H

Typical "superior" responses included "mother, professors, " and

"my boss. " When subjects listed several fight partners, the first
one listed was used. The sample contained 104 "peers" and 85

"superiors. "

Topic. -— Subjects were divided into those who fought about

abstract topics and those who fought about concrete topics. Typical

"abstract" responses included "politics, religion,‘ and "morals. "
Typical "concrete" responses included ”who cleans the room, "

"what time I should be in, "

and "how to raise my younger sisters. "
When subjects listed several fight topics, the one listed first was
used. The sample contained 93 "abstracts” and 95 "concretes. "

Relationship Within and
Between the Dichotomies

 

 

A partition of chi square (Winer, 1962) was carried out
in order to examine the frequency distribution of the 188 subjects
within the eight cells generated by the three-way dichotomization
of the data. The results appear in Table 2. Examination of the
table indicates that all comparisons yielded chi square values far
below that needed for significance at the . 05 level. It thus appears

that the 2X 2X2 classification process resulted in a fairly random

21

distribution of subjects into eight cells. There is no evidence that

the variables are related.

TABLE 2

PARTITION OF CHI SQUARE

 

 

 

Source df Chi Square
Total 7 5.106
Sex (S) 1 .191
Partner (P) 1 2. 128
Topic (T) 1 .021
S X P 1 .192
S X T 1 .767
P X T 1 1 . 723
S X P X T 1 .084

 

 

 

Do Sex, Partner, and Topic
Affect Fiiht Style?

 

 

Overall anallsis. -- A three -way analysis of variance (for

 

unequal cell frequencies) was used to assess the effects of sex,
partner, and topic upon fight style. This analysis was performed
on the sum of the subjects' responses to all 65 items of the fight
questionnaire. Examination of Table 3 reveals a significant effect
of sex (F = 5. 532, d_f = 1/180). The significant sex effect indicates
that there was an overall difference in the way males and females

responded to the questionnaire, with males tending to respond

22

with higher values (X = 1.29, X = 1.13). This sex
males females

difference is suggested by the graphical presentation in Figure 1.

TABLE 3

OVERALL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 178.279 5.532*
Partner (P) 1 18. 453 .573
Topic (T) 1 31. 375 .974

SX P 1 11.582 .359

SX T 1 13.553 .421

PX T 1 1.789 .055

SXPXT 1 6.724 .209
Error 180 32.227

*p < . 05

Analysis by fight style. -- To further investigate the

 

relationships among the variables, a three-way analysis of variance
(for unequal cell frequencies) was performed on each fight style.
Tables 4 through 16 contain the results of these analyses.
Examination of these tables suggests some sources of the
significant sex effect which emerged from the overall analysis.
Significant sex differences appear in five of the fight styles: carom
fighting, overloading-undermining, double-binding, vengeance, and
heckling. In addition, males rated themselves higher (but not sig-

nificantly so) on seven of the remaining fight styles.

23

ammonium

Bunxoafl

 

 

 

 

 

wNAtm #:0: BE -.—0 mDZ—P: §<Iflh 02¢ and; EC 2832—38 on .u BOP.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uxbm 23.2
w m mm m mm mm m m m 2mm a
._ 2 2 .2 mm .. .2... .r m .... .2 m
m a m 2 m ... m» 2.. 2 2.. m 2 .2
a M u W I a m
a a m w u u
.1 . 2 ...
22.22252... D
1.232 -

mu;

  

Tom.
I on.
low.
mm.
3..
mp.
on.
on.
ruom.
mm.
cc.
no.
[3.
3.
am.
am.
on;
mm;
3..—
mvé
on.—
mm."
on.—
we.—
on;
and
l on.—

Hv-Ov-Cv-t—OH

l T T I I
sauna}; u'eaw

[TIT

 

24

TABLE 4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: CAROM FIGHTING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 3. 344 7. 518*
Partner (P) 1 . 085 . 191
Topic (T) 1 .775 1. 743

S X P 1 .202 .453

S X T 1 .839 1. 886

PX T 1 1.899 4.270*

S X P X T 1 .051 .115
Error 180 .445

*p < .05
TABLE 5

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
WI THDRAWAL-EVASION

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 . 007 . 022
Partner (P) 1 .018 .056
Topic (T) 1 .037 .118

S X P 1 . 148 .465

S X T 1 .139 .439

P X T 1 .004 .014

S‘XPXT 1 .256 .808
Error 180 .317 ~

 

 

 

 

TABLE 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: INTERFERENCE
Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 .708 2. 387
Partner (P) 1 . 386 1. 302
Topic (T) 1 . 547 1. 847
S X P 1 .064 .217
S X T 1 .000 .000
P X T 1 .068 .228
S X P X T 1 .004 .014
Error 180 .296
TABLE 7
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: INDIFFERENCE
Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 1.123 2.737
Partner (P) 1 .239 .583
Topic (T) 1 .697 1. 698
S X P 1 .009 .021
S X T 1 .386 . 941
P X T 1 .095 .231
S X P X T 1 .049 . 121
Error 180 .410

 

 

 

 

26

TABLE 8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 1. 378 2. 834
Partner (P) 1 . 041 . 084
Topic (T) 1 .013 .027

S X P 1 .001 .001

S X T 1 .082 .168

P X T 1 .585 1.203

S X P X T 1 .029 .059
Error 180 .486

TABLE 9

ANA LY SIS OF VARIANCE:
OVERLOADING -UNDERMINING

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 1.607 6312*
Partner (P) 1 . 112 . 439
Topic (T) 1 . 000 .000

S. X P 1 .080 .313

S X T 1 .082 .323

P X T 1 .943 3. 706

S X P X T 1 .164 .644
Error 180 .255

 

 

 

 

*p<.05

27

TABLE 1 0

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: DOUBLE-BINDING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 2.066 6. 085*
Partner (P) 1 . 026 . 078
Topic (T) 1 .008 .025
iSX P 1 1.177 3.468
S X T 1 .007 .021
P X T 1 .723 2.130
S X P X T 1 . 174 .513
Error 180 .339
*p < . 05
TABLE 11

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: VENGEANCE

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 3. 876 8. 047*
Partner (P) 1 .027 .055
Topic (T) 1 .053 .110

S X P 1 .435 . 903

S X T 1 .055 .114

P X T 1 . 055 . 113

S X P X T 1 .176 .366
Error 180 .482

 

 

 

 

*p<.05

28

TABLE 12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: EGO-SMASHING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (5) 1 1.254 2.209
Partner (P) 1 . 943 1.661
Topic (T) 1 .724 1. 275

S X P 1 . 003 . 005

S X T 1 .678 l. 195

P X T 1 . 228 .401

S X P X T 1 .001 . 001
Error 180 .568

TABLE 13

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: SILENCE

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 .407 .553
Partner (P) 1 1.207 1. 639
Topic (T) 1 2. 626 3. 566

S X P 1 . 858 1.165

S X T 1 3.049 4.141*

P X T 1 . 339 .460

S X P X T 1 .069 .094
Error 180 . .736

 

 

 

 

*p<.05

29

TABLE 1 4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: AVOIDANCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 . 068 . 064
Partner (P) 1 . 003 . 003
Topic (T) 1 . 483 .451

S X P 1 .004 .004

S X T 1 . 137 . 128

P X T 1 .966 7 . 903

SXPXT 1 .287 ..269
Error 180 1.070

TABLE 15

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: HECKLING

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 2. 420 6. 320*
Partner (P) 1 . 029 . 077
Topic (T) 1 .286 .747

S X P 1 1. 372 3.583

S X T 1 .278 .725

P X T 1 .017 .045

S X P X T 1 .019 .049
Error 180 .383

 

 

 

 

*p<.05

30'

TABLE 1 6

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: WITHHOLDING

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Sex (S) 1 1. 938 2. 871
Partner (P) 1 . 094 . 139
Topic (T) 1 2.119 3.139

S X P 1 1.223 1.813 '

S X T 1 .208 .309

PX T 1 .000 .001

S X P X T 1 .008 .012
Error 180 .675

 

 

 

 

Two significant interaction effects, which did not appear
in the overall analysis, emerged from the analyses of the individual
fight styles. The analysis of Carom fighting revealed a significant
partner by topic interaction (F = 4. 270, _d_f = 1/180). The analysis
of Silence revealed a significant sex by topic interaction (F = 4. 141,

g3: 1/180)

The significant interactions. -- The means which yielded the

 

significant partner by topic interaction which emerged in the analysis
of Carom fighting appear in Table 17. This interaction indicates
that subjects who fight with superiors about abstract topics rated
this fight style higher than did subjects who fight with superiors

abbut concrete topics. This difference is highly significant (F =

31

5. 705, d_f = 1/180 , p < .025; analysis of simple main effects). A

significant difference did not appear in subjects who fight with peers.

TABLE 17

THE PARTNER X TOPIC INTERACTION
IN CAROM FIGHTING

 

 

X .
peer superior
Xabstract 1.39 1. 56
i 1. 45 1. 2 1
concrete

 

 

 

 

The means which yielded the significant sex by topic inter-
action which emerged in the analysis of Silence appear in Table 18.
This interaction indicates two significant relationships. First,
females respond differently to abstract and concrete fight topics.
Females who fight about concrete t0pics rated this fight style higher
than did females who fight about abstract topics. This difference
is highly significant (F = 5. 932, g = 1/180, p < .025; analysis of
simple main effects). Second, males and females respond differ-
ently to concrete fight topics. Females who fight about concrete
topics rated this fight style higher than did males who fight about
concrete topics. This difference is also significant (F = 4.054,

_d_f = 1/180, p < .05; analysis of simple main effects).

32

TABLE 1 8

THE SEX X TOPIC INTERACTION

 

 

IN SILENCE
male Xfemale
Xabstract 1.38 1.27
" 1. 36 1. 71
concrete

 

 

 

 

The relationship between male and female fight styles. --

 

Examination of Figure 1 suggests that sex differences are associated
with an overall difference in the level at which males and females
rate themselves on the 13 fight styles. Aside from this difference

in level, it appears that males and females distribute their ratings

of the fight styles quite similarly. Calculation of the product -moment
correlation coefficient between the 13 mean ratings of males and
females on the fight styles yielded a value of . 87, which is highly

significant (t_ = 8.58, g” = 11, p < .01, two-tailed).

Differences in the frequency of usage of the fight styles. --

 

To compare the frequency of usage of the fight styles, the fight styles
were ranked by mean rating, and t_ tests were performed upon the
means of adjacent fight styles. The results of the t_ tests are con-
tained in Table 19. These results are also suggested by the graphical

representation of the rank-ordered fight styles in Figure 2.

33

Burma
ammo

aoueaflua A

aouaaapawl
Summation
411111801qu

hummus
-033

 

oaueaajnpul
Sumoumm

Its-(101w

3111111815
1110.133

oommv

caucus

mung
‘qumim

Manon

 

 

1.70 —I

1.65 1

1.60 -

1.55 ---

l.50 "1

—(
—.(

llllll

OLDOU‘JOIDO
omcnoooobh

-—(

1.45
1.40 "'
1.35 "1
1.30 '-
1.25 "‘
1.20 —
1.15
.10 —
05 -(
65 -
60
.55 —‘
50
0

I O
v-O v-O H

sSuneu ueaw

Fight sme-

ncmm. z. - RANK onnsnmc or "ms near STYLES

TESTS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

34

TABLE 1 9

RANKED FIGHT STYLE MEANS

 

 

 

Fight Style H s t

Heckling 1. 69 . 62

. 614*
Withdrawal-evasion 1. 48 . 56

. 901
Silence 1. 44 . 87

. 400
Avoidance 1. 41 . 02

. 199
Carom fighting 1. 40 . 68

. 262
Analysis 1. 38 . 69

. 194*
Withholding 1 . 24 . 82

. 1 10
Indifference 1. 23 . 64

. 324*
Ego-smashing 1.06 .75

. 804
Overloading -Unde rmining 1 . 02 . 5 1

. 394*
Interference . 92 . 54

. 869
Vengeance . 88 . 70

. 217*
Double-binding . 63 . 59

 

 

 

 

*p<.05

It appears that heckling is used significantly more than the

other fight styles, and double-binding is used significantly less than

the other fight styles. Four groupings of fight styles seem to exist

35

between these extremes. The first grouping consists of five fight
styles: withdrawal-evasion, silence, avoidance, carom fighting,
and analysis. The second grouping consists of two fight styles:
withholding and indifference; the third, of two fight styles: ego-
smashing and overloading-undermining; and the fourth, of two fight

styles: interference and vengeance.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

The crucial question which this investigation sought to
answer was, "Is the concept of a fight style a meaningful one?"
That the concept is, indeed, meaningful is strongly supported by the
emergence of fight styles from the factor analysis of the items in
the fight questionnaire, which have both face validity and some cor-
respondence to the styles which Bach derived from his clinical
experience.

A second important question was, "If fight styles exist,
has Bach characterized them accurately?" The results of this study
suggest that, for the most part, he has. Seven of the thirteen fight
styles generated by the data from the present study correspond
closely to fight styles described by Bach--carom fighting, withdrawal-
evasion, interference, analysis, double-binding, ego-smashing, and
withholding. Two fight styles--silence and avoidance--represent
portions of larger fight styles which Bach has described. The

overloading-undermining fight style combines descriptions of two of

36

37

Bach's fight styles. Only three fight styles--indifference, vengeance,
and heckling-Jail to correspond to Bach' s characterizations.

The last question concerned variables related to fight styles.
Of the three variables selected as variables of interest in this investi-
gation, only sex emerged as significantly related to fight style. Sex
differences in fight styles were due to a quantitative, rather than a
qualitative, difference between males and females--the sexes rank—
ordered their use of the fight styles quite similarly, but males made
greater use of them. Thus, it appears that males fight more inten-
sively than females do, but they use the sametactics!

There are several possible explanations of the finding that
males are more verbally aggressive than females. One possibility
is that the sex difference emerged only because males are more
open in‘their self-reports--they more frankly admit to their fight
behaviors than do females. A significant difference in reporting the
use of aggression would be compatible-with the influence of our
society, which is more accepting of aggression in males than in
females.

A second possible explanation is that males are, indeed,
more verballyaggressive than females: that differences in the
subjects' self-reports reflect a true difference in behavior. Per-

haps, there are innate sex differences in the expression of aggression;

38

perhaps, the social models and the social reinforcement patterns
which favor the expression of physical aggression in males have a
similar effect upon the expression of verbal aggression.

The finding that males are more verbally aggressive than
females is quite compatible with much of the research on physical
aggression, which finds that males are more physically aggressive
than females (Sears, 1951; Johnson, 1951; Bandura, 1962; Bandura,
Ross, and Ross, 1961; 1963a; 1963b). However, the finding is
incompatible with the limited research on verbal aggression, which
finds that females are more verbally aggressive than males (J ohn-
son, 1951; Barclay and Haber, 1965). The incompatibility could be
explained in terms of the level at which the aggression is expressed.
Johnson inferred aggression from doll-play, and Barclay and Haber
inferred. aggression from TAT stories. It is possible that at this
deeper level of expression of aggression, females are more aggres-
sive than males. Because they express less aggression (both
physically and verbally), they have .more repressed aggression--to
express through doll-play or through projection.

Still another possible explanation of the sex difference
remains. Perhaps, the fight questionnaire did not include a suffi-
cient numberof female fight behaviors. For example, there was no

opportunity to report the use of tears as a fight tactic. If female

39

fight tactics were not adequately represented in the fight question-
naire, then males would erroneously emerge as more aggressive.

The partner by tOpic interaction in "Carom fighting"
emerged because subjects'who fight with superiors use the carom
fighting style more when they fight about abstract topics than when
they, fight about concrete topics. There appears to be no straight-
forward explanation of this interaction. It might be speculated-that
in fights about concrete topics, one tends to stay on the topic. How-
ever, in fights about abstract topics, it is easier to drift from the
topic: in a fight about one value, it is convenient to drift to other
values--perhaps, more ”attackable" values-~as the carom fighter
does. This phenomenon might occur more in fights with superiors
than in fights with peers because superiors may be more "threaten-
ing"--they require a carom fighting approach if one is to dare to
disagree at all.

The sex by. topic interaction in the "Silence" fight style
appears to be due to the great use which females make of silence
when they fight about a concrete, topic. This interaction might
derive from the "traditional, " "non-Bachian" concept of a fight,

i. e. , a disagreement is "bad"; there is always a ”loser. " A con-
crete fight topic may more likely lead to a ”winner" and a ”loser"

than an abstract fight topic: often the issues seem less philosophical

40

and more personal, tangible, and clear-cut. Perhaps, females,

' resort to respond-

fearing the possibility of emerging as a "loser,'
ing to concrete fight topics with silence. They avoid losing by refus-
ing to fight at all.

Inspection of the rank—ordered fight styles (Figure 2) sug-
gests that, for the most part, people would rather not actively engage
in a fight. The fight styles which subjects reported they used most
frequently tend to be those which avoid fighting. Heckling--the fight
style used most frequently-—involves making fun of the fight partner' 3
anger; in a sense, this is even a refusal to admit that there is any
reason to fight at all. Withdrawal-evasion, silence, and avoidance
are fight styles which prevent a fight from really getting started.
Ego-smashing--the fight style which is characterized by an open
noxious attack on the fight partner---was ranked ninth in frequency
of usage; it was used significantly less than eight other fight styles.

Hare (1962) recognized that people would rather not fight.

In a discussion of the dyad, he pointed to the finding that groups of
two consistently tend to avoid disagreement and antagonism and
concentrate, instead, on exchange of information and agreement:
". . . the two-man group may be viewed as having built into it an

implicit agreement that the two members will stay within spheres

on'which they can agree. " It may be this ”implicit agreement" to

41

which Hare refers that is reflected in the subjects' rank ordering
of the fight styles.

Subjects reported using double-binding significantly less
than all the other fight styles. It might be argued that double-binding
a fight partner is an exceedingly destructive fight style, and, there-
fore, it would be used least by people who avoid fighting, in general.
However, another explanation of the infrequent use of double-binding
is possible. Double-binding usually occurs outside of the awareness
of the person creating the double-bind; double-binding is most often
conceived of as an unconscious process. To be aware of placing a
fight partner'in a double—bind would be unusual. Thus, the reported
use of double -binding as a fight style would be expected to be low.

It is probable that double -binding is used more frequently than the
subjects reported.

The tests of differences between ranked fight style means
(Table 19) revealed that some fight styles or groupings of fight
styles occurred with significantly greater frequency than others.
These groupings should be interpreted with caution. Fight styles
in the same group do not significantly differ from one another in
terms of how frequently they are used. However, there is no evi-
dence to support a conclusion that fight styles which group together

represent the same kinds of fight behaviors.

42

Methodological Considerations and
Directions for Future Research

 

 

The validity of this investigation is dependent upon the
validity of the subjects' self-reports on the fight questionnaire. The
validity of such a measurement technique is, at the least, debatable.
Future research might be directed toward an examination of "fights
in action"--perhaps, observed or recorded fights.

An oversight in this study was the absence in the fight ques-
tionnaire of items representing a constructive fight style. Subjects
had no opportunity to report such constructive behaviors as, "I tell
the other person I am angry with him, " or "I let the other person

" Only behaviors representing injurious and

know how I am feeling.
destructive fight styles appeared in the fight questionnaire.

This study attempted to look at the generality of Bach' s
observations about the nature of fight styles. It used college stu-
dents to test some notions derived from a marriage counseling set-
ting. The results suggest that a person' s fight style is a relatively
stable characteristic. The complete absence of a significant
"partner effect” is particularly suggestive of the idea that how one

fights is not dependent upon the person with whom he fights. Future

research might examine the extent of this generality.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

A CHECKLIST TO ANALYZE

MARITAL FIGHT STYLES

APPENDIX A

A CHECKLIST TO ANALYZE MARITAL FIGHT STYLES

Analysis of Marital Fight Styles

 

Taken by Stanley Schneider, M.A. , from George Bach' 3 Ph. D.
Presentation to the Michigan Group Psychotherapy Association
Fall Workshop, 1963

Record and then analyze marital fight styles with the aid of the fol-
lowing checklist to identify the presence or absence of the following
(INFORMATIONAL or) INJURIOUS FIGHT STYLES which you feel
you may be using. Please indicate with a check which of the styles
you feel are yours and indicate with a cross those you feel are your,
partner' s. Add to this list any additional fight styles that you can '
identify in your attempts to better understand how you and your
partner are helping or hurting one another: Affirming and building
versus destroying and undermining one another' 3 self-image.

 

I. Withdrawal or Evasion:

D:
B
(I:
m
*1

i

Avoidance of contact
Visibly escaping from an encounter
No initiation

No commiss‘eration
Apparent uninvolvement
No relevant response
Attempt at evasion
Avoidance of engagement
Withdrawnness

Not listening

Falling asleep

Leaving

Waiting to get out

grwshr-s'mg-bmaoo'm

43

44

II. Open Noxious Attack:

 

E?
B
m
*1

e

P’

Inflicting physical, verbal or other
psychological pain

Degrading

Reducing

Insulting and derrogatory name calling
Hitting below the belt

Total rejection

Needling without issue

Mocking anger

Comparing self as superior to
partner--"Upmanship"

D

r'D‘mrbepo 0‘

III. Pseudo-Accommodation (Childlike way of fighting):

 

a. To pretend to go along with something by saying
yes though meaning no for a momentary peace
sake but not really believing in it and not sharing
with the partner the private reservation, doubt
or contempt. Not even sharing these things
facially like a sarcastic "yah. " Rather the
partner pretends a phony agreement which is
real aggressive type of behavior.

IV. Attack or Reduction of Someone or Something
Treasured bythe Partner:

 

 

a. A_ver_y common method by people who do not
like to be called aggressive whether it is a
child or a film they saw or a particular painting
they likes-~as a particular friend ”Oh you like
him--ho he' s horrible. ” This sort of thing is
called an attack on the third party treasured by
the partner.

45

V. Double Binding:

 

Him Her

a. Setting up an expectation for a good time in the
partner--stimulating the partner-mot respond-
ing to a demand but stimulating an expectation
for a good time and then giving him a bad time:
Setting up expectations and images for the
partner through promises, excitement and
seduction and then letting the partner down by
not even attempting to fulfill them—-or worse
rebuking the partner for being so stupid as to
even expect these things.

VI. Character Analysis or Interpretation:

 

a. Like the spouse who tells the partner that he' s
childish and doesn't get along with anybody.

b. Assign, impute or interpret motives or values
other than those the person holds for himself.

c. Uncover deceptions in your partner.

d. Deny the validity of the here and the now as
the partner feels it himself— —putting him on the
defensive for being what he is or thinks he is--
because you' re telling him that he really isn' t
that-—and never was!

 

VII. Blame smanshiJJ:

 

a. Arousing or intensifying guilt or inadequate
feelings in the partner.
b. Encouraging him to feel that he is making
mistakes.
Punitive judgments against the partner.
Negative appraisement of inadequate per-
formance (in areas where the partner strives
to do well and is ego-involved; an intimate
marital relationship allows both parties to
know very well whether the other tries hard or
not. Thus when you try hard and are called
incompetent--by the spouse-~you experience
”’Blamesmanship. ")

Q-O

VIII .

46

Interference (used by intellectuals):

 

Him
Interference with involved or goal directed
strivings.
Interference with self-fulfillment or
independence of the other partner
Interference with mutual autonomy (acting as
if you know what is best for the other partner
though he doesn't agree).
Trying to impose restrictions on the individ-
ual' s freedom of movement, (throwing up road
blocks, slow downs and creating conditions that
would make it hard or difficult to pursue the
aim--spoiling rather than facilitating oppor-
tunities to pursue things of personal interest or
pleasure). (Once we get rid of guilt over
aggression-~constructive aggression--we can
understand it better just as we understand sex
nowadays better than we once did since we' ve
overcome our fear of looking at it).

 

Overloadigg the System or Relationship:

 

0‘93

Over-demanding

Talking more than your share

Asking for more than can be realistically
provided.

Showing dissatisfaction and disappointment in
what the partner can and does provide.
Demanding to be better taken care of or pro-
vided for emotionally, sexually, or materially
(the bottomless well phenomena).

Demanding responses that are difficult for the
partner.

Underloadirg the System or Relationship:

 

Where the couple responds to each other only in
silence--they both sit and wait for the other to be
or make the wrong response and then they count
up the score--they don't give each other cues
regarding their real feelings and how the other
might respond to them.

Her

XI.

XII.

47

Withholding:

 

Him

a. Withholding something desired or deserved.
b. Withholding cues which make communication

easier.

c. Not wholeheartedly participating in mutual _—
activity.

d. Withholding affection, food, recognition, _—
privileges.

e. Not facilitating mutual enjoyment.

Arousing Anxiety and Fears (Crisis Makers):

 

Fight style particularly used in groups and in
families and organizations, at parties and on vaca—
tions. These are people who have a difficult time
expressing their aggression under other circum-
stances. They express their aggression by arous-
ing such anxieties and fears as:

You look tired.

Don't you feel well?

You must be tired.

Who made you tired?

Did you have a bad time with your wife (sug—
gesting a crisis and then attempting to rescue
the person from the crisis but finally joining
the enemy by encouraging hostility and ill will
against your partner and failing to be the friend
or partner against the destructive or dangerous,
unfair attacks or rebukes by others who would
reduce the value of the partner or in other ways
unwittingly arouse anxiety and fears in him.
The person fails to affirm the feelings of hope
and health that the partner may have about
himself. )

2299‘?“

Her

APPENDIX B

THE FIGHT QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B

THE FIGHT QUE STIONNAIRE

Name:

 

Age: Sex: Race: Religion:

 

 

Each person, at one time or another, finds himself in dis-
agreement with people about whom he cares. Disagreeing is an
experience which we all share. However, the way w may act when
yo_u_ disagree may be different from the way other individuals act.
Below are a list of actions which have been found to describe what
some people do when they disagree with people who are important to
them. In the space provided before each statement, please place a
0, 1, 2, 3, or 4--according to how well the statement describes you.
Use a 0 for an action which you w do, a 1 for an action which you

rarely do, a 2 for an action which you sometimes do, a 3 for an

 

action which you frequently do, and a 4 for an action which you

always do.

 

REMEMBER: 0 = Never
1 = Rarely
2 = Sometimes
3 = Frequently
4 = Always

48

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

49

I make fun of the other person' s anger.
I look for an opportune moment to get out of the situation.

I interfere with the other person' s strivings toward a
goal.

I withhdld something the other person wants or deserves.

I tell the other person that he' s childish and that he can't
get along with anybody.

I attack something that I know is important to the other
person.

I pretend I am going to leave the situation.
I let the other person know that I feel that he is inferior.

I interfere with the other person' s independence or self-
fulfillment.

I pretend to agree even though the tone of my voice lets
him know that I really don' t.

I arouse anxieties and fears in the other person.

I don' t listen to the other person when he tries to start
a disagreement.

I try to arouse or intensify feelings of guilt or inadequacy
in the other person.

I withhold cues which could make communication easier.

I "needle" (heckle) the other person without really having
a cause or issue.

I am over-demanding.
I just "clam up. "

I tell the other person that he has motives or values
other than those he himself thinks he has.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

3O

31

32

33

34

35

50
I act as if I know what is best for the other person, even
if the other person doesn't agree.
I respond to the other person only in silence.
I encourage outsiders to attack the other person.

When it seems that the other person is about to start a
disagreement, I just leave.

I totally reject the other person.
When I am with the other person, I act bored.
I try to intensify emotional insecurities.

I degrade something or someone the other person likes
or loves.

When the other person brings up the subject of the dis-
agreement, I try not to respond.

I encourage the other person to feel that he is making
mistakes.

I try to impose restrictions on the other person' s free-
dom of movement.

I lead the other person to expect a good time and then
give him a bad time.

I "hit below the belt" (i. e. , bring up sensitive issues).

I make sure that I don't do or say anything that is con-
nected to what we are disagreeing about.

I keep quiet and wait for the other person to say or do
the wrong thing.

I withhold things that are important to the other person
(e.g. , praise).

I take more than my share.

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

51

I encourage the other person to feel anxious or depressed.
I act as if I really don't care what the other person does.
I tell the other person that he ought to be punished.

I insult the other person and call him derrogatory names.
I make it difficult for the other person to pursue his aims.

I tell the other person that he really isn' t what he thinks
he is and never was that way.

I just fall asleep.

I make promises to the other person and don' t attempt
to fulfill them.

I don' t do anything that would make it easier for the
other person and I to enjoy things together.

I pretend to "go along" with the other person for the sake
of momentary peace.

I try to keep the other person "on edge. "

I try not to start talking to the other person.

I try to cut the other person down to a smaller size.
I fail to defend the other person.

I spoil opportunities for the other person to pursue things
of personal interest or pleasure.

I "rub it in" when the other person fails in an area that
is important to him.

I try not to feel or show sympathy for the other person.

I explain to the other person what his real, subconscious,
or hidden feelings are.

52

54 I refrain from doing things which would make life easier
for the other person or give the other person pleasure.

55 _ I speak against something that the other person stands
for.

56 __ I degrade the other person.

57 _ I avoid contact with the other person.

58 __ I demand actions that the other person finds difficult.

59 I don' t give the other person any hints about what my

real feelings are and how they might be responded to.

60 I continually harp on something the other person dreads,
and I may even wish it would happen.

61 I make promises to the other person and then rebuke him
for being so stupid as to even expect these things.

62 I try to avoid coming into contact with the other person.

63 I try to uncover deceptions in the other person and really
let him know it when I do.

64 I inflict physical or psychological pain.
65 I say that I don't like something that the other person
likes.

Please list below your relationship to the people with whom you find
youself disagreeing most often (e. g. , father).

Please list below the topics about which you find yourself disagreeing
most often.

APPENDIX C

THE INTERCORRELATION MATRIX

53

noun2a
ocean:
o20n22
2mo2uo
nmo22.
monono
2mnm.o
~2n~2o
m~2n2o
2o-.2
2n22us

coco.2

ca

vnh~.e
vomc.o
mmom.o
n~o«.o

vwwa.oo

coon.a
ovv~.o
oo«~.c
onnn.o
uno«.c
unnn.a
2nc~.o

coco.”

«non.a
onoa.°
ovs~.e
onon.°
come.c
«cou.¢
nnsn.o
mmc«.o
tocv.o
cmvo.o
owwn.o
noo~.o
vmoc.o

coco.u

noo~.c
nonu.o
«on~.o
nn22.o
cos«.o
coco.o
ovou.o
noo~.o
coo2.o
mne~.o
“on".o
p0~n.o
cov~.o
voa~.o
caoe.«

ennu.o
vaso.c
ch-.o
cone.o

«ono.oo

coco.o
ton~.o
nvco.o

cnn~.o

nouo.ou

novu.o
02~«.o
cwwu.°
nvs«.o
cara.o
coco.2

ZZZ-47- ZO~H41~mmmOUmeZ~

~n¢~.e
v0.9.9
ovrn.o

nnr«.o

osco.oo

nor~.o
nu<~.o
oku.o
~onn.o
vvco.o
vn¢~.o
mn¢~.o
sov~.o
«can.o
vocu.a
oovm.b

ooco.«

U VAQKmnmnju

«sca.o
nova.a
“names
enun.e
«noe.o
wono.o
cumu.c
n~n«.c
on2~.o
coco.c
<n.~.c
nov«.o
v2c~.c
rnr~.o
coca.c
vn.«.c
<«vn.o

coco.w

no¢~.e
ca.u.a
oku.c

nareoe

gono.cu

nasu.o
p««~.e
«dado:
hBCN.c
ancu.o
coeu.e
v=.n.e
«n2n.c
«new.e
ccnu.a
¢«o«.c
oo¢H.a
sunn.c

(etc-H

«.09..
tn«~.c
coco.a

sooo.eu

rcs~.e

voca.o.

ens«.o
ooou.o
choo.o
coun.o

onao.e.

.v¢~.o
cnco.o
.nao.o
coon.o
racu.o
octo.c
coma.c
ao'o.a
coco.“

bonn.o
coco.-
nun-.a
oooc.o
enoo.o
nuo«.o
sonv.c
oo.«.o
cuc~.o
ocnu.c
o-nu.o
«umu.a
snuu.c
can~.e
suou.e
en.~.c
nocu.c
m~;~.c
«can.o
r~¢~.c
coca.“

an
ad
Cd
.u
an
aw
an
9«
nu
«a
«u
ca

0 I‘ '. F~ ‘.

H N n

£34

sangu-

.unnunb

on~a.¢
«nouno
noon".
owuuoe
nh-oo
mouueo
nonn.o
use~.a
«nem2a
«emnua
oocn.e
non22.
avou.o
conu2o
oua~.o
oo-2o
022229
2mc2.o
c2022:
cannua
oos«.o

moon.o

$800.6!

coon.p
cacaoo
noaa.e
noon.o
woo...
o22«.a
n~n2.e
«ouu.a
oo-.a
nonu.a
oocu.e
nosooo
~0u¢.o
«on~.c
omnn.o
«non.a
ce2~.o

moso.o-

cnm~.o
cmqn.o
2~o~.o
as¢~.o

cone.o

eve...
noon.»
owed.-
tendon
.«o...»
bann.o
name.-
¢2o~.o
couu.o
cannu-
4.22.:
on.«..
tendo-

-cnuo...

«canoe
oocu.o
qeo«.o
cvnn.o
csoo.o
(no~.o
ursn.o
ov¢0.o
wom~.o
2am“.-

noon.-
econ.-
nova.»
cosu¢u
aneu.o
cons.-
«¢o«.o
counts
enun.o
con2.a

.s¢m«.o

ooun.o
noo«.a
eon«.o
soon-o
nav~.e
2~v~.o
~nva.o
somm.o
camm.o
vnr«.a
wonw.o
ro¢~.o

dknw.o

Qua...
OOOdoo
.tOOuoc

Odo-.90

oucu.o
.onou.o
voou.o
oosu.c
§09~.o
on-.o
tauq.o
moo«.o
«owu.o
cnvo.o
knewoo
.boeu.o
cus«.o
vona.o
nvmo.u
nc2~.o
o2ou.c
vosu.o
scm«.o

stun.”

oauuoo
snouoo
«or...
honho.
nuan..
outmo-
such.-
muon.o
oo.~.¢

.ddnn.o

«22“.:
ancuoa
m¢o«..

0660.00

corn.o
~0c~.e
owcn.o
~2n~.o
m-o.o
omvm.o
ancv.o
¢o-.o
coam.o

nsn2.o

rho...

thhob

ouwa.o
992...
«0.0.:
bucnoe
voc~.e
¢0n«.=
onc«.o
rocu.o
vupu.e
cacn.e
aecn.e
(Reece.
v»«~.e
comn.c
omr~.e
no.~.e

2m2o.2o

(nem.o
vv:0.<
wk.wor
v~.«.:

esve.eo

Eustace--22 22222222225.

ocean.
.a-oaoo
ca2uoo
canopo
cusucu
.ucnoc
-oun«.c
rocu¢e
«u-«.e
acan.e
cann.a
nocnoe
on««.e

vncooco

pnoa.e
mnpmbc
thfloc
«vwnoc
~0~o.c
vmr~.c
noww.c
amnn.c
hm.~.:

«(toot

on0~..
cosh.-
ennui.
occudu
boo-od
chant.
«ocu.o
rocu.c
a«~«.o
coco.a
2.22..
cued-e
c«o~.d
then-o
enuo.a
whho.u
.cna.e
«vr2.o
rcrn.c
onmo.o
ovco.c
:9h«.c
.2qn.c

Icon.c

.s-r-o-
.QIUQJO
.-o«..
coo...
«can».
.fiu.«.-
22.2..

onsu.o.
suns...

coou.o
auc~.o
oonu.o
enou.o
come.a
nun~.a
odoute
ouau.c
cacn.c
nomo.c
vom~.c
«omm.a
cos~.o
.22...

covn.c

g:::::t:8t

on
on
an
an
at
.oz
.2
on
22
02
an
en
an
«a

55

cu

nu-no
oaoono
~ommna
"and":
oonaao
con~.o
coeflao

o-«.o
mvcmmo
mnoaao
~c««.a
“we".a
mmc«.o
oov~.o
n~m~.°
roam.o
ooc~.o
madn.a
movu.o

v~=~.o

on

ss0«.a
0oon.o
oku.o
000°.b
0ncmoo
«nnu.o
0000.:

«om«.o
coo«.o
u~m~.o
nnco.o
unm~.c
vno~.o
asco.o
vnn«.o
encn.o
v~¢o.°
sho~.o
echo.o

mmna.=

on

5000.0
covn.o
sac..-
«cud.-
n~0~.o
«nan.-
wnvu.o
vovu.o
conu.a
ocvc.o
cao~.o
«ncn.a
nom~.o
soo~.o
.sun.o
smmn.o
«$04.9
o‘cv.o
wonu.o

mvun.o

«a

39.“.-
v5.9.9
tuuu.o
wasa.o

.nOnNoo

n0:u.o
.vnu.o
tno«.o
«Ho~.o
soc~.o
mauu.o
monu.o
cvo«.a
«voo.o
rcau.o
«oou.o
oomr.o
sca¢.o
vvm~.o

«Oom.c

on

ruon.o
«000.9
c«o«.o

eono.oo

noe~.o
sn-.o
anoo.a
snmu.a
rsso.o
nor~.o
«orn.o
noo~.o
c0n«.o
n~o~.o
n-~.o
nuou.o
ru¢u.n
ovo~.m
coma.”

tuou.m

On

noun.-
saga.-
no.»..
«009.-
oacn.-
anon.-
con".-

onc~.o
sowa.e
001m.o
~nc«.a
o~««.o
anH.o
s0cu.o
o«c~.o
mvom.e
«00“.:
os.w.o
not—.0

noaw.o

on

can~.e
00«n.c
cnwn.o
ouou.e
sown.e
ancu.e
oweooe

cacao:
sow«.e
tncn.a
.ow~.a
-r~o~.o
nn.~.o
unnu.0
wou«.o
591n.c
no««.:
tan.0
ense.¢

oNnMo¢

32:89-0 .dozmmfi.

rd

noou.e
«onu.e

coa~.e

¢n.o.e.

«sou.e
nnvu.e
00.0.9

nsvu.c
oovc.e
oco«.e
scnu.c
n~nn.=
wnau.c
on~«.c
«cr~.c
unsn.c
wo.d.c
v—qm.e
r¢nc.c

nnw«.c

coon.»

an

soco.o

oooo.on

.voo.o
cec~.o
onau.o
veco.o
can~.o

.suo.o.

tn¢~.o
owco.o
w0wa.o

asto.c

onen.oo

rnmo.o
cnco.o
vnco.c
pc0~.c
c00c.c
««n~.e

"wru.co

0.6“.-

_ouo..u

c00~.u
e-««.a
«ao~.a
cocc.a
shun.-
~o¢n..
.no«.o
soo«.c
0009.:
v0o~.c
«no~.e
non~.e
hh0c.o
«no~.c
cn¢~.c
c~c~.c
qcvm.c
vcgn.a
«vuc.e

omu«.c

2.
«a

It
0.
no
00

an
«m
or
an
to
an
«a
«r
or
0'
0.
us
0.

£56

oo~u.a
no»...
“on“.o
nuo«.a
“gnu.-
sos°.a
n¢suno
nooa.o
conno:
onnn.:
acm:.:
«mddwo
o-~.o
“chm":
NKanc
"ecu“:

cocood

“cw“.g
unann-
0004..
0::«.-
0:.«.:
than.:
-s~.:
o¢s~.:
naon.o
cn~:.:
e~o«.e
ma0~.:
rmca.o
oon~.o
c:n«.o
Hmn~.o
0naa.:

::::.a

sno~.:
c~0:..
«~o~..
an“...
unuu.-.
ossn.o
«on-.-
n:~u.:
no.9.c
no¢:.-o
ov~:.o
nonu.:
co::.:a
n-:.:u
onv:.:n
s..o.o
cmn:.:
v~nn.:
cc::.«

0:u..:
000:.0

.vvoooo

on:~.:
00:0.-
«nee...
rnuu.:
00...:
uuu:.:
«n0~.:
«nc:.:u
000:.ou
oaoo.:
emo«.:
00mm.:
nn.:.:
w:s¢.:
o0n:.:
ovoe.o.
c:c:.a

n::~..
ensu.o
ca«....
«-:.:
runn.ao
«uo~.:
¢o-.o
¢o~«.:
osoo.oo
osne.o.
cuou.u
coca.o
“on:.o
cnso.o
caoo.o.
oosu.o
nona.oo
p0-.u
«an:.o
uov:.:o

roe:.a

anon.-
morn.-
000:.-
as:«.:
«spu.-o
cap...
100».:
onc~.:
o.¢~.:
:0c:.:o
on.n.:
ospn.:
omcn.:
m~p~.:
mo~«.:
conn.:
mvv:.:
s0o~.:
00n«.:
~:¢:.:
n0¢fl.o

o:¢:.a

«sc~.o
cccu.e
«omv.e
vs0~.e
cod-.9
ruc~.:
«oo~.e
0:04.:
co¢~.e
unq:.:
c:¢u.o
onnn.e
nunn.:
c0¢a.:
'wuu.c
mno«.:
no.~.:
ovnu.e
ano:.c
cstu.e
wan:.e
.s~u.a

COCO..—

uoaczcou--o xazmmg.

o.r¢.o
000:.-
age...
can».-
03....
coco.-
onc~.:
c0¢~.e

cos...

Crcuo.

vmewqo
porn.e
vn.n.c
¢n-.c
¢H«H.c
wwww.:
00¢".e
«scN.e
«can.:
an«:.:
001:.:
omen.e
o:\~.c

Leta. r

090—.:
00k:..
Quad.-
coca.-
one».-
90...:
000~.:
coo...
can...
tfiuv.:
«~0:.:
.v-:.:
.h¢«.:
ooon.:
«vam.:
.nso.:
«cn~.:
nrh:.:
nn::.:.
vwvm.:
onoc.:o
.QNF.¢
vu¢~.:

.00:.:

0000.:
000:.-
00...:
Quad.-
snuu.:o
«009..
on¢u.¢
00.0.:
c:0«..
QQ:G.0
«00“.:
:uon.:
ssn~.:
c::H.:
noc:.o
«onm.:
von«.c
env~.:
oc::.:
.«cn.:
c:n~.c
0:.n.:
00v«.:

annn.:

' d
B

00
a.
am
am
on
c:
an
«a
«a
on
0.
a.
«a
0.
a.
v.

537

.0...-
«can»:
sue..-
own».-
no.u.o
soc...
n~o:.:
«.na.o
no“...
«newnu
“9...:
man...
«no...
.o.n.a
nan«.o
..n«.o
~00:.:
mun...
nvcu.o
.~.~.o
onen.o
cam...
.o...o

Oucm.o

noun.-
0000.0
950:.-
000:.:
«now.-
non~.o
-......
.oon..
nN—«.:
:unm.:
nvm~.:
.hovn.:
:so~.:
ovo:.:
.os«.a
co:u.:
noua.:
n:0:.:
.o.e.o
oocn.e
umsn.:
:n0~.:
ooo~.e

n~a«.=

005:.0

9......
«99:...

..u-..
000...
«cuu.:
can...
:«w0.:
once.-
«.0..-
000:.:
com...
omen.-
n~uom¢
nan...
anuu.:

050:.0.
«cue...
«moo...

0.:Q.:
acqu.:
.v.:.:
vn¢:.:
.o...:

::~:..
000~.o

05:0...

0009.:

.o.....
.a.....

$090..

.ov«:.:

who...
:00:.:

.ou:.:.

coou.:
.a.o.:
«00h.:
a.~o.:
.o.«.:
.u.:..
con:.:
v:s:.:

vou:.:.
wane.:o
0m«:.:.

yo~:.:

ov:~.:

0.0a.:

500:...

0a~n.:o

asua.o
one...
«a0:.:
«cs...
n0::.:
moo...
rnou.:

0::u.:o

n0k9.:

rsc:.:o

vaua.e

«use...

s«.:.a
non:.o
eunu.o
«onu.o
.ooo.c
o~.«.o
.qcn.c

Loso..

an....
«new.-
000~.0
500...
«000.:
hash.-
000~.:
:~.«.o
n».«.:
.no»..
mahuab
00c«.:
m0~¢.:
nvc:.:
onun.:
oo.:.:
«sum.o
0nvm.:
:9.:.:
0:0:.:
oso~.:
vacw.:
.u.m.:

~n.~.:

«0.0..
n.0~.:
a:0u.:
0.00.0
vo.u.o
an»...
0s0u.:
C’suoa
.:.~.e
cvm«.:
s:.n.e
a0¢~.:
:onu.:
nnrn.:
ansd.e
hu.u.:
nu-.:
rocN.:
«nou.:
vn.«.:
svs~.:
the:.:
.No:.:

¢0un._

2552.520 Eozmmm...

00.0.:
o..«..
0000..
open.-
one...
“wan.-
nocu.¢

ouou.e
.u.~.e
00.9.:
coeds:
0800.:
0~n~.e
«non.e
eucu.:
mor«.c
ua¢:.c
.ur«.e
.oen.e
m:.n.:
v:su.:
on.~.:

wocu.c

.n.-..
.-~.o
000:.:
000:.:
w.....

on«....

0nfin.0
.o.a.o
coo...
c:0u.:
r~v«.:
cue~.:
¢~v«.:
raa«.:
ceca.:
.cc~.:
.05:.:
.so:.:
c0w~.:
.ns:.c
pct—.o

.vn:.:

.w0:.:.

.mtn.c

3....
go....
on...-
.o....
90....
...u..
.o....
«no...
...~..
...~..
......
......
..nn..
......
.o.n..

nau:.:o

00o~.:
rns:.:
:05:.:
vu0~.:
.on..e
.n.~.:
v0u~.:
c0.u.c

#:3228388

no
:0
00
.0
a.
00
a.
90
a.
u.
u.
:0

on
«a

553

n~.9«9
moon.9
s:n~u:
noowm9
ovo999
9999.:
oaoma9
9999.:

on

.o~9.9
.999.9
9.99.9
moan.9

9099.9

n~9~.9
9999.9
smm~.9
.9.~.9
sou~.9
9999.9
999~.9
.wvn.9

::::.H

om

sown.:
snn~.9
0nmn.:
0mud.:

m~n«.9

«mm~.:
Noon.:
000~.9
99:».9
000N.:
~009.9
m~n~.9
o9-.9
99nn.9
999:.“

(m

o~mu.:
0n-.:
anom.9
0909.9

mom:.:

:so«.:
non:.:

«099.9.

can:.:
oocn.:

0on0.:

~0n9.9.

9099.9
9999.9
0999.:

::9:.«

km

9099.9
mn99.9
9099.:

9.99.9

9999.9.

c0n~.9
000n.9
09.9.9
u:0«.9
9099.9
9909.9.
cun0.:
nn0~.:
nn«~.9
u00~.9
moo:.:o

9999.9

(N.

(nn«.9
cuom.o
0909.9
0:99.90

nnm .n

nn0~.0
0000.:
9nn~.9
909n.9
0~0«.:

cnh:.:v

mocn.9
«0.0.:
9000.:
~00n.:
mmo:.:
90.».9

9:99.:

am

oo.n.:
o~«n.9
m0rw.:
0009.:

mwcn.:

0:90.:
:«0n.9
9099.9
«00:.9
9990.9
«owa.:
0090.9
9:9».9
m«.~.9
mmon.:
0909.9
0:0».9
n~.n.9

:cco.~

0w

onn~.=
con~.9
.n0~.:
.0n~.9

mo.a.9

can: _uGoUu u U KaQZ Mnmfld.

0990.9
nonn.o
su0:.:
0099.9
«us~.9
cm9~.9
:00~.:
om.~.9
ooe~.9
99.n.9
0:0~.9
awcn.:
nnm~.9
.nm0.9

9:9:.w

9m

rncw.9
n0rn.9
0:00.:
wmc:.:

n:0~.:

.0»~.9
0:59.:
0909.9
«009.:
roo~.9
0000.:
c~09.:
so:~.:
ram:.:
99.9.9
s~90.9
c~99.9
nnm9.9
pmaw.:
r:m0.:

r:::.a

mm

0099.:
050:.:
rmu:.:
wwow.:

ro¢0.m

09-9.:
«50“.:
«n0«.9
0099.9
0999.9
0999.9
~0o~.9
mun~.:
990~.9
nsw0.:
0909.9
009:.:
«mun.9
9o9~.9
000:.9
com:.:
9999.9

«N

wmcn.9
99.9.9
99.9.9
90.9.9

nncn.9

ha
0»
n»
on
an
an
an
:n
on
ow
nu
cm
on
0“
nm
«a
nw

a.
0.
n.
a.
a.

5E)

9909.0
9099.9
9999.9
9999.9
9999.9
9909.9
9999.9
00.9.:
0909.9
9999.9
9009.9
9999.9

9099.0
9999.9
0000.0
9009.9
9009.9
m99~99
9~0999
-0~.9
9999.9
0909.9

0999.9

9999.:
90.9.9
0&0N.0
0999.9
0900.0
9999.9
90.9.9
n~9~.9
0009.9
0909.9
0909.9

c00«.0

0099.9
9999.9
090~.9
999~.9
9999.9
9999.9
9.09.9
0909.9
9m...9
9999.9

m~99.9

9009.0
0900.0
.009.0
0009.0
9000.9
900~.9
9oc~.9
0000.0
09~«.9
0090.9
0090.:
(900.9

0990.0
9999.0
(909.9
«009.9
099~.:
0909.9
9000.:
9999.9
0~:0.0
unc~.9

9.99.9

0000.0
9009.0
0909.0
9909.0
0009.0.
9999.9
0009.9
nn~9.9
9099.9
9909.9
0999.9.
9009.:

0909.0
9909.9
0909.9
009~.9
9009.9
9999.9
0099.9
0909.9
9099.9
0909.9.

00~9.9-

0000.9
0009.9
9009.0
9009.9
0000.:
9000.9
9099.9
9009.:
hn0N.:
0000.9
9090.9
090~.9

0999.9
9099.9
0099.9
0000.9
900~.9
9009.9

0n~9.u

(L)

9wrn.
(999.9
900~.o

n~m9.m

9000.0
9000.0
0000.9
«009.0
0909.0
9~0~.9
0009.:
0:0N.0
9009.9
0000.9
9000.9
~00N.0

9000.9
9009.:
000m.:
09.9.9
000~.0
m9.~.0
09.9.:
9~0m.9
(0.0.9
owcn.9

m0.~.9

9099.0
0000.0
0099.9
0990.9
9900.9
009~.9
on0~.9
0099.9
9009.9
99.0.9
0900.:
9900.9

9000.9
0009.0
00.0.:
.09.~.9
(:0n.9
999~.9
9~n9.:
0:.n.9
0909.9
.9.~.9

9~.9.—

vangucoU- I U VAQZManjq.

00aa.0
0009.0
0009.9
0090.9
0090.9
0099.9
9009.9
0909.9
0909.9
9090.9
.00~.9

09.0.9

.90».9
00.9.9
0009.0
0909.9
09.9.9
9909.0
09m~.9
pn¢~.0
o9.~.9
(9J~.9

0099.9

0909.0
0090.0
0000.0
.Non.0
0009.9
9009.9
9999.9
0909.9
0009.9
0909.9
.009.9

009N.9

0909.9
.99n.9
.009.9
90¢~.9
009~.9
.999.9
.00~.9
9999.9
0099.:
0009.:

0009.9

0000.0
0000.0
0900.0
”00".:
9000.9
990~.9
009~.9
0909.9
0009.9
9090.9
000~.0
0009.0

0000.0
0099.0
09o~.9
0999.0
9099.9
9999.9
0999.9
9909.9
9000.0
no:~.:

0nmw.:

00
90
00
an
00
no
90
90
90
0.

0.
90
00
00
00
n0
9.
90
9.
00

00

60

9090.9
9999.9
09.0.9
9099.9
9999.9
9900.0

0000.9

:0

9999.9
0990.0
0000.0
0999.9

9900.0

90.9.9
9999.9
9999.9
9.99.9
9999.9
9999.9
9999.9
9999.9

on

0990.0
0000.0
9909.9
9999.9

0990.0

0000.0
9099.9
.909.-
9909.9
0000.0
9000.0
99.9.9
.900.9
0000.0

on

0090.0
9000.0
9090.0
0000.0

«090.0

0900.0
9900.0
0000.0
0009.0
0009.0
0990.0
0000.0
9000.0
0000.0
0000.9

90

9000.0
0000.0
0000.0
0000.0

9..9.0

9090.0
0000.0
0090.9
0099.0
9999.9
9999.9
999..9
9909.9
9999.9
.9.9.9
9999.9

00

0000.9
9000.9
9990.9
0000.0

9999.9

9090.0
0009.9
90.9.9
9099.9
9099.9
99.0.9
90.0.9
9090.0
9009.0
0099.9
.900.9

0090.9

«0

9090.0
0000.0
9090.9
9009.0

0090.0

9900.9
0099.0
0000.0
9909.0
9999.9
9090.9
9090.0
9090.9
99.9.9
.999.9
9999.9
..99.9

9999.9

.0

9090.9
0090.:
0999.9
.9.~.0

0970.0

congfioU- - U vflozummd.

0009.9
9990.9
0009.9
9999.9
«009.0
0000.0
9.99.9
0090.0
0999.9
0099.9
9090.0
9099.9
9009.9

90:0.9

rm

9909.9
9099.9
«099.:
90.0.0

(Ovm.c

9.99.9
9.99..

.999.9.

0009.0

.999.9.
0090.0.
.999.9.

.0.9.9
9009.0
9000.0

9000.0.

9999.9
9090.9
9000.9

00

90.9.9
.009.9
v0.9.9
99.0.0

9999.0

9999.9
0909.0
9900.9
.99...
00.9.9
0000.0
9999.9
.999.9
9999.9
0090.9
9999.9
9999.9
0009.9
9999.9

0.99.9.

0000.9

90

0990.0
9000.0
0090.0
9090.0

9900.0

00
00
00

00
90
00
00
00
90
00
00
00
00
00
90

00
00
0.
00
90

61

cm

odom.o
nmon.°
nuan.o
flood.o
onom.o
xao~.°
nnmn.o
nmmm.o
cqv~.o
nomn.o
vorm.c
vwon.o
avenue
omomqo
oosn.o
nocm.o
—~mn.o
vaun.o

7n0u.o

ov

oafin.a
cann.o
csvn.o
nom«.o
nomw.o
momo.o
wnoa.o
oao«.o
ommm.o
vncm.c
mafiv.o
ooan.o
mnea.o
cno«.o
rn-.o
cnm~.o
wno~.o
nsvv.o

cfioo.o

xc

coan.o
vmn~.o
mxan.o
vnn«.o
aacn.o
monn.o
nvmn.c
voc~.o
hra~.o
mgom.o
unm~.o
wnmm.o
ncnfi.o
nmmm.o
mno~.o

mcon.o

«v

vmon.o
nvoa.o
uno~.o
eman.o
.mmo.o
scam.o
neom.o
"cm“.o
cocn.o
sc-.o
Hnmm.o
mnmn.o
cava.o
mmcn.o
~n-.o
ovm~.o
onflm.o
anon.o

«ukm.u

0v

covn.o
cunn.o
«can.o
noeo.o
mom~.o
m~ov.o
nova.”
«can.o
nNmH.c
mocn.o
«won.o
comm.“
«~n~.o
«vcn.o
scuv.o
«wam.o
nmn~.h
wowo.c

vaa.u

wv

oovm.o
ov««.o
sooH.o
coco.o
mnrm.o
vao~.o
mvvo.o
«ova.o

muco.o

v~.m.o
oveo.o
Kvoa.o
no.0.o
oar~.o
ovun.o
roq~.o
uv.H.o

a~.o.o

1v

coc~.o
comm.o
woun.a
pmpn.o
ram~.=
voo~.o
ommu.c
«coo.o
«can.c
nmcn.o
am.~.c
ookn.o
wacm.c
«ovn.c
qm«~.¢
unun.r
co.v.n
coin.P

.mu«..

«5:: 5:09- - .u V.:7u&14

noo«.o
ao««.c
cow~.o
nunn.c
owoa.o
cuac.c
cno~.c
«mad.c
corn.c
mono.c
cw«n.c
van.o
(ona.c
.o¢~.c
omv~.c
Ova.c
oncu.c
hosH.c

JHtwoc

coco.a

cowo.o

vvoo.c.
enmo.o.
os¢~.o

«ano.oo
vooo.ou
«mna.o

rnma.or
cnan.o

¢mvo.oo
ncwo.aa
camc.cu
rnmc.on
.mno.on
secr.cu
.~«0.cu
awra.o

.mvn.nu

«mom.n

encu.o
oooo.u

av

snu~.c
cunn.o
canv.o
mono.o
cmcn.c
coon.c
ono«.c
svo«.o
nmwa.o
wnnn.c
mnmn.c
nvnn.c
05cm.o
noo~.o
won~.c
cowv.c
soca.c
wovn.c

mo

I\‘

«.o

«c
at

no
.0
no
«0
«c
at
on
on
at
on
nr
or
no
«r
«r
cc

0'

62

monn.o
vawv.o
eovn.o
nama.o
awkwao
anan.o
-m~.o
nvo~.o
oaofl.o
conn.o
cooa.o
cwnn.o
mxn~.o
owv~.o
cnan.o

coco.a

m~n«.o
3:;
mn«~.o
oomv.o
vood.o
vom~.o
¢Ho~.o
onmo.o
cvvv.o
mkmn.o
comn.o
Hmvv.o
svmo.o
mwnn.o
cmn~.c
xfic~.o

cooo.a

«onv.o
vmnc.o
mocv.o
okoa.o
nvwn.a
nonv.o
«on~.o
maoa.o
o~n~.o
onwm.°
«\vv.o
Hotv.o
HH(~.o
vmvn.o
coon.o
aovv.o
mc¢m.o

Cuao.d

~o¢o.o
nom«.o
sssu.o
scon.o
anno.o
com«.o
«nan.o
sovo.o
mocn.o
mmm~.o
0.00.0
”oca.o
svco.o
oo«~.c
moma.o
comm.o
suum.o
ennw.o

cono.u

wonn.o
ouon.o
«mmn.a
nsco.a
nnon.°
r~o~.o
omsu.o
coo~.o
(vaa.m
noon.o
womn.u
onn~.o
n~m~.o
«onm.o
«con.u
noon.u
noa~.p
nwmv.n
ucmm.o

coon.H

«o.«.o
ovco.o
n~(«.o
nucn.o
oo.«.o
ov¢«.o
nov~.o
narn.o
norm.o
onqo.o
cn.«.o
co.~.o
onwa.o
qum.o
unra.o
oopa.o
ov«~.o
noco.o
mnum.o
waafl.o

Loruoa

con«.o
vnv«.o
so¢~.o
ooo~.o
n~n~.o
-;~.o
non~.o
voso.c
s~s~.c
vmo~.o
<~¢~.o
moon.o
«o.a.r

roan.n

Lt:
(mvv.c
.vu~.c
vmn~.e
umu~.¢
oou~..

70:0.H

c;::~::ev--q xmayurmm/u

cco«.o
anno.o
v«o«.c
co«a.c
cacn.c
omnn.c
odna.c
ro««.c
noou.c
acc~.c
:va«.c
nv'~.c
vona.c
(mma.c
FVKH.c
nvva.c
«ccu.o
.oaa.c
cocc.c
vafi.c
acn~.o
vcnm.c

(cro.a

rau«.o
no~«.o
.ono.o
1n«~.o
som«.o
sooa.c
.vs«.o
pnw«.c
ado~.o
pcc~.o
mncd.c
.vso.o
reco.o
rocfi.c
rvnfi.o

nvnfl.o

«can.o
noou.o
nanv.o
v«o«.e
ouun.c
csov.o
ooo«.o
nvn«.c
voom.c
n~nn.°
ncv~.o
mn¢m.o
comv.o
(non.o
(nun.c
comm.c
mon«.c
owvv.c
nona.c
(Han.c
(mnfi.o
wonn.c

rmnm.o

no
co
no
no
no
ac
on
on
hr
on
em
vr
mm
mm
«r
em
ow
ov
av
o.
nv
vv

n1

(33

coon.o
oflmn.o
somv.o
o~o°..
voov.o

coco.“

cc

mmo«.o
voc~.o
ooc«.a
nvsn.o
vvoa.o
onv~.o

cooo.«

om

qmnn.o
wovn.o
oom~.o
omo°.o
cosm.o
vom~.o
moua.o

coco.»

cm

eun~.o
cano.o
co-.o
«nno.o
«nn«.o
snn«.o
sosn.o
aoo:.°
coco.“

mm

oanv.o
cosn.c
«ooc.o
non~.o
nvov.o
noov.o
wom~.o
“on“.o
~»a~.o

cooo.a

cm

coco.“

to

u~ph.o
nn-.o
oucn.o
~N¢N.o
~nr~.o
notn.c
“no“.o
cnr~.o
nov~.o
«ooc.o

coco.“

an

o¢o~.e
cocood

v0

e~'~.o
vvu~.o
oomn.o
oom~.c
en‘~.c
oocn.c
vo««.o
nor«.c
ovn~.o
wmnv.c
nonn.e

coco.fi

um

vwzcflcoUn uU VADZMnmnmd.

on»...
“do“.a

coca.“

no

onrN.o
nn«~.c
nmcn.e
nsco.c
«nn~.o
auwm.c
rovo.o
vnwa.o
mma«.e
nc¢n.c
cvm~.c
toco.c

...c..o..F

rm

cvxu.o
.ono.o
«00“.:
coco.«

no

sno~.o
hood.o
.nmn.o
«nsm.c

noon.o
rkna.o
«ns~.o
oann.o
verm.o
wo¢n.o
vuw«.o

coco.a

am

aooa..
¢.un.o
ossn.o
o~c«.o
cage.«
“0

«son.e
soo~.o
«vcv.o
nas«.e
weav.c
nonv.o
ouu~.o
noon.e
oou«.o
«mxn.o
cvmn.c
cmmn.c
«vcm.o
wnvv.o

coco.“

am

no
to
ac
no
u.

no
vo
no
no
«0
cc
om
on
no
or
no
9r
nr
«m
«m

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alexander, S. The path to wedded bliss: Fight promoter for the
battle of the sexes. Life, May 27, 1963, 102ff.

Bach, G. R. A theory of intimate aggression. Psychological
Reports, 1963, 12, 449-450.

 

Bach, G. R. Marathon group dynamics: II. Dimensions of helpful-
ness: therapeutic aggression. Psychological Reports,
1967, 20, 1147-1158 (a).

 

Bach, G. R. Marathon group dynamics: III. Disjunctive contacts.
Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 1163-1172 (b).

 

Bach, G. R. , and Wyden, P. The intimate enemy: How to fight
fair in love and marriag. New York: William Morrow and
Co. , 1968.

 

 

Bacon, C. L., Bach, G. R., and Searles, H. F. Hate and aggres-
sion in psychotherapy. Voices--the Art and Science of
Psychotherapy, 1965, 1(2T 18-31.

 

 

Bandura, A. The influence of rewarding and punishing consequences
to the model on the acquisition and performance of imitative
responses. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University,
1962.

Bandura, A. , Ross, D., and Ross, S. Transmission of aggression
through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 575-582.

 

 

Bandura, A. , Ross, D. , and Ross, S. Imitation of film-mediated
aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psycholog , 1963, 66, 3-11 (a).

 

64

65

Bandura, A. , Ross, D. , and Ross, S. Vicarious reinforcement and
imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 1963, 67, 601-607 (b).

 

Barclay, A. M. , and Haber, R. N. The relation of aggressive to
sexual motivation. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33(3),
462-475.

 

Hare, A. P. Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1962, pp. 240-242.

 

Hurley, J. R. Notes of Dr. Bach's demonstration of the clinical
programming of aggression in couple therapy. _Michigan
Society for Group Psychotherapy, Fall Workshop, 1963.

Johnson, E. Z. Attitudes of children toward authority as projected
in their doll play at two age levels. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Harvard University, 1951.

Schneider, S. Analysis of marital fight styles. Checklist taken
from George Bach' s presentation to the Michigan Group
Psychotherapy Association, Fall Workshop, 1963.

Sears, P. S. Doll play aggression in normal young children:
Influence of sex, age, sibling status, father! s absence.
Psychological Monggraphs, 1951, 65, No. 6 (Whole
No. 323).

 

Wagner, M. K. Reinforcement of the expression of anger through
role-playing. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1968,
6(1), 91-95.

 

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1962.

 

m 1.3 1969‘

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

 

' 3 1293 03015 5164