DIFFERENCES IN DECISION-MAKING INTERACTIONS OF
COUPLES WITH PROBLEM OR COMPETENT CHILDREN-

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JEFFREY R. SCHREIBER
1976

W

['1
I“ L133! RY
M-ILI-II'CINL l/ wiltc
University

 
       

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
D - pp ,’ ' D _ ‘ ' ’ ;. ~— ‘ .
fr erznus Io PdflhS‘lpn- Mg Imm in'fimficng
GIL COLL—F Its“ WIT") IJFCO Ixfm cr CC’ijC ILmIL Chi Iqum

presented by

JEEP”? RWSChreilw

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

WW . D . degreeinCI-Ifl-‘CGI BytI’th—gjj

 

/'J:§‘/[/A jot professor

ABSTRACT

Differences in Decision-Making Interactions of Couples
With Problem or Competent Children

By Jeffrey R. Schreiber

The present study was designed to investigate differences
in interaction in terms of communicating and arriving at
decisions between parents of children who were rated by their
teachers as being highly competent (Group I), and parents of
children who were rated by their teachers as being low in com-
petence or who were clinic-referred (Group II). It was expected
that Group I couples would be more efficient and effective in
their interaction than would Group II couples.

Subjects were 35 couples divided into the two groups
(20 in Group I, 15 in Group II). The data, where joint res-
ponses were obtained for husbands and wives in each couple,
were analyzed by means of 2 x 2 analyses of variance and, where
separate ratings were obtained for husbands and wives, by 2 x 2
x 2 analyses of variance, with family role (i.e., husband or
wife) treated as a repeated measure within each dyad.

The results indicated that, as predicted, there were
several significant differences between the two groups of
couples. Group I couples were found to display significantly

greater amounts of Spontaneous Agreement, Choice Fulfillment,

Jeffrey R. Schreiber

and Information Exchanged, and significantly lesser amounts
of Chaotic Responses and Silence than did Group II couples.
These findings support the position that studies of spouse
interaction can help us understand child and family dysfunc-
tioning.

The results were discussed in terms of their relevance
to current research on family interaction. Limitations of
the present study, such as the relatively small number of
subjects used, and the need for future research, to explore,
for example, the feasibility of implementing training programs

for engaged couples or newlyweds prior to their becoming

/ ’ M T /

M
Date: ”lg/7b

parents, were discussed.

Dissertation Committee:

Lawrence Messé and Gary Stollak, Co-Chairmen
Donald Grummon
John McKinney

DIFFERENCES IN DECISION-MAKING INTERACTIONS OF

COUPLES WITH PROBLEM OR COMPETENT CHILDREN

BY

Jeffrey Rf Schreiber

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1976

Dedicated to Sue and Mountain

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank firstly Gary Stollak and Larry
Messé, my committee co-chairmen. Gary has literally been
with me from.the start and has provided support, advice,
instruction and encouragement when I have needed it most.
Larry also has been consistently ready and willing to help,
and has contributed greatly to the design, execution and in-
terpretation of this research. And, throughout all, each has
somehow been able to keep his sense of humor. Without these
two people I cannot imagine having gotten to this point.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Don
Grummon and John McKinney for their participation in my com-
mittee and for the help and advice they have provided.

Finally, I would like to thank Jim DeGraaf, Rick Crane,
Bill Miller, Karen Stone, Robin Murav and Kathy Flynn for

their aid in coding for the study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .
I. INTRODUCTION .

Communication: Functional and Dysfunctional .

Studies of Family and Marital Communication:
Clinical Evidence . .

Studies of Family and Marital Communication:
Experimental Evidence

Family Communication
Spouse Communication

Studies of Decision- -making Behavior: Inter-
action Measures of Efficiency . .

Interaction Measures of Conflict and
Dominance . .

Communication of Acceptance .

The Present Study .

Predictions .

II. METHOD .

Procedure and Rationale for Subject Selection.

Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Categories . . . . . . .
Coding

III. RESULTS
Reliability of the Rating Categories
Analysis of the Data and Tests of the
Predictions . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Results
IV. DISCUSSION .
Category Predictions .

Spontaneous Agreement .
Choice Fulfillment .

iv

.10
.18
23
24
25
28

28

'. 3o
.32
.34
.36
.36

. 37
. 42

. 43
. 43

. 43
. 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued . . .)

"Chaotic" Responses .
Information Exchanged .
Silence . . . .
Simultaneous Speech .

Number of "1's " Spoken .
Number of "WE' s" Spoken .
Decision Time .

Interruptions

Number of Times Spoken
Length of Time Spoken . .
Communication of Acceptance .

Relations Between Dependent Measures

Limitations of the Present Study .
Current Research Trends . .
Implications for Future Research .
Implications for Practice .

V. CONCLUSION .

APPENDIX A .

APPENDIX B .

REFERENCES .

.101

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Couples and Mean Age of Their Child-
ren For Each Condition of the Study . .

Mean Percentage Agreement with "Expert" Across
Raters Before and After Coding .

Mean Scores and Significance Tests for Couples
in Group I (Parents of "High Competent" Children)
and Group II (Parents of Clinic-Referred and
"Low Competent" Children) for Predictions of
Higher Group I Scores Across Sex of Child and
Husband-Wife Scores (Where Separately Obtained)

Mean Scores and Significance Tests for Couples
in Group I (Parents of "High Competent" Children)
and Group II (Parents of Clinic- Referred and
"Low Competent" Children) for Predictions of
Lower Group I Scores Across Sex of Child and
Husband-Wife Scores (Where Separately Obtained)

Mean Scores and Significance Tests for Differ-
ences in Categories "Number of Times Spoken"

and ”Length of Time Spoken" Between Husbands

and Wives in Group I ("High Competent" Children)
and Grou II (Clinic-Referred and "Low Competent
Children Across Sex of Child .

Additional Family Information .
Correlations Between Categories .

Means and Standard Deviations of Scores for
Group I (Parents of "High Competent" Children:
A1) and Group II (Parents of "Low Competent" and
Clinic— Referred Children: A ) By Sex of Child

(Male: B ; Female: Bz)For Cate ories Where Husband

and Wife Scores Were Jointly Obtained .

Means and Standard Deviations of Scores for Group I

(Parents of "High Com mpetent" Children: A1) and
Group II (Parents of 'Low Competent" and "Clinic-
Referred Children: A ) By Sex of Child (Male: B
Female: B for Categories Where Separate Husb aid
(C1) and 2Wife (C2) Scores Were Obtained.

vi

. 39

. 4O

. 41
. 71
. 73

. 74

. 75

LIST OF TABLES (Continued . . .)

Table
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data

Collected for ”Spontaneous Agreement" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data
Collected for "Decision Time" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data
Collected for "Chaotic Responses" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data
Collected for "Silence" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data
Collected for "Simultaneous Speech Category” .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data
Collected for ”Choice Fulfillment" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data

Collected for "Information Exchanged" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data
Collected for "Interruptions" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data

Collected for "Number of Times Spoken" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data

Collected for ”Length of Time Spoken" Category .

Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data
Collected for "Number of 'I's' Spoken
Category . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data
Collected for "Number of 'WE's‘ Spoken
Category . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Analysis of Variance from Data

Collected for ”Communication of Acceptance"
Category .

V11

77

78

. 78

79

. 79

. 80

. 81

. 81

. 82

. 82

>r1

'71

(I)

"('1

I . INTRODUCTION

 

The purpose of the present study was to compare the
interaction of parents of teacher-rated "high competent"
children to that of parents of clinic-referred and teacher-
rated "low competent" children. It is widely held (e.g.,
Sullivan, 1953; Leary, 1957; Baumrind, 1973) that the self-
concept and feelings of self-esteem are developed, to some
extent, through the functional communication from significant
others (e.g., parents). And, it seemed reasonable to specu-
late that the patterns of communication that couples engage
in with each other are similar to parent-child communication
patterns, including those that contribute to the child's
sense of competence.

The conceptual approach to spouse interaction and
parent-child relations that served as the basis for the pre-
sent study assumes that the cognitive and social development
of children is largely a function of parental childrearing
practices; thus, with varying degrees of consciousness and
conscientiousness, parents "create" their children psycho-

lngically (see, for example, Baumrind, 1967, 1973). Parents
Cijhffer in the degree to which they wish to influence their
(zlirildren, and they differ in their effectiveness as teachers

aI'llucimodels. They also differ in their ability to communicate

2
clearly with their children and in their desire to reason with
and listen to the child's ideas and objectives. It is likely
that this difference in ability to communicate with their
children is just one facet of a difference among adults in
the ability in general to communicate clearly, to reason
with, and to listen to all other persons, including each
other.

With increased interest in and use of conjoint therapy
techniques such as family therapy, much recent research has
involved the study of interaction in interpersonal relation-
ships. Also, there appears to be an increase in interest in
the study of the communication process, specifically, its
application to the study of disturbed or pathological inter-

personal relationships.

Communication: Functional and Dysfunctional

 

A lack of effective communication may be one of the
primary reasons why families do not function optimally (Ard,
1969; Bell, 1962; Haley, 1959a). The lack of clarity of come
Inunication between spouses and between parents and their
children may be more pertinent to the development of psycho-
IOgical disturbances than are open disagreements and conflicts.

Functional communication is comprised of (l) the ability to
StIfilte clearly what one wants to communicate, (2) congruency
in the messages that are sent, (3) an ability to ask for, and

be receptive to, feedback, and (4) techniques for negotiating

and checking the giving and receiving of meaning between one's

 

Cll
an
tr.
9T.

he

I”.3

Be

*h

4

from parents, especially, the child will experience diffi—
culty in differentiating himself and his feelings from them
and their feelings. Communication is a process inherent in
the child's learning to structure his/her world, to influ-
ence and predict others' responses, and to esteem him/
herself as a masterful person (Satir, 1967). Parental vali-
dation is crucial here; to the extent that parent-child
communication is unclear, inconsistent, incongruent, or
otherwise impaired, the child's self-concept and his/her
ability to function effectively also may be affected. If
the child cannot perceive and interpret him/herself and
his/her feelings accurately, if she cannot accurately inter-
pret external messages, then the assumptions upon which the
child bases his/her actions would be faulty and his/her
efforts to adapt to reality would be confused and inappropri-

ate .

Studies of Family and Marital Communication: Clinical Evidence
Many of the conclusions drawn about family and marital
communication are based on systematic clinical observations
of "disturbed" families. These studies often found that in
pathological relationships there were noticeable breakdowns
111 communication. In abnormal families, members did not talk
to each other as freely, frequently or explicitly as did
meI'llbers of "normal" or non-pathological families. Communica-
tion patterns were more rigid; also, members of abnormal

iféillrilies tended to withhold information from each other about

 

4
from parents, especially, the child will experience diffi-
culty in differentiating himself and his feelings from them
and their feelings. Communication is a process inherent in
the child's learning to structure his/her world, to influ-
ence and predict others' responses, and to esteem him/
herself as a masterful person (Satir, 1967). Parental vali-
dation is crucial here; to the extent that parent-child
communication is unclear, inconsistent, incongruent, or
otherwise impaired, the child's self-concept and his/her
ability to function effectively also may be affected. If
the child cannot perceive and interpret him/herself and
his/her feelings accurately, if she cannot accurately inter-
pret external messages, then the assumptions upon.which the
child bases his/her actions would be faulty and his/her
efforts to adapt to reality would be confused and inappropri-

ate .

Sgudies of Family and Marital Communication: Clinical Evidence
Many of the conclusions drawn about family and marital
communication are based on systematic clinical observations
of'"disturbed" families. These studies often found that in
Imathological relationships there were noticeable breakdowns
111 communication. In abnormal families, members did not talk
to each other as freely, frequently or explicitly as did
members of "normal" or non-pathological families. Communica-
tion patterns were more rigid; also, members of abnormal

1féillrilies tended to withhold information from each other about

 

the

Tu:

VI

IV.J

5
their needs, wishes and desires, which often went unverbalized.
Further, communication in pathological families tended to be
more incomplete, fragmented and confusing than was communi-
cation in "normal" families (Watzlavick SE a1.,l967). And,
parents in pathological families (e.g., parents of young
adult schizophrenics) tended to talk in ways that left the
listener without a sense of closure. They interrupted and
disrupted transactions in which they were participating, used
words peculiarly and reasoned deviantly (Singer and Wynne,
1966).

These studies (e.g., Fleck gt 31.,1963) also found
that schizophrenic children lack a clear sex identity and
maturity because of their parents' lack of their own sex-role
identity and their poor functioning as models. In order to
acquire a sense of worth in one's own meleness or femaleness,
a child needs a parent of the opposite sex who can communicate
value and appreciation for the spouse.
§tudies of Family and Marital Communication: Experimental

Evidence—Family Communication

In studies that compared "normal" (i.e., non-clinic,
non-pathological, or families without a referred member) and
'habnormal" (i.e., clinic-referred or pathological) families,

-Ffiriedman and Friedman (1970) found that composite stories from
Schizogenic families were more vague and confused, fragmented
iirlti less complete than were stories from "normal" families.

‘Al<=<:ording to Farina and Dunham (1963), there is less

 

6
communication clarity in pathological families, and schizo-
genic families display more failure, confusion and blurred
communication during interactional tasks than do control
families (Friedman and Friedman, 1970; Singer and Wynne, 1963).
Pathological families that were studied also produced more
ambiguous and less adequate explanations (Levin, 1966).
Further, there was a greater amount of conflict in schizogenic
and clinic families as compared to non-clinic or "highly
rated" families (Farina and Dunham, 1963; Friedman and
Friedman, 1970; Leighton, Stollak and Ferguson, 1971).
Generally, the mother-father dyad in these "abnormal" families
was characterized by more conflict and aggression. Mbreover,
normal families were found to be both more expressive and
more positive in the quality of the expressed affect (Mishler
and Waxler, 1968). Thus, generally, there seems to be poorer
communication and greater conflict in pathological families as
compared to normal families.

An important finding of Friedman and Friedman's (1970)
study was that differences between schizophrenic and normal
families could not be attributed to the schizophrenic member's
jpresence and participation. Thus, significant differences were
found in comparisons between the activities of normal families

«811d schizophrenic families whether or not the schizophrenic
member was present during the task. With respect to inter-
actional measures of conflict, failure and confusion, signi-

iijcaant differences were found between normal and schizophrenic

 

7
families, but not between schizophrenic families in which the
schizophrenic member was present and those in which s/he
was absent. Also, Mishler and Waxler (1968) found that while
many of the significant differences between normal and schizo-
phrenic families were restricted to comparisons of behavior
emitted during sessions in which parents interacted with the
child, still, differences between parents of schizophrenic
children and parents of normal children were more striking
than were differences between the schizophrenic and normal
children. These findings suggest that the significant inter-
actional differences often lie in the spouse interaction,
which may reflect a more general family pattern.

Summarizing the results of studies of clinic versus
normal families, Moore (1966) notes that, in comparison to
clinic families, normal families are characterized by more
intermember agreement, a greater capacity for realizing common
decisions in an egalitarian fashion, more tolerance of indi-
vidual independence in thought and action, more interpersonal
warmth, less manifest tension and a greater degree of
"happiness." Both parents in normal families displayed more
(Iverall effectiveness and satisfaction within their roles.
Similar results were found in studies that compared families

VV1:th "high adjusted" children to those with "low adjusted"

children (Odom, Seeman and Newbrough, 1971). Generally, the
results of these studies are similar to those that compared
clinic to normal families (e.g., St. Pierre, Stollak and
I"eili‘guson, and Messé 1971).

 

 

IE
St
an

R0

'n
A;

ti

ha

Spouse Communication

Navran (1967) used self-report measures to assess mari-
tal adjustment and found a positive correlation between a
couple's marital satisfaction and their verbal and non-verbal
communication. "Happily married" couples seemed to communi-
cate more clearly both verbally and non-verbally. Navran
(1967) also found that couples rated high in marital adjust-
ment, when compared to those rated low in marital adjustment,
indicated that they more frequently discussed pleasant things,
felt more understood by their spouses, were less likely to
break off communication, showed more sensitivity to each
other's feelings, made more frequent use of words that had
private meanings for them, and communicated nonverbally to a
greater degree via exchange of glances.

Further support for the position that there is a
relationship between adjustment and communication comes from a
study by Kahn (1970) which found that dissatisfied husbands
and wives are particularly prone to misinterpreting each other's
nonverbal signs. Dissatisfied husbands were more inclined
than were satisfied husbands to attribute negative connota-
‘tions to what their wives said were attempts to communicate

Imappiness, playfulness and affection. Thus, an important
aSpect of marital disharmony may be the misunderstanding or
misinterpreting of nonverbally communicated intentions, atti-
tudes and wishes. Conflicts often would occur because partners

£18asume, incorrectly, that they understand each other's wishes

 

9
and/or their own wishes are understood.

Raskin (1967) states that individuals enter late
relationships with different codes of communication that are
indigenous to their different family systems. These differ-
ing codes can affect the way an individual responds to his or
her perceptions of the relationship, how s/he interprets the
partner's responses and, in this way, the codes affect both
the communications and the relationship of the couple (Ard,
1969). According to Navran (1967), communication and marital
adjustment are so intertwined that any event having an effect
on one will have a similar effect on the other. This pers—
pective emphasizes the importance for the marital relation-
ship of good listening and responding, that is, good communi-
cation in an ongoing interactional process.

Murphy and Mendelson (1973) observed couples in a joint
story-telling task. Couples rated low in marital adjustment
seemed more anxious and had infrequent eye contact. Moreover,
they tended to adopt distinct patterns of interaction while
working on the task. For example, some low adjustment couples
were more involved with each other on a relationship level
than on a content 1evel--that is, they were more concerned
‘With who made the decision or who talked more, and they made
disparaging comments about the other's contributions. In a
related study using this same sample, Mendelson (1970) found
that couples low in marital adjustment who exhibited this

interaction pattern also tended to have a higher number of

10
negative responses to each other than did couples in the high
marital adjustment group. Other low marital adjustment
couples appeared not to be involved with each other on either
a relationship or a content level; instead, each member
attempted to complete the task on his or her own.

Studies of Decision-Making Behavior: Interaction Measures of
EffiEiency

 

 

Ferreira and his colleagues have done extensive work
in measuring interactional behavior in terms of decision-
making in normal and abnormal families. Ferreira (1963)
attempted to determine whether a particular aspect of family
interaction, that is, making group decisions, would differ-
entiate between normal and pathological families. The test
that he administered consisted of ordering three choices for
each of sixteen emotionally neutral items according to prefer-
ence. Members of the family then were asked to order their
choices for each item jointly. Four different types of deci-
sions, comparing individual decisions to group decisions, were
obtained: (1) unanimous decision or spontaneous agreement--
where the members' joint answer was the same as the initial
answer for all the family members; (2) majority decision--
joint answer was the same as the initial answer for two of
the three members; (3) dictatorial decision-~joint answer was
the same as the answer of one member; and (4) chaotic decision--
joint answer was different than all the initial answers.

The results confirmed Ferreira's (1963) expectation

that greater agreement would be found among the individual

11

members of normal than among those from abnormal families,
since he reasoned that non-pathology and openness and clarity
of communications go hand in hand. Furthermore, the results
indicated that schizophrenic families studied manifested a
greater degree of pathology than non—schizophrenic families.

Ferreira and Winter (1965) also investigated family
decision-making in normal and abnormal families. The families
were triads of father, mother and child that were classified
into one of two diagnostic groups: (1) The normal group was
composed of families in which (a) there was no known emotional
or criminal problem for any of its members for a period of at
least five years prior to the testing; (b) no one had been
received or been recommended to receive any form of psycho-
therapy for at least the past five years; and (c) the overall
behavior of the family had been considered normal by the
referring source. (2) The abnormal group was composed of
families in which the child had an emotional problem, as evalu-
ated by an independent professional mental health agent.
Depending on the label given to the child, a family was placed
in one of three subgroups: schizophrenia-producingfamilies,
in which the child in the test had been diagnosed as schizo-
phrenic; delinquency-producing families, in which the child had
been involved with the law for delinquent behavior of the
aggressive, acting-out type; and maladjusted families, in
which the child, while neither schizophrenic nor delinquent,

received labels such as neurotic, maladjusted or phobic.

12

The task for a family was to fill out a questionnaire
individually, and then together as a group. The questionnaire
(from which the one used in the present study is adapted) des-
cribes a number of make-believe, yet possible, situations
about which the family members (first as individuals, later
as a group) were to indicate solutions that they liked and
disliked. In this manner, comparisons were made between in-
dividual choices and family decisions. The situations (seven
of which comprised the questionnaire used in this study) and
the alternatives provided (ten) were chosen both for their
comparability and their relatively neutral content. Three
basic questions of this investigation were: (1) How such
agreement was there among family members in terms of what they
liked (positive choices) and what they did not like (negative
choices) prior to their getting together to interchange views?
(2) How much time did the families need to reach all of the
seven decisions asked for in the questionnaire? (3) How
appropriate were these family decisions in terms of fulfilling
the wishes of the individual family members?

The measures used were: (1) Spontaneous Agreement (SA),
the amount of agreements, or matched choices, that existed
among two (in the dyad) or three (in the triad) family members
"spontaneously," that is, before consultation with each other;
(2) Decision Time (DT), the time in minutes spent by the
family to complete the joint questionnaire; and (3) Choice

Fulfillment (CF) of the family as a group, and of its individual

13
members, a measure of the number of instances in which what
the individual wanted (as expressed in the individual's
questionnaire) became what the family decided (as expressed
in the family's questionnaire).

The results of this investigation again indicated that,
as Ferreira and Winter (1965) noted, normal families differed
in demonstrable ways from abnormal families. Normal families,
when contrasted with abnormal ones, were shown: (1) to have
a greater agreement about what their members liked or dis-
liked prior to any exchange of information; (2) to spend less
time in the reaching of family decisions; and (3) to arrive
at more appropriate decisions in terms of the fulfillment of
the family members' individual choices.

Ferreira and Winter (1965) speculated about the ante-
cedents of the difference that appears to exist between normal
and pathologic families in the amount of spontaneous agreement
displayed. They offered two explanations, not mutually exclu-
sive, that might account for this phenomenon: (l) The normal
families--or, more accurately, the parents in these families--
might have had, since the beginning of their relationship, a
higher agreement with each other in the attitudes, values, etc.,
than that found in abnormal families. This suggests that there
might be greater homogony ("likes marry likes") in the selec-
tion of a mate among would-be members of normal families than
among would-be members of abnormal families. (2) The observed

differences in spontaneous agreement may reflect differences in

14

communication or in exchange of information among family
members, a view that, according to the authors, would conform
with clinical impressions of impaired communications in psycho-
pathology. Presumably, also, such differences would be
reflected in spouse (dyadic) interaction as well as in those
family groups that include children.

According to Ferreira and Winter (1965), findings for
Decision Time (DT) and Choice Fulfillment (CF) indicated a
greater relative efficiency of family functioning for
families with "normal" children. For DT they assume that,
other things being equal, the more time a family requires to
reach decisions, the less efficient it is. CF indicates
efficiency and effectiveness of functioning in the sense that
it represents the degree to which the family decision met the
wishes of its members. While the variable SA appears to refer
to a stable aspect of the family group (or couple), the vari-
ables DT and CF appear to refer to more dynamic aspects of
decision-making, with DT expressing input and CF expressing
output.

A family that takes an excessively long time to reach
joint decisions is likely to be inefficient and ineffective
when it is confronted with "real-life" situations or events
that require family decisions. Although speed of family
decisions cannot be equated with normality, it seems reason-
able to assume that for every situation and circumstance there

is an "average" or normal decision time beyond which one could

15
speak of wastefulness in family functioning. It seems, also,
that the variable CF may be a good indicator of family effec-
tiveness in terms of the satisfactions that the family group
(as the sum.total of its members) can derive from joint
decisionrmaking, in which one of the most important goals of
the group is the fulfillment of the needs and wishes of its
members. A family in which more of such wishes are met is
one in which there is likely to be greater contentment than a
family in which the individual wishes of its members are
gratified much less.

Ferreira, Winter and Poindexter (1966) studied four
family groups, a normal group and three groups of "abnormal"
families--schizophrenic, delinquent and maladjusted. All
families who participated performed the task of telling three
TAT stories jointly. The most significant finding of this
study was that normal families spent relatively less time in
silence than abnormal families. The relative amount of
silence was greatest for the schizophrenia-producing and delin-
quency-producing families. They also found that the relative
amount of silence appeared to be more related to the diagnostic
category than to the specific TAT cards used. The amounts of
silence remained relatively constant from story to story for
the diagnostic groups, with the schizophrenic and delinquent
families having the greatest amount of silence from story to
story and normal families the least. These findings emphasize

the importance of silence as an interactional variable that is

16
sensitive to, and associated with, family pathology. Also,
the greater time required for storymaking by these families
implicates silence as a possible cause of the abnormal family's
lower efficiency. These families were prevented from com-
pleting a story in the allotted time period because they spent
too much time in silence; that is, they talked less and ex-
changed less information than did normal families.

According to Ferreira and Winter (1968), in abnormal
families people did not seem to talk to each other as freely,
frequently or explicitly as they did in normal families. In-
stead, members of abnormal families tended to withhold infor-
mation about their feelings and wants from each other. They

"didn't communicate,‘ and their likes and dislikes often went
unverbalized. Ferreira and Winter (1968) attempted to deter-
mine if such quantitative disturbances in intrafamily communi-
cation could account for the lower efficiency and effective-
ness in decision-making that their past research demonstrated
existed in abnormal families. Utilizing the unrevealed
differences procedure described in their previous (1965) study,
they focused on two questions: (1) How often did family
members inform each other of their "real" likes and dislikes;
that is, the likes and dislikes that they previously indicated
in the individually completed questionnaires? (2) What was the
percentage of decision time "wasted away" in silence by the

family? The amount of information exchanged among family

members‘about their respective likes and dislikes was measured

17

by listening to the taped family discussion and tabulating
the instances when a given family member was heard to say to
the family explicitly that he/she liked or disliked some alter-
native available in the questionnaire. The relative amount of
time spent in silence by the family was calculated by measur-
ing silent time as a percentage of the total decision time.

The results showed that the amount of information ex-
changed among family members was significantly greater for
normal than for abnormal families. Further, the decrease in
explicit information exchanged among members of abnormal
families appeared to be a function of the whole family, not of
any one individual family member. The average score of every
family member was less than that of the corresponding member
in normal families, and the child in abnormal families even
seemed to have a tendency to inform more than did his/her
parents. These findings suggest, perhaps, that the amount of
information exchanged would differ significantly between normal
and abnormal groups if any interaction between spouses were
observed (as in the present study).

The second major hypothesis of Ferreira and Winter's
(1968) investigation also was corroborated: the relative
amount of time spent in silence was found to be significantly
greater in abnormal than in normal families. According to
Ferreira and Winter (1968), the relative usage of silence may
be a rather stable interactional characteristic of the family.
Also, they note that to the extent that such findings may be

generalized to "real-life" situations, it appears likely that

18

not only do members of abnormal families provide inadequate
expression of their individual preferences and choices, but
the lower informational state must interfere with the long-
range acquisition of common values and views among the family
members.

Generally, as noted by Ferreira and Winter (1968),
the long-range effect of this inefficiency and ineffectiveness
of abnormal families as reflected in decision-making tasks
seems quite inimical to the proper functioning of the family
system. And, in any case, it is apparent that normal family
and spouse decision-making and functioning presuppose adequate
communication. In this respect, it may be reasonable to
postulate that all forms of interactional pathology are both

cause and effect to disturbances in intra-family communication.

Interaction Measures of Conflict and Dominance

In addition to the interaction measures discussed pre-
viously, we note that Raush, Goodrich and Campbell (1963) and
Scanzoni (1965) emphasize the importance of measuring family
and dyadic conflict through interaction. And, as Satir (1967)
points out, whenever a person communicates, s/he not only is
making a statement, but also is asking something of the
receiver and trying to influence the receiver to give him/her
what s/he wants; thus, in a sense, the communication is an
attempt to control or dominate the other person.

Farina and Dunham (1963) felt that the level of family

conflict--and, thus, the levels of ineffectiveness and

l9
inefficiency--is reflected in the number of interruptions and
the frequency of simultaneous speech. They defined inter-
ruptions as the number of times for hypothetical conflict-
laden problem situations presented that one family member
interrupted another. Frequency of simultaneous speech was
defined as the number of occasions during which family members
spoke concurrently. Further, the measures Number of Times
Spoken (the sum of times for the problem situations that each
of the family members speaks) and Length of Time Spoken (time
in seconds that each family member speaks) were seen by Farina
and Dunham (1963) as indices of dominance. Thus, the more
dominant member of the group was assumed to speak a greater
number of times and for a greater length of time than the
others in the group.

Leighton, Stollak and Ferguson (1971) found that when
highly rated and clinic families were asked to perform the
same tasks, clear differences in their manner of communica-
tion were demonstrated. Basic differences in the interactive
styles of the two groups of families were found in terms of
who was the dominant member of the family and the clarity of
communication between family members.

The results of their study showed that the clinic
mother spoke more often, for a greater total length of time,
and for longer durations than did the clinic father. These
findings suggest, if we assume that measures of speaking time

and frequency are indices of dominance, that the reversal of

20

mother-father roles in the family extends beyond schizophrenic
families and includes those whose sons are underachievers and/or
have behavior problems in school. For the highly rated
families there also was a definite pattern of dominance, but
it seemed less clear-cut than in the clinic family. The
fathers in this highly rated group spoke more often and for a
greater total length of time than the mothers, but the average
duration of speech was approximately the same for the two.
These results imply that there is a more democratic power
relationship in such families as compared to clinic families.

In terms of the number of interruptions, it was found
that the fathers of clinic-referred children interrupted more
often than the fathers in highly rated families, perhaps in
an attempt to "fight" the perceived passive position in the
family (Leighton g£_gl.,197l). The mothers of clinic-referred
children, despite their apparent dominant position, interrupted
more often than did the mothers in the other group. The
authors felt that the mothers in the former group must struggle
to maintain their dominant position, while the mothers in the
latter group are more content with their role in the family
hierarchy. The mothers and fathers in the highly rated families
were interrupted the same number of times despite the fact that
the fathers in these families spoke for a greater total length
of time and more often. The mothers of clinic-referred child-
ren, on the other hand, were interrupted more than the fathers,
again indicating dissatisfaction in the clinic family regarding

the relative position of the family members.

21

Thus, the father seemed to be the "dominant" member of
the highly rated family and his dominant role was accepted by
the others in the family. The clinic mother, on the other
hand, appeared to be the dominant member of the clinic family
on the basis of speaking time and frequency of speaking. How-
ever, the interruption data indicated that this state of
affairs is not acceptable to the other members of the family
and that the clinic mother must struggle to maintain her un-
stable position of dominance.

In terms of clarity of communication between family
members, the clinic families were found to show a significantly
greater number of instances of simultaneous speaking than did
the highly rated families. This finding supported earlier
results which showed that greater conflict and less communica-
tion clarity occurred in pathological families. The interrup-
tion data indicated that members of clinic families seemed less
able to follow democratic techniques in reaching family deci-
sions; the clinic family exhibited a significantly greater
number of total interruptions than did the highly rated family.
As Leighton st 21. point out, an unacceptable power hierarchy
may lead to a high incidence of interruptions and simultaneous
speech as the members of the clinic family attempt to make
their wishes known. Once the democratic process breaks down,
individual members must attempt to disrupt in order to gain a
voice in family decisions. The necessity of interruptions
establishes a vicious cycle in which one interruption leads to

another, resulting in the eventual breakdown of communication.

22

Cross and Aron (1971) investigated the relationship
between marital conflict and interactional differences between
couples. Forty married student couples were interviewed.
These interview sessions were taped and subsequently scored for
interruptions, simultaneous speech, percentage of time spoken,
and I-WE ratios. These measures were viewed as indices of
dyadic conflict. In terms of the I-WE ratio measure, the
number of "1's" and "WE's" spoken represented, according to
Raush, Marshal and Featherman (1970), feelings of egocentricity
in the couple (or family) versus feelings of partnership and
cooperation, respectively. Presumably, the latter feelings
also reflect greater effectiveness on the part of the couple.

Raush gt 31. (1963) supported this position in a study
of communication in an "Open" marital structure (i.e., one in
which a great many of the solutions are not predetermined by
society but rather left open for the couple to decide, e.g.,
where the see—role boundaries shall lie). The married couples
were interviewed numerous times, with attention focused speci-
fically on their responses to various tasks (e.g., plans for
future parenthood, establishment and maintenance of a house-
hold, etc.).

They found that the couple that was most relaxed and
spontaneous with each other used the word "WE" often. The
couple's position in relation to the interviewer was a "com-
fortable balance" between individual autonomy and mutuality

as a couple. That is, they were capable of expressing their

23
individual views yet were aligned with one another. In con-
trast, the other couple interacted much less and seemed much
stiffer; their expressions conveyed neither a comfortable
autonomy nor a comfortable jointness. This couple displayed
a quality of inhibition or defensiveness, not only in relation
to the interviewer but also in relation to one another. For
this couple, the word "I" was prominent, These and the other
variables discussed above seem, then, to reflect different

communicative patterns that can occur in family interaction.

Communication of Acceptance

 

Finally, Linden and Stollok (1969) and Stover, Guerney
and O'Connell (1971) utilized a scale employing a measure of
Communication of Acceptance. This measure also was used by
Schreiber (1972) in studying the effects of training on under-
graduate behavior in play interaction with clinic-referred
children. Schreiber found that trained undergraduates communi-
cated significantly more acceptance to children in play inter-
action than did untrained undergraduates. The scale referred
to emerged from an observational scale of empathy for adults
in spontaneous play with a child, designed by Guerney, Stover
and DeMerritt (1968) to assess parent behavior as part of a
research, diagnostic or therapeutic situation.

The dimension Communication of Acceptance,_the verbal
expression of acceptance-rejection (which is coded on a five-
point scale) is, according to Stover £2 21. (1971) the major
element in the communication of empathic feelings. Rogers

(1957) considers this dimension to be one of the necessary

24

conditions for therapeutic personality change. Similarly,
Axline (1947) includes acceptance among the basic principles
of non-directive therapy, and Moustakas (1959) emphasizes
the importance of conveying acceptance, respect and faith in
the other person's feelings, thoughts and potentialities.

Stover £5 El. (1971) indicate that communication of
acceptance usually does not occur to a large extent in
general, spontaneous interaction, but rather has been regarded
as a measure of success in learning the therapeutic role.
However, it seemed reasonable to speculate that, even in the
absence of training, there might be interactional differences

in communicating acceptance between couples.

The Present Study

 

The research reviewed generally has demonstrated that
there is poorer communication among pathological as compared
to normal or non-clinic families. However, such research has
tended not to focus on the spouses' interaction itself, nor
has it attempted to relate such interactions between spouses
to ratings of their children's competence. The present study
was designed to examine these relatively unexplored issues.

It made the assumption, again, that the patterns of communica-
tion that couples display when interacting with each other are
similar to parent-child communication patterns, including
those that contribute to the child's developing sense of com-

petence or incompetence.

 

Vi

Se

Sp,
del

25

The present study, then, attempted to explore differ-
ences in effectiveness and efficiency in decision-making
interaction between parents of teacher-rated "high competent"
and clinic-referred children (Group II). It employed a
number of measures that also were used by Ferreira and Winter
(1965, 1968) in the studies discussed in a previous section:
(1) Spontaneous Agreement; (2) Decision Time; (3) Choice Ful-
fillment; (4) Chaotic Decision; and (5) Information Exchanged.
Additional variables were chosen to explore different patterns
of interaction in the two groups of couples in terms of con-
flict, dominance, and effectiveness and efficiency. These
measures, also discussed previously, were: (1) Interruptions;
(2) Simultaneous Speech; (3) Number of Times Spoken; and (4)
Length of Time Spoken (Farina and Dunham, 1963; Farina, 1960);
and (5) Number of "1's" and "WE's" Spoken (Raush, Marshal and
Featherman, 1970; Raush gt 31.,1963). Finally, the present
study employed a measure of Communication of Acceptance;
Stover, Guerney and O'Connell, 1971), in an attempt to deter-
mine if there were differences between the two groups of couples

with regard to empathic communication.

Predictions

 

Given the studies reviewed in the previous sections it
seemed likely that there would be significant differences in
spouse interaction in terms of communicating and arriving at
decisions in parents of "high competent" rated children (Group

I) as compared to parents of "low competent" rated and

26
clinic-referred children (Group II). Thus, I expected that
Group I couples would be more effective and efficient in their
decision-making interaction than would Group II couples.
Specifically, I predicted that:
(l) The Spontaneous Agreement score would be greater for Group
I than for Group II couples.
(2) The Decision Time would be shorter for Group I than for
Group II couples.
(3) The Choice Fulfillment score would be greater for Group I
than for Group II couples.
(4) The number of "Chaotic" Choices, that is, joint choices of
the spouses that were not chosen initially by either of the
spouses, would be smaller for Group I than for Group II
couples.
(5) The amount of valid and explicit Information Exchanged
between Group I spouses as to what they liked and disliked
would be greater than that between Group II spouses.
(6) The amount of time spent in Silence would be relatively
less for Group I than for Group II couples.
(7) There would be a fewer number of Interruptions for Group I
couples than for Group II couples.
(8) There would be a lower frequency of Simultaneous Speech for
Group I as compared to Group II couples.
(9) The Number of Times Spoken would be more equal for Group I
as compared to Group II couples.
(10) The Length of Time Spoken would be more equal for Group I

than for Group II couples.

27
(11) The Number of."I's" Spoken would be smaller for Group I
than for Group II couples.
(12) The Number of "WE's" Spoken would be greater for Group I
than for Group II couples.
(13) There would be more verbalized Communications of Accept-

ance for Group I as compared to Group II couples.

II. METHOD

 

Procedure and Rationale for Subject Selection

The subjects used in the present study were 35 volun-
teer couples that were classified into two groups. The first
group (Group 1) consisted of parents selected from those
families with children rated by their teachers as "most
competent" and having the fewest psychosocial problems in
their classrooms. The second (Group II) consisted of either
parents who had contacted a psychological or community mental
health clinic for services regarding their child's psychosocial
dysfunctions, or parents from.those families with children
rated by their teachers as the "least competent" and having
the most psychosocial problems in their classrooms (but not
yet referred for assessment or therapy). Table 1 indicates
the breakdown of the couples into the two groups according to
the sex of their child, and also indicates the mean age of
the children for each condition. (See Table 6 in Appendix A
for additional family information.)

The couples in the present study were obtained from
the families being used in Messé and Stollak's (1976) current
investigation of adult "perceptual bias." Messé and Stollak
are attempting to determine the extent to which parents of
"low competent" rated and clinic-referred children are more

"perceptually biased," that is, the extent to which they are

28

29

TABLE 1. Number of Couples and Mean Age of Their Children
For Each Condition and the Study.

 

 

Child
Group I Male Mean Age Female Mean Age
(parents of "high
competent children) 11 6.72 9 6.44
Group II

(parents of "low

competent" and

clinic-referred

children) 9* 7.11 6 6.85

 

*In rating the couples' interaction, one Group II-male tape
was defective and thus only eight couples were included in
ratings made of the ten categories based on the taped inter-
act1on.

differentially sensitive to children's negative and positive

behaviors than are parents of "high competent" rated children.

In their project, families were paid $50 for approx-

imately four hours of their time in which they were given a

series of questionnaires and tasks, including the procedures

employed in the present study. The families in each group
were matched as closely as possible according to the age of
the child (between 5-9). The clinic-referred child families
were chosen from.among families referred to the Michigan

State University Psychological Clinic as well as from families

referred by other mental health clinics in the area, while

the "low" and "high" competent child families were, as indi-

cated, chosen on the basis of teacher ratings of the child.

The teacher ratings were derived from the Behavior Rating of

30

Pupils procedure used by Bower (1969), who found that
teachers' ratings of emotional disturbance were very much
like the judgment of clinicians. In this procedure, the
teacher is asked to put all the students in his/her class
into a distribution of most-like to least-like the des-
cribed pupil for each of seven items (See Appendix B for a

copy of the Pupil Behavior Rating Scale.)

After completion of other tasks (see Messé and
Stollak (1976) for a detailed presentation of procedures), data
were collected that were relevant to the present study. Simi-
lar to Ferreira's (1965, 1968) testing procedure, after
greetings and preliminary remarks, the tester introduced the
couples to the task at hand, namely, the filling out of a
questionnaire. (See Appendix B for a copy of the Instructions
for Testing Procedure.) The couples were told that the ques-
tionnaire contained a number of situations which, though they
might have been improbable, they were to pretend are true and
real. Accordingly, they were to indicate for every situation
the three choices that they liked the most and the three that
they liked the least or not at all. Once the tester was
satisfied that they understood the task (further elucidated by
means of an example), the spouses, who were then separated,
proceeded to fill out the Questionnaire individually. (See
Appendix B for a copy of the Questionnaire.)

When they terminated their individual tasks they were

brought back together again. Before they had a chance to talk

31
to each other, they were informed that they had filled out
the same questionnaire and that their individual answers
would remain confidential. They were assured further that
these answers did not involve notions of good-bad, right-
wrong or normal—abnormal, but simply reflected the fact that
different people may have different likes and dislikes in a
given situation. After this, they were told that their next
task was to fill out the same questionnaire again but this
time together as a couple. They were given another copy of
the questionnaire and it was explained that "as a couple"
meant that whatever they chose for each situation would apply
to both of them. They were to discuss the matter of their
choices among themselves and again to indicate on the Question-
naire for every situation the three alternatives they as a
couple liked the most, and the three alternatives they liked
the least, or not at all. The couple was then left in the
testing room engaged in the process of deciding what they
wanted and did not want--if they were, as a couple, in the
situation described in the Questionnaire. The door was closed
but, with the couple's full knowledge, the ensuing discussion
was recorded on audio tape.

The Questionnaire was presented in the form of a book-
let in which seven situations were described, similar to those
used previously by Ferreira and Winter (1965) and Ferreira
(1963). The situations were included for their applicability
to the couple regardless of sex or age whether considered as

individuals or together. As noted by Ferreira and Winter

32
(1965), they were intended to be as neutral as possible and
comparable in social and cultural desirability. The seven
"make-believe" situations referred to were: (1) famous peeple
they might want to meet if they were "going to a party this
weekend;" (2) foods they might want to eat if they were
"going out to dinner tomorrow night;" (3) films they might
want to see if they were "going to a movie this weekend;"
(4) countries they might want to go to "to live for a year;"
(5) activities they might want to engage in "this afternoon;"
(6) magazines to which they might wish to subscribe; and (7)
how they would spend $1000.

Categories

 

The following categories were used in measuring
couples' interaction in the present study:

(1) Spontaneous Agreement: The amount of agreements, or

 

matched choices (out of the six choices made), that existed
between the spouses "spontaneously," that is, before consult-
ation with each other, as measured by comparing the indivi-
dually filled-out Questionnaires. One Spontaneous Agreement
was counted whenever a spouse's positive choice (i.e., an
alternative marked as "disliked") matched a negative choice of
the other. These scores could range from 0 to 6.

(2) Decision Time: The time spent in seconds by the couple to

 

complete the joint Questionnaire measured from the moment the
tester left the room until the couple announced that the task

had been completed.

33

(3) Choice Fulfillment: A measure of the number of instances

 

where what each of the spouse's wanted (as expressed in the
six choices in that individual's Questionnaire) became what
the couple together decided (as expressed in their joint
Questionnaire). The individuals' Choice Fulfillment scores
when summed make up the Choice Fulfillment score for the
couple, the possible range of which is O to 12.

(4) Number of "Chaotic" Choices: The number of responses on
the joint Questionnaire out of the six choices made that were
not any of the original choices of each spouse (as expressed
in that individual's Questionnaire). These scores could
range from 0 to 6.

(5) Information Exchanged: The amount of information exchanged
between spouses as to their respective likes and dislikes
measured by listening to the taped discussion and tabulating
the instances when a given spouse was heard to say that he/she
liked or disliked some alternative available in the Question-
naire.

(6) Silence: The amount of time spent in silence calculated
by measuring silent time as a percentage of the total Decision
Time.

(7) Number of Interruptions: The number of occasions in the
discussion between the spouses that one interrupted another,
scored if the person succeeded in speaking at least a phrase.
(8) Frequency of Simultaneous Speech: The number of times

during the discussion that both spouses spoke concurrently.

34

(9) Number of Times Spoken: The number of times in the dis-

 

cussion that each spouse spoke.

(10) Length of Time Spoken: The total time (in seconds) that

 

each spouse spoke.

(11) Number of "1's" Spoken: The total number of "1's"

 

spoken for each of the spouses.

(12) Number of "WE's" Sppken: The total number of "WE's"

 

spoken for each of the spouses.

(13) Communication of Acceptance to the other: Rating made
for every one minute interval of the couple's taped discussion,
with a high rating of "one" and a low rating of "five" as
follows: (1) verbal recognition and acceptance of feelings;
(2) verbal recognition and acceptance of behavior only; (3)
social conversation or no conversation; (4) slight or moder-
ate verbal criticism stated or strongly implied; (5) verbal

criticism; argumentative, "preaching,' openly rejecting feel-
ings or behavior, abusive language. (See Appendix B for a

copy of the Communication of Acceptance Rating Scale.)

Coding

The results for the Spontaneous Agreement, Choice Ful-
fillment and "Chaotic" Choice categories described above were
obtained, as indicated, from the responses in the Question-
naires administered during the experiment. The results for
the other categories were obtained from the scores coded from
the audio tapes of the couples' interaction. (See Appendix B

for a copy of the Coding form.) In order to obtain a

35
reliability measure for these latter categories, after a
four-hour training period with the experimenter designated as

" six coders independently rated three couples'

"expert,
decision-making interaction tapes (other than the ones they
would later be assigned to code). Ratings were made for
each of these (ten) categories, and the scores from each coder
were then compared to the scores of the "expert." A mean
percentage agreement with the "expert" was thus obtained.
After adequate reliability was established, the
coders, who were unaware of the hypotheses of the study and
the characteristics of the couples studied, then independently
rated the decision-making interaction tapes, with two coders
assigned to rate each tape. Following the coding, reli-
ability measures (that is, mean percentage agreement with

the "expert".) were again obtained with the five coders who

were still available.

III. RESULTS

Reliability of the Rating Categories

 

Table 2 presents the mean percentage agreements with
the "expert" across coders for the ten categories of the
rating scale that were obtained from the audio tapes of the
couples' decision-making interaction. The pre-coding
measures are based on the scores of the six raters, independent-
ly rating three half-hour audio tapes of the couples' inter-
action (other than the ones they were later assigned to code);
the post-coding measures are based on the scores of the five

raters who were still available at the time.

 

TABLE 2. Mean Percentage Agreement with "Expert" Across Raters
Before and After Coding.

 

Category Pre-Coding (Z) PostPCoding (Z)
Decision Time 98.5 99.0
Information Exchanged 91.4 88.4
Silence 84.2 83.7
Interruptions 79.8 80.6
Simultaneous Speech 82.7 83.0
# Times Spoken 95.6 94.3
Length Time Spoken 92.2 91.5
# "I's" Spoken 87.2 87.0
# "WE's" Spoken 85.8 86.4
Communication of

Acceptance 89.3 90.3

 

Table 2 indicates that ratings were sufficiently reli-
able.
36

37
Analysis of the Data and Tests of the PrediCtions

The data of the present study were the scores of the
two groups of couples (Group I: parents of "high competent"
rated children; Group II: parents of "low competent" rated and
clinic-referred children). They were obtained from.the raters
who coded the audio tapes for the ten categories based on the
couples' decision-making interaction, and from the three
categories (Spontaneous Agreement, Choice Fulfillment, and
"Chaotic" Responses) based on the couples' responses to the
Questionnaires that were administered. To examine the
relationship between these categories, product-moment correla-
tions were computed. Table 5, which can be found in Appendix A,
presents these correlation coefficients. This table indicates
that the correlations between the categories that demonstrated
a significant difference as a function of couple type (i.e.,
Group I or Group II) were not significant, with the exception
of the (negative) correlation between Choice Fulfillment (C.F.)
and Chaotic Choices (C.C.).

Further, there were a number of significant correla-
tions for the Information Exchanged (I.E.), Silence (811.),
Interruptions (Int.), Simultaneous Speech (S.Sp.), and "1's"
and "WE's" categories. These appear to be largely a function
of the increased amounts of Decision Time (D.T.), Length of
Time Spoken and/or Number of Times Spoken categories. Thus,
those couples who took a longer time to reach decisions and/or
spoke more and for a greater length of time, generally were

more "active” and, in effect, "did more" as a function of that

38
time, than those couples who took less time to reach their
decisions.

The data, where joint ratings were obtained for
husbands and wives, were analyzed by means of 2 (Group I -
Group II) X 2 (male-female child) analyses of variance. These
data included the following categories: Decision Time,
Silence, Simultaneous Speech, Spontaneous Agreement, and
"Chaotic" Responses. Where separate ratings were obtained
for husbands and wives, the data were analyzed by means of 2
(Group I - Group II) X 2 (male-female child) X 2 (husband-wife)
analyses of variance with family role (i.e., husband or wife)
treated as a repeated measure within each dyad. These data
included the Choice Fulfillment, Information Exchanged,

Number of Interruptions, Number of Times Spoken, Length of
Time Spoken, Number of "I's" Spoken, Number of "WE's" Spoken,
and Communication of Acceptance categories. Both types of
analysis employed an unweighted means solution to adjust for
unequal cell frequencies.

The tables below present the mean scores and signifi-
cance tests for only those effects that were relevant to the
predictions. (Other effects, for example, those including sex
of the child, were found not to be significant.) In addition,
the following, more complete summary tables can be found in
Appendix A: means and standard deviations for the-thirteen
categories (10 coded and 3 obtained from.the Questionnaire);
summaries of the 2 X 2 analyses of variance with unequal cell

frequencies; and summaries of the 2 X 2 X 2 analyses of variance

39

with repeated measures (i.e., husbandawife scores) within each
dyad and unequal cell frequencies.

Table 3 summarizes the mean scores of Group I and
Group II couples and the significance tests of the differences
between the mean scores, for variables that were predicted to
be higher (indicating more effective interaction) for Group I

than for Group II couples.

 

TABLE 3. Mean Scores and Significance Tests for Couples in
Group I (Parents of "High Competent" Children) and
Group II (Parents of "Low Competent" and Clinic—
Referred Children) for Predictions of Higher Group I
Scores Across Sex of Child and Husband-Wife Scores
(Where Separately Obtained).

 

Category Group I Group II F P
Spontaneous Agreement 1.30 .67 4.63 < .05
Choice Fulfillment 2.98 2.30 4.88 < .05
Information Exchanged 56.16 43.91 4.21 < .05

Number of "WE's"
Spoken 8.95 7.43 .40 N.S.

 

Table 3 indicates that the mean differences were in
the predicted direction for all of the four relevant variables,
and these differences were statistically significant for three
of the four measures. Thus, it appears that, as predicted for
these variables, more effective, efficient decision-making
interaction occurred among Group I couples than among Group II

couples.

40
Table 4 summarizes the mean scores of Group I and
Group II couples and the significance tests of the differ-
ences between the mean scores, for those variables related
to the prediction of lower scores (again indicating more
effective interaction) for Group I as compared to Group II

couples.

 

TABLE 4. Mean Scores and Significance Tests for Couples in
Group I (Parents of "High Competent" Children) and
Group II (Parents of "Low Competent" and Clinic-
Referred Children) for Predictions of Lower Group I
Scores Across Sex of Child and Husband-Wife Scores
(Where Separately Obtained).

Category Group I Group II F P
Decision Time (Seconds) 956.65 909.57 .26 N.S.
# of "Chaotic" Choices .90 1.73 5.27 < .05
Z of Time Spent in

Silence 40.34 53.44 5.67 < .05
Number of Interruptions 3.65 3.38 .10 N.S.
Frequency of Simultaneous

Speech 5.52 6.18 .62 N.S.
Number of "I's" Spoken 41.76 42.93 .14 N.S.

Communication of
Acceptance 3.01 3.00 .04 N.S.

 

Table 4 indicates that the mean differences were in
the predicted direction for four of the relevant variables
(i.e., "Chaotic" Choices, Silence, Simultaneous Speech, and

Number of "I's" Spoken), and the differences were statistically

41
significant for two of the four. For the remaining three
variables (i.e., Decision Time, Interruptions and Communica-
tion of Acceptance) the differences were not in the predicted
direction and not statistically significant. Thus, it appears
that more effective decision-making interaction occurred among
Group I than Group 11 couples for some but not all of the
above variables.

Table 5 summarizes the mean scores and significance
tests for differences between Group I and Group II husbands
and wives for the categories Number of Times Spoken and Length
of Time Spoken for which lesser differences between Group I as

compared to Group II husbands and wives were predicted.

 

TABLE 5. Mean Scores and Significance Tests for Differences
in Categories "Number of Times Spoken" and "Length
of Time Spoken" Between Husbands and Wives in Group
I ("high competent" children) and Group II ("low
competent” and clinic-referred children) Across Sex

 

 

 

of Child
Family Role
Group Husband Wife F P
Number of Times Spoken
I 95.25 92.60
. 98 N.S
II 95.00 97 57
'Length of Time Spoken
I 273.17 272.77
02 N.S

II 213.86 219.68

 

42
To support the prediction of lesser differences for
these two categories between Group I as compared to Group II
husbands and wives, these measures had to have yielded a
significant Group X Family Role (i.e., husband or wife)
interaction since husband-wife differences were expected to
differ as a function of group. Table 5 indicates, however,

that the results for both of the variables were not significant.

Summary of Results

 

The present study was designed to investigate differ-
ences in interaction in terms of communicating and arriving
at decisions in parents of teacher-rated "high competent"
children (Group I) and parents of teacher-rated "low
competent" and clinic-referred children (Group II). It was
expected that there would be significant differences between
the two groups in terms of more effective and efficient Group I
as compared to Group II decision-making interaction. For the
thirteen categories that were measured, the results for five
(in terms of differences between the groups) were significant
in the predicted direction, three were in the predicted
direction although not statistically significant, while the
predictions for the remaining five categories were not

supported.

IV. DISCUSSION

 

Categopy Predictions

 

The differences between the two groups were signifi-
cant in the predicted direction for the following categories:

Spontaneous Agreement. The results for this variable indi- I

 

cate that there was greater initial agreement for Group I
couples as compared to Group II couples as to what they liked
(positive choices) and disliked (negative choices) prior to
their getting together to exchange views. This finding per-
haps indicates, as Ferreira and Winter (1965) speculated after
investigating interaction between normal and pathologic family
triads, that parents in "normal" families (or, in the present
study, parents of "high competent" children) may have had,
since the beginning of their relationship, a higher agreement
with each other in their attitude, values, etc., than that
found in parents in "abnormal" families (or parents of "low
competent" children). This, in turn, suggests a greater
homogany ("likes marry likes") in the selection ofia mate
among would-be members of "normal" or "high competent"
families than "abnormal" or "low competent" ones.

The present study points to the possible relevance of
identifying Spontaneous Agreement for the couple as a dyad
prior to or immediately following marriage, since the relative

absence of Spontaneous Agreement in such a couple may perhaps

43

44
predict later marital and child dysfunctioning.

Choice Fulfillment. The results here indicate, as noted by

 

Ferreira and Winter (1965), a greater relative efficiency and
effectiveness of family functioning for Group I as compared

to Group II couples, in the sense that Choice Fulfillment
represents the degree to which the joint decision met the
wishes of each individual spouse and represents a dynamic out-
put of their decision-making. The present study perhaps
suggests that this increased efficiency and effectiveness
applies specifically to spouse interaction itself, but may
also point to such interaction as a possible key to under-
standing the development of child "problem" behavior. We see
here that parents of clinic-referred or "problem" children
may be considered as somewhat more handicapped in their
attempts to meet situations or events that require joint deci-
sions. Such a handicap perhaps may be transmitted to the
child and be at least a partial factor in his/her "disturbed"
or "problem" behavior.

It seems, then, that Choice Fulfillment may be a sig-
nificant variable in differentiating parents in families with
"high competent" and "problem" children. Choice Fulfillment
appears to indicate the satisfactions that the parents (and,
by extension to other situations, the child as well) may have
derived from the joint decision-making process, where one of
the most if not the most important goals of the decision-
making is the fulfillment of the needs and wishes of the partici-

pants. A couple or family in which more of such wishes are

45
fulfilled likely may be one in which there is greater content-
ment than one in which individuals' wishes are less gratified.
We perhaps may assume that the parents' inability to satisfy
their own needs and wishes sufficiently is reflected in lack
of fulfillment for their child (or children), which at least
in part might contribute to the child's "problem" behavior.

"Chaotic" Choices. The results for this variable indicate

 

greater relative efficiency and effectiveness of functioning
for Group I as compared to Group II couples, in the sense
that decisions of Group I couples took into account the
wishes of each individual spouse to a greater extent than the
decisions of Group II couples, who more often disregarded the
wishes of each individual and thus denied their fulfillment.
The higher number of "chaotic" choices could indicate,
according to Ferreira (1963), a lack of openness and of
clarity of communication which, he feels, goes hand in hand
with pathology. The wishes of individual (Group II) spouses
are less accepted in their "compromised" choices and perhaps
we can again assume that the spouse's inability to satisfy him/
herself sufficiently is transmitted and reflected in their
children's "problem" behavior.
Information Exchanged. The findings for this variable appear
to parallel Ferreira and Winter's (1968) notion that in
"abnormal" families people do not talk to each other as freely,
frequently or explicitly as they do in "normal" families.
Instead, members tend to withhold information from each other

as to their feelings and wants. The lack of communication

46
results in their likes and dislikes going unverbalized, and
lessens the likelihood of their arriving at decisions which
fulfill each person's own wishes.

Further, while Ferreira and Winter (1968) noted that,
in their study, the decrease in explicit information exchanged
observed among family members in "abnormal" families appeared
to be a function of the whole family, the present study may
possibly have focused more clearly on the "source" of the
information exchange decrement, that is, in the spouses'
interaction itself. This lack of communication, in turn, is
then perhaps reflected in disturbances in the child's communi-
cation and other pathology which derives from it.

Silence. The findings for this variable seem to be consistent
with Ferreira, Winter and Poindexter's (1966) finding that
"normal" families spend relatively less time in silence than
"abnormal" families. In the present study, again, we have
focused specifically on couples' interaction and perhaps
obtained another "source" of disturbed family communication.

This finding of less silence for Group I as compared
to Group II couples not only emphasizes the possible importance
of silence as an interactional variable that apparently is
sensitive to and associated with family pathology (or at least
reported or diagnosed child "problem" behavior), but also
indicates that silence is a possible cause of the couple's
(and family's) lowered efficiency and effectiveness. In a
sense, the Group II couples spend "too much" time in silence,

talking relatively less and exchanging less information than

47
Group I couples. According to Ferreira and Winter (1968),

"abnormal" families do not seem to talk to each other as freely,
frequently, or explicitly as they do in "normal" families.
Instead, they withhold information from each other as to their
feelings and wants, and their likes and dislikes go unverbal-
ized. I

It well may be, then, that the relative usage of
silence is a stable interactional characteristic not only of
the "abnormal" family as a whole, but of the parents of such
families in particular. Further, the effects of this parental
inefficiency in decisionfmaking tasks may be quite disruptive
to the functioning of the whole family system, resulting in
accumulated unmade decisions, further increasing the burdens
of family life and promoting further pathological interaction.

The differences between the two groups in the present
study were in the predicted direction although not statistic-
ally significant for the following categories:
Simultaneous Speech. The prediction for this category of less
simultaneous speech for Group I than for Group II couples was
based on the notion that the decisionemaking interaction of
Group I couples would be marked by less conflict, and thus be
more effective and efficient than that of Group II couples.
However, those studies that included the variable of simul-
taneous speech and obtained significant differences were
designed to elicit conflict in the observed interaction, while
the tasks in the present study were designed to be neutral.

Had significant statistical differences been obtained for this

48
variable in the present study they might have been even more
powerful; still, the fact that the differences were in the
predicted direction may be of some note.

In any event, while some of the difference in pre-
viously reported findings and those of the present study
might be accounted for by the fact that the present study
focused exclusively on spouse rather than family interaction,
it seems more feasible to assume that the differences are to
a large extent a function of the nature of the tasks involved.
In a non-threatening interactional situation, for example,
couples may take the liberty to speak concurrently without
necessarily conflicting with or excessively threatening each
other, whereas in more threatening situations a difference may
emerge whereby there is evidence of greater simultaneous
speech in couples in "abnormal" families as compared to
couples in "normal" or "high competent" families,

Number of "I's" Spoken. The prediction for this variable of a

 

fewer number of "I's" spoken for Group I as compared to Group
II couples assumed that, as suggested by Raush, Marshal and
Featherman (1970), "normal" or "healthy" couples tended to
have less feelings of egocentricity (as indicated by the fewer
number of "I's" spoken) than "abnormal" ones which, in turn,
reflected a greater effectiveness on their part. Perhaps a
greater number of subjects employed in the present study might
have produced greater differences in the predicted direction
between the two groups than those that were obtained. Perhaps,

also, the nature of the tasks involved needs again to be

49
accounted for; thus, for example, a more conflict-laden task
situation may produce greater interactional differences, in
terms of "I's" spoken.
Number of "WE's"§poken. The prediction here of a greater
number of "WE's" spoken for Group I as compared to Group 11
couples was based on the notion, as indicated by Raush 23,31.
(1970), that "normal" or "healthy" couples tended to have
greater feelings of partnership and cooperation (as suggested
by the greater number of "WE's" spoken) than "abnormal" ones,
which reflected a greater effectiveness on their part. Again,
perhaps if a greater number of subjects were employed in the
present study, and/or of the tasks involved had been varied
to include more conflictual material, greater interactional
differences between the two groups in the predicted direction
might have been obtained.

In any case, we also can note that the ratio of "I's"
as compared to "WE's" spoken is highly in favor of the former
for both groups of couples. Apparently, in our culture, in-
dividuals seem to express and conceive of themselves first
and foremost as individuals and only secondarily as members of
a dyad or larger group. There may well be variations from
culture to culture in those expressions, and perhaps also
varying degrees of spontaneity, balances between autonomy and
mutuality, etc., that may coincide with such expressions.
There may also be variations in individuals and groups depending

upon training received re parent effectiveness, communication

50
of empathy and acceptance, and involvement in the needs,
wishes and feelings of others.
The predictions of significant differences between the
two groups in the present study were not supported for the
remaining categories:

Decision Time. There were no significant differences between

 

Group I and Group II couples in the amount of time required to
arrive at decisions in terms of completing the joint Question-
naire. Ferreira and Winter (1965) felt that lower decision
time indicates a greater relative efficiency and assumed that,
other things being equal, the more time a family requires to
reach decisions, the less efficient it can be said to be.
In the present study, however, "other things were not equal."
Thus, for example, there were significant differences in the
predicted direction in terms of information exchanged and per-
centage of time spent in silence between Group I and Group II
couples, indicating greater Group I efficiency within the
allotted decision time as compared to Group II. Although the
amount of time used in reaching the decisions is equivalent
between the two groups, then, more effective, efficient use
may be made of that time by Group I couples; perhaps the total
time is not as important a variable as the qualitative use
that is made of that time.

p The difference between Ferreira and Winter's (1965)
finding and that of the presentstudy regarding decision time

may also be accounted for by the context in which the task was

51
administered during the present study. Thus, decision-making
task was preceded by approximately four hours of other tasks
and activities in which the couples participated, which un-
doubtedly tired them. This factor might have tended to obscure
whatever differences, if any, existed between the two groups
for this variable.

Interruption. The results here indicated no significant

 

differences between the two groups. The prediction of a
smaller number of interruptions for Group I than for Group II
couples was based on the notion that Group I couples would
experience less conflict and thus be more effective and effi-
cient in their interaction.

However, as previously discussed, in those studies
reported which examined the variable of number of interrup-
tions in family interaction, the tasks performed involved
issues and items that were not neutral and which were designed
with the possibility or probability of inducing family conflict
(e.g., Farina, 1960; Farina and Dunham, 1963; Leighton, Stollok
and Ferguson, 1971). On the other hand, the tasks used in
the present study were designed to be relatively neutral and
non-threatening. It was felt that the use of such tasks would
enable comparison of the results with those obtained in the
family decision-making studies previously referred to. It was
also felt that any indices of conflict elicited would be
especially noteworthy given the relative neutrality of the tasks

involved.

52

The nature of tasks seems, then, to be a crucial
factor in eliciting and obtaining measures of conflict such
as the number of interruptions. Perhaps these measures them-
selves need to be defined relative to the tasks to which they
are applied. Thus, an interruption on a pleasant, non-
threatening task may have quite a different meaning than one
on an anxiety-laden, conflictful task.

Number of Times Spoken. The results for this variable indicate

 

that the differences between the groups were not significant
in the predicted direction; that is, Group I couples did not
speak a more equal number of times than did Group II couples.
The rationale for this prediction was the assumption that the
most effective marital interaction (with it's presumed effects
on children's behavior) would be reflected in a kind of com-
promise and cooperation in terms of "democratic" participation
by husband and wife in decision-making, that is, with each
participating relatively equally rather than one spouse being
the more dominant member of the couple.

We encounter here, however, several possible diffi-
culties. For example, does equality imply non-dominance in all
areas equally, or rather is there a balance whereby, say, the
husband is more dominant in terms of one type of decision with
which he is more familiar and the wife dominant in her area of
"expertise?" Or, perhaps dominance by one spouse reflects a
more secure, stable pattern of family interaction. Thus,

Leighton EE.El° (1971) found that for highly-rated families

53
there was a definite pattern of dominance, although less
clear-cut than in the clinic families. The "highly rated"
fathers spoke more often and for a greater total length of
time than the "highly rated" mother, whereas clinic mothers
spoke more often and for greater total lengths of time than
did clinic fathers. Perhaps we are seeing here the conven-
tional roles of "strong male-weak female" which society has
previously defined positively but which in recent years may
be undergoing significant change, so that we may begin to see
"highly rated" families with assertive women as well.

In any event, we also need to note that studies such
as that of Leighton 2E.El- have utilized non-neutral tasks,
unlike the present study. This point is important because we
have seen that the type of task involved may have a signifi-
cant if not overriding effect on the obtained outcome. At
this point we need to be careful in interpreting the present
results in terms of measures of conflict and dominance, and
await further studies that systematically examine the effect of
task, the definitions of conflict and dominance measures in-
volved, and the characteristics of the couples and families
being investigated.

Length of Time Spoken. The results also indicate that the
differences between the groups for this variable were not sig-
nificant in the predicted direction, that is, Group I parents
did not speak a more equal length of time as compared to Group
II parents. Again, we had assumed that equality and "demo-

cratic" participation was a positive feature of Group I

54

couples as Opposed to dominance by one or another spouse;
this assumption was not borne out. At the same time, we
again have to be cautious in interpreting such results and in
defining what equality means in couple and family interaction.

There may be no reason to assume that equality will
hold across every area of interaction, but rather may vary
from situation to situation and different tasks with which
the couples are confronted. It may be that the tasks employed
in the present study do not actually tap the conflict-dominance
variables in a meaningful way, or do so only to a small extent.
And, in any case, we may not be able to equate equality with
health or normality in a direct way, as Leighton'g£.gl's
(1971) results indicate. Again, further study into conflict-
dominance aspects of couple and family interaction and the
nature of the groups and tasks involved, is necessary at this
point.

Communication of Acceptance. There were, for this variable, no

 

significant differences in communicating "acceptance" between
Group I and Group II couples. As indicated by Linden and
Stollok (1969) and Stover, Guerney and O'Connell (1971), com-
munication of "acceptance" as defined here does not usually
occur to a large degree in general, spontaneous interaction
but rather has been regarded as a measure of success in learn-
ing the therapeutic role. This would, then, presuppose some
sort of training procedure. However, perhaps a different type
of scoring of "acceptance" or "empathy" might have yielded

significant differences between the groups.

55

Relation Between Dependent Measures

 

Generally, the correlations between the categories
used in the present study indicate that these measures were
relatively independent of each other. Most of the signifi-
cant correlations that were obtained appeared to be a function
of the couples' being more "active" as a result of taking a
longer time to reach decisions and/or speaking more and for a
greater length of time than couples who took less time to
reach their decisions. Of particular interest were those
correlation coefficients that were computed for the dependent
measures (i.e., categories) that were found to be significant-
ly related to family type. Inspection of Table 5 (see
Appendix A) reveals little correlation between Choice Fulfill-
ment (C.F.) and Chaotic Choices (C.C.). (This latter correla-
tion may derive to a large extent from the nature and
definitions of these two variables. Thus, we might expect
that the larger the number of mutually satisfying outcomes
(C.F.) (i.e., mutual choices that both spouses had previously
made individually), the less the possible number of mutual
choices (C.R.) that go contrary to their initial choices.)

In any event, couple type (i.e., Group I or Group II)
appears to effect a number of rather independent measures.
These measures, then, may be tapping different aspects of
decision—making functioning while providing, where significant
differences between the two groups were obtained, an indica-
tion of the greater relative efficiency and effectiveness of

interaction of Group I as compared to Group II couples.

56
Limitations of the Present Study

One of the limitations of the present study was the
relatively small number of couples involved. Perhaps with a
larger number of subjects significant differences would have
occurred in cases where non-significance was obtained. This
limitation was at least partly a function of the difficulty
encountered by the research project directed by Messé and
Stollak (1976) (from.which the present study drew its subjects)
in obtaining suitable families willing to participate in the
extensive series of tasks and activities involved in the pro-
ject, and the necessity of obtaining intact families with
children ranging in age only from 5 to 9 and divided as
equally as possible between sexes for each of the groups.
The difficulty in obtaining subjects precluded the possibility
of comparing the two groups with a third consisting of parents
of children rated as "average" or "normal."

The inclusion of this third group would have enabled
a comparison of the interactional measures obtained with those
of a "normal" group perhaps varying in its decision-making
interaction from the other two groups, and helped to clarify
in what way such variation was manifested in their interaction.
Thus, do parents of "high competent" children interact with
each other (and presumably with their children) in a manner
different than parents of "normal" children, and if so how
does this affect their relationship, the family's functioning

and the child's emotional and behavioral make-up? Such a

57
comparison also would have enabled us to specify more precisely
the nature of a possible training program to improve the
interactional functioning of "problem” families, perhaps
employing the "normal" family as a basis for comparison and
rate of change. In any case, the inclusion of this third
group may well have added much valuable information.

Further, the present study, in focusing on parental
interaction and its presumed effects on child and family
functioning, was limited to intact families. It may be that
many of the more serious problems identified in schools and
clinics occur in and at least partly as a function of the
absence of a parent. Therefore, it may be necessary to extend
the type of interactional research employed in the present
study to such non-intact families. The present study was also
limited in that it examined interaction cross-sectionally
(i.e., at a given point in time) rather than longitudinally
(i.e. over a period of time). A longitudinal approach might
determine, for example, what interactional changes occur in
family members over a course of time, such as how the couple's
interaction changes prior and subsequent to the arrival of a
child. The study also didn't compare the couple's own inter-
action to their interaction with the child. Such a comparison
might have provided important additional information.

Finally, as previously indicated, the sessions in which
the parents and their child participated were quite long,
lasting 4-5 hours, and the tasks performed by the parents in

the present study occurred near the end of that time period.

58
By that time, the parents often were tired and anticipating
the end of the session, perhaps causing them not to involve
themselves as thoroughly as they could have at that point,
and perhaps tending to minimize potential conflict. However,
it also might be the case that the length of time required
by the parents to complete the entire session tended to make
them.more irritable and to produce greater conflict. It
seems most likely, though, that it was the neutral nature of
the decision-making tasks, as indicated previously, that

tended to minimize conflict.

Current Research Trends

It may be said that, generally, parents of "high com-
petent" teacher-rated children (Group I) were more efficient
and effective in their decision-making interaction than were
parents of teacher-rated "low competent" and clinic-referred
children (Group II). This focus of the present study on
(couple decision-making) interaction measurement and its
results which indicate significant interactional differences
between the two groups examined are both a reflection of
current research trends, especially involving families and
other groups, and at the same time an indication of the need
to explore further the relevant processes and variables in this
area.

Rausch, Barry, Hertel and Swain (1974), for example,
have studied interactions of married couples in conflict-laden
contexts using an improvisational technique wherein sample

husband and wife teams acted out scenes designed to produce a

59

conflict of interests. They found that in interaction and com-
munication the couple constituted a unit, sharing even the
formal aSpects of communication styles. Moreover, the couples
maintained characteristic styles of interaction across several
phases of marriage.

Another example of recent research involving family
interaction is that of Jacob and Davis (1973), who have in-
vestigated family interaction as a function of experimental
task. While they note some interactional stability across
tasks they employed, Jacob and Davis (1973) also point out the
need in this area for research directed toward the identifi-
cation and description of interactional contexts associated
with different patterns of family behavior; and, they stress
the need for specification of task dimensions that serve to
operationalize such contextual difference and to elicit the
associated pattern of interaction, in an attempt to determine
what tasks elicit what types of interaction patterns as assessed
by what measurement procedures.

A good deal of research also is continuing to be based
on a general systems model of family interaction. Thus, for
example, Hubbell 35,31. (1974), referred to previously, note
the development and maintenance of patterns of communication
among family members, patterns that make up the family communi-
cation system. From an early age, according to Hubbell g£_gl.
(1974), children participate in their respective family systems
and alter those systems somewhat by their very presence as well

as by their behavior.

60

They found, for example, differences in language usage
between triads including older siblings and those including
younger siblings. Thus, as the child develops more language
skill, the parents adjust their language usage with him/her,
taking advantage of his/her greater language skill and at the
same time encouraging further development in the child.
Language development therefore may be considered an example of
what Buckley (1967) has called morphogenesis, that is, a
process related to change in a system.

Finally, as part of the current research project headed
by Messé and Stollak, Larsen (1975) attempted to determine
whether a person's "perceptual bias" (i.e. differential
sensitivity to children's positive and negative behaviors)
would influence how the perceiver behaves towards another
(adult) person (in interaction). It was expected that the
"perceptual style" of a perceiver would have important inter-
personal consequences in adult dyadic relations, that is, that
in a "revealed differences" conflict situation dyadic inter-
action would be affected differentially by the presence of a
negative, balanced or positive behavior perceiver. Larson
(1975) found that,generally, subjects with a positive behavior
perceptual bias had difficulty dealing with an interpersonal
situation in which persons must confront each other and deal
openly with matters about which they disagree. Negative be-
havior perceivers appeared better able to handle this type of
situation but seemed to do so, for example, via sarcasm, and

were likely to spend their time in disagreement without moving

toward compromise.

61

On the other hand, balanced (or accurate) behavior
perceivers appeared to handle such situations best, at least
in terms of the feelings of the participants and the amount
of time spent in moving toward agreement and compromise.
The results were based on dyads composed of strangers who
interacted together within a rather mild confrontational frame-
work for only thirty minutes. Despite minimal emotional come
mitment, there were meaningful differences in terms of
"perceptual style," differences that may be more striking when
intimate relationships, for example, in marriage and family
life, are involved. This latter possibility is currently be-
ing tested by Mease and Stollak in their research project
examining the "perceptual style" of families with young child-

ren .

Implications for Future Research

The present study has demonstrated that there are sig—
nificant differences in couples' interaction between the two
groups involved, parents of teacher-rated "high competent"
children (Group I) and parents of teacher-rated "low competent"
and clinic-referred children (Group II). It also, perhaps,
has demonstrated the efficacy and importance of interaction
study as a research tool in investigating family, dyadic and
other group functioning and dysfunctioning. The method
employed in the present study, for example, is relatively clear
and precise, and tends to de-emphasize subjectivity and vague-
ness of interpretation, which perhaps most contributes to its

effectiveness in research.

62

Various implications for future research are suggested
by the results obtained in the present study. On the one hand,
for example, the finding of higher spontaneous agreement for
Group I couples suggests the possibility that they have had
since the beginning of their relationship more similar atti-
tudes, values, etc., than Group II couples. Research, then,
may identify spontaneous agreement for the couple as a dyad
prior to their becoming parents and its relationship to later
marital and parental stresses and difficulties, and use the
information obtained as part of a training program implemented
with the goal of more effective parenting and relating to-
gether as a couple.

Further, research may attempt to determine whether and
how such "handicaps as greater silence, less information ex-
change, lower choice fulfillment and more "chaotic" choices
are actually transmitted to the child and, if so, how this
specifically affects the child's subsequent "disturbance."
Also, the finding of Ferreira (1963) that, in his study of
family decision-making, the child in abnormal families appeared
to exchange somewhat more information than his parents, per-
haps indicates that it takes time for pathology to be fully
transmitted from.one generation to the next. Research, then,
might attempt to measure such variables as information ex-
change and silence at different stages in the couple's and
family's development, to determine if and how such variables
undergo change over the course of time. While such a variable

as relative usage of silence may be considered a stable

63

interactional characteristic of the family or couple, the
effects of such inefficiency may be increasingly disruptive
to the family's functioning over time, tending to promote
still further pathological interaction.

In terms of interruptions and simultaneous speech,
as was previously indicated, studies investigating these
variables in family interaction have typically used relatively
non-neutral, conflict-inducing tasks, whereas the tasks in
the present study were neutral and non-threatening. Research
needs to determine more specifically and precisely how the
nature of the task involved in such interaction measurement
affects the results obtained. It may prove necessary to define
any given measure employed relative to the task(s) to which
they are applied rather than independently of these tasks.

we also need to determine, for example, in terms of
length of and number of times spoken, whether and how equality
of participation in decision-making, that is, the relative
equality of one spouse or another in certain areas, applies to
pathological, normal or "high competent" families, and whether
and how such indices are undergoing change. Thus, where pre-
vious studies have shown relatively conventional "strong male-
weak female" models defined positively for non-clinic families,
present or future studies may find indices of greater relative
"dominance" by mothers in light of women's changing social
roles. Such studies would also need to account for the nature

and definitions of the variables interpreted as representing

64
dominance and conflict, and the characteristics of the
families and parents being investigated.

In terms of the "I-WE" ratio previously discussed,
the possibility arises that an important determinant of the
preponderance of "1's" spoken for both groups studied lies in
cultural and environmental factors outside the family which
have tended to de-emphasize mutuality and collectivity of com-
municative interaction in favor of greater egocentricity. It
may be useful, in this regard, to make cross-cultural compari-
sons of "I-WE" usage, comparisons of different ethnic groups
or of individuals raised in more collective (e.g., day care)
settings as opposed to these who have not had that type of
preschool background.

Finally, in terms of communication of "acceptance,"
and its relative absence in spontaneous interaction, we can
speculate as to the effectiveness and impact of a hypothetical
training program designed to implement the principles of such
communication among a wide population. Such training, on a
limited scale, has already been demonstrated by research (e.g.,
Linden and Stollak, 1969; Stollak SE 21, 1975) to be feasible.
It might be part of a coordinated strategy involving treatment
of the child with identified pathology as well as the family,
emphasizing the connections between the child's difficulties
and the parental and family involvement in them.

One of the difficulties encountered in the present

study was, again, the relatively small number of subjects

65

involved. Similar research involving a greater number of sub-
jects might provide greater significance of obtained measures
and might include a third group of parents of "average" or
"normal" children. It might also prove necessary to investi-
gate decision-making (and other) interaction using non-intact
families, for whom the interactional deficiencies and in- N:
effectiveness may be greater than in the intact "problem” 1
families investigated in the present study.

Finally, future research might compare the couple's
own interaction to their interaction with the child present,
in an attempt to determine what types of differences occur
between the two situations. It might also attempt to examine
such interaction longitudinally as well as cross-sectionally
in order to determine, for example, how a couple's interaction
changes prior to and subsequent to the arrival of a child in
the family.

Current research trends such as those previously dis-
cussed indicate the need to explore further variables such as
interaction process and change over time. Thus, for example,
Hubbell's (1974) research points out the need to study differ-
ences in family interaction with the child's development and
increasing language skills. In any case, such differences
might be affected by the couple's (or family's) perception of
the task involved. Thus, Winter 32.31. (1973) indicate that
"normal" couples may view a decision-making task as more of an
intellectual problem solving task than do "abnormal" couples;

and, Jacob and Davis (1973) note the need to identify and

66
describe interactional contexts and tasks associated with

different patterns of family behavior.

'ImpliCations for Praetice

The present study has extended previous findings of
greater interactional inefficiency and ineffectiveness of
clinic versus non-clinic families by focusing on the parental
dyad as a potential source of that dysfunctioning and by in-
cluding a group of parents of "high competent" rated children.
We perhaps may begin nOW'tO detect in many instances an
important source of children's pathology in the disturbances
in parental interaction or, conversely, a source of high child
self-esteem and competence. ‘We may speculate that such inter-
action preceded the child's arrival in the family and was
characteristic of the couple from the beginning of their
relationship and/or marriage to each other, with subsequent
and significant bearing on the child's deve10pment.

If such is indeed the case, then perhaps we can begin
to develop another strategy concerning child behavioral and
emotional pathology and its relationship to the family. With-
in the last two decades many theorists and therapists have
emphasized the connections between the child's identified
problems and the relationship of the parents to them, and have
involved the parents and the entire family in treatment pro-
grams (e.g., Haley, 1963; Satir, 1967). Such programs, for
example, emphasize and focus on hOW'the needs of one family

member or another are not being attended to or heeded, how

67
the various family members are not communicating clearly their
needs, wishes and desires to each other, and how each is
approaching a problem from only his/her own perspective with-
out appreciating the perspective of the other. And, they
attempt to demonstrate to family members how their communica-
tion can be more clear and precise and their interactional
outcomes more effective and satisfying.

Another strategy, not extensively explored, assumes
that at least a part of the basis of later child and family
dysfunctions lies in disturbances in couple's interaction
REESE to their having children. We thus may begin to focus on
implementing a widespread preventive training program involv-
ing engaged or newly married couples and/or prospective parents.
Such a program would aim to convey the understanding, accept-
ance and practice in these couples of means of effective
interaction as referred to above, and would include training

in principles of communication of "acceptance,' which the pre-
sent study and other studies (e.g., Linden and Stollak, 1969)
demonstrate is not present in spontaneous interaction but
which may well be a key variable in producing therapeutic
change or optimal growth.

The program would make the assumption that improvement
in effectiveness of communicative interaction may not only

enhance the harmony and satisfaction of the marital relation-

ship, but also may lessen the possibility of subsequent inci-

 

dence of child and family dysfunctions. Such a program.thereby

68

may ease the burden of mental health treatment centers to whom
such problems might later be referred. The use of inter-
action research perhaps could greatly contribute to such an
emphasis on prevention, as well as providing a valuable tool

in the diagnosis and treatment of already existing difficulties.

V. CONCLUSION

 

The present study--whose perspective is congruent with
current research and theoretical trends that focus on family
interaction--has extended previous research findings by examin-
ing the extent to which the dyadic interaction of spouses is a
potential source of child and family dysfunctioning. By
relating such interaction to ratings of the child's competence,
it has supported the position that Spouse communication
patterns are similar to and reflections of parent-child come
munication patterns that may have a significant impact on the
child's developing sense of competence and self-esteem.

Given the findings of this and past research, it may
be reasonable to assume that "disturbances" in a couple's
interaction indeed are an important source and/or reflection
of child and family pathology. And, it may be possible to
predict, as previously discussed, future child and family dys-
functioning on the basis of studying the interaction of
engaged or newlywed couples. If so, we could begin to devise
training programs designed to allow such couples to engage in
more effective and efficient communications that would enable
them, in turn, to participate more constructively in their

child's future psychological development.

69

APPENDICES

_._:______=='

 

APPENDIX A

70

Male
Child

GroupI

Ferale
Child

71

 

 

TABLE 6. Additional Family Information
# of Education Occupation Age
Siblings bbther Father Mother Father IVbther Father

1 . 1 College Ph. D. housewife engineer 30 30
grad.

2 . 2 College College nurse data proc. 38 40
grad. grad.

3. l H.S. 2 yrs. housewife typesetter 32 35
grad. 0011.

4. 0 H.S. H.S. secretary state arpl. 33 26
grad. grad.

5. l H.S. H.S. housewife bank anpl. 43 46
grad. grad.

6. l 2 yrs. H.S. recept- school 31 32
coll. grad. ionist admin.

7. l H.S. Coll. housewife pharmacist 28 27
grad. grad.

8. l 1 yr. 3 yrs. nursery manager 28 28
coll. coll. aide

9. 2 1 yr. M.A. housewife teacher 34 35
coll.

10. 0 coll. coll. system advert. 29 30
grad. grad. rep. manager

11. l H.S. Ph.D. secretary prof. 31 34
grad.

l. 4 1 yr. 2 yrs. housewife pattern 50 50
coll. coll.

2. l 4 yrs. 3 yrs. nursing cmtractor 31 31
coll. 0011. student

3. 4 H.S. H.S. halsewife mechanic 46 49
grad. grad.

4. O 3 yrs. 3 yrs. secretary postal 28 34
coll. coll. clerk

5. l H.S. H.S. ' bookkeeper welder 27 29
grad ad.

6. 0 M.A. yrs. teacher personnel 39 39

coll. clerk

7. 3 1 yr. H.S. day care draftsman 28 29
coll. grad.

8. l coll. M.A. housewife personnel 31 32
grad. tr ’ °

9. l 2 yrs. 3 yrs. housewife electrician 3O 29
coll. coll.

h

Male
Child

II

Female
Child

TABLE 6. (Continued .

72

 

 

-)
# of Education Occupation age
Siblings Pbther Father Mother Father Dbther Father

1. 2 1 yr. 2 yrs. housewife salesman 31 33
coll. coll.

2. l M.A. M.A. housewife student 28 28

3. 2 H.S. H.S. typist press 25 25
grad. grad. operator

4. 3 H.S. coll. Pulsewife sanitation 37 38
grad. grad.

5. l H.S. 2 yrs. housewife army 28 29
grad. coll.

6. l coll. coll. teacher engineer 32 45
grad. grad.

7. 3 H.S. 3 yrs. housavife truck 29 33
grad. H.S. <h‘iver

8. 0 H.S. 8th secretary groundsman 21 26
grad. grade

9. 2 2 yrs. Ph.D. housewife professor 33 50
coll.

l. l H.S. H.S. musewife auto worker 27 34
grad. grad.

2. 3 3 yrs. H.S. housewife lithographer 29 29
H.S. grad.

3. 2 3 yrs. law housewife attorney 33 34
coll. grad.

4. 1 3 yrs. H.S. housewife steel worker 25 25
H.S. grad.

5. 2 3 yrs. coll. housewife minister 33 33
coll. grad.

6. 2 3 yrs. M.A. nurse psychologist 35 32

”fag

73

TABLE 7. Correlations Between Categories

 

 

 

if Length C.
Category $.11? D.T. C.Fi‘ cc? LE? 3119 Int. S.Sp. Times Time I's We's of A.
3.11? 1.00 .11 .29b -.18b .04" .01b .03 -.31 .13 .16 .14 -.06 .03
0.1:. 1.00 .03 .00 .26 .10 -.O6 .17 .26 .29 .61“.31 -.08
er? 1.00 -.6S**.12b .03b .32 -.15 -.02 -.10 -.03 -.12 .18
c.c‘il 1.00 .05b .07b -.10 .26 .11 .05 .38“.23 -.20
1.1:? 1.00 -.24b .27 .03 .41* .63” .4o* .46**.l6
Sil‘?l 1.00 -.01 -.15 -.20 -.71** -.24 -.24 -.08
Int. 1.00 -.01 .19 .42* .26 .13 .14
S.Sp. 1.00 .31 .34"c .33 .27 -.01
7'6: *‘k
4; mixes 1.00 .53 .51 .25 .04
ngm 1.00 .57“.51**.13
Tine *k
I's 1.00 .49 .01
We's 1.00 -.04
C.of A. 1.00
* : p.< .05
** : p.< .01
a : Variable that demonstrated a significant difference as a function couple
type-
b : Correlation coefficient between variables that damnstrated a signifi-

cant difference as a function of couple type.

74

TABLE 8. Means and Standard Deviations of Scores for Group I
(Parents of "High Competent" Children: A ) and Group
II (Parents of "Low Competent" and Clini -Referred
Children: A ) By Sex of Child (Male: B ; Female: Bz)
For Categories Where Husband and Wife Scores were
Jointly Obtained.

 

 

 

 

 

Cate ory B B
g Mean 1 S.D. Mean 2 S.D.

Spontaneous A1 1.36 1.07 1.22 .63
Agreement

A2 .67 .66 .67 .47
Chaotic A1 .73 .75 1.11 .88
Responses

A2 1.89 1.10 1.50 .96
Decision A 1005.27 214.9 897.22 246.2
Time 1
(seconds) A2 834.38 281.6 1009.83 230.1
Simultaneous A1 5.45 1.93 5.61 2.30
Speech

A2 6.25 2.43 6.08 2.06

A1 43.86 14.92 36.02 17.29
Silence (%)

A2 57.35 10.62 48.23 13.26

 

75

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 9. Means and Standard Deviations of Scores for Group I
(Parents of "High Competent" Children: A ) and Group
II (Parents of "Low Competent" and "Clinic-Referred
Children: A ) By Sex of Child (Male: B ; Female: B2)
for Cate cries Where Separate Husband (Cl) and
Wife (62 Scores Were Obtained.
C1 C2
Category Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
B 35.36 16.14 47.41 19.13
"I's" A1 1
Spoken B2 38.22 19.21 46.22 17.09
B1 36.50 29.55 41.44 25.21
A
232 48.83 15.77 47.58 22.80
B1 9.86 11.61 8.05 4.60
"WEI 8" A1
Spoken B2 8.33 8.81 9.56 7.37
B1 4.31 3.40 8.88 8.03
A
2B2 9.25 4.79 .7.83 5.75
B1 3.82 2.54 3.27 1.85
Interrup-A1
tions B2 4.00 3.14 3.56 2.13
B1 3.25 2.18 2.83 1.15
A2
B
2
B1 54.41 17.67 56.50 17.81
Informa- A1
tion B2 56.72 14.25 57.33 14.06
Exchanged
B1 34.50 11.26 39.25 10.73
A .
2B2 53.42 16.89 53.17 16.93
B1 280.73 91.26 264.45 88.17
Length A1
of Time 32 263.94 74.53 282.94 79.89
Spoken
B1 170.31 91.37 176.50 78.35
A
2B 271.92 100.69 277.25 140.56

76

 

 

 

TABLE 9. (Continued . .)
‘— C
Category Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
B1 97.18 28.73 93.01 25.85
Number A1
of Times 32 92.89 21.61 92.00 24.60
Spoken
Bl 86.25 37.99 91.00 39.64
A
2B2 106.67 37.90 106.33 31.31
B1 3.36 .98 2.91 1.38
. A
Ch01ce lB
Fulfill- 2 2.89 .87 2.67 1.05
ment
B1 2.33 .95 2.22 .79
A
2B2 2.67 1.10 2.00 .82
B1 3.01 .03 3.02 .03
Communi- A1
cation of B2 3.01 .03 2.99 .06
Accept-
ance B1 3.01 .05 3.00 .05
A2
B2 2.99 .07 3.00 .03

 

1|- .

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 10. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
For ”Spontaneous Agreement" Category.
Source .88 . df . . . .MS . _ F
A 3.20 1 3.20 4.63 (p.<.05)
B .04 l .04 .06
.AB .04 1 .04 .06
Within 21.44 31 .69
cell
TABLE 11. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
For "Decision Time" Category.
Source .38 . df .. MS .. F
A 17491.95 1 17491.95 .26
B 10131.78 1 10131.78 .15
AB 19977.30 1 19977.30 .30
Within 2006260.40 30 66875.35
cell
TABLE 12. Summary of Analysis of Variance From.Data Collected
For "Chaotic Responses" Category.
Source SS ... df . .. MS . F
A 5.00 l 5.00 5.27 (p.<.05)
B .001 l .001 .001
AB 1.23 1 1.23 1.30
Within 29.46 31 .95

cell

 

 

78

 

 

 

 

TABLE 13. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
, for "Silence" Category. .
Source SS , df 4 . . . MS F
A 133667.94 1 133667.94 5.67 (p.<.05)
B 58218.89 1 58218.89 2.47
AB 329.71 1 329.71 .01 J
Within 707051.03 30 23568.37 1
cell
TABLE 14. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
for "Simultaneous Speech" Category.
Source SS df MS F
A 3.32 l 3.32 .62
B .08 1 .08 .02
AB .08 1 .08 .02
‘Within 159.83 30 5.33

cell

 

 

 

-—————_—.~ ,

79
TABLE 15. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
, o

 

 

 

for "C ice Fulfillment” Category.
Source SS . df MS F
A 7.08 1 7.08 4.88 (p.<.05)
B .38 1 .38 .26
AB .72 l .72 .49
Error I 44.98 31 1.45
C 2.20 l 2.20 1.79
AC .01 l .01 .01
BC .11 1 .11 .09
ABC .40 1 .40 .32
Error II 38.25 31 4 1.23.

 

TABLE 16. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
for "Information Exchanged" Category.

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
A 2015.08 1 2015.08 4.21 (p.<.05)
B 1310.26 1 1310.26 2.74
AB 892.78 1 892.78 1.87
Error I 14358.68 30 478.62
C 52.47 1 52.47 1.09
AC 3.27 l 3.27 .07
BC 42.49 1 42.49 .89
.ABC 12.55 1 12.55 .26

Error 11 1439.32 30 ' 47.98

 

80

TABLE 17. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected

for "Interruptions" Category.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source 88 df . MS . F.
A .83 l .83 .10
B 4.28 l 4.28 .54
AB 1.28 l 1.28 .16
Error I 239.67. ‘ 30 7.99
C 2.02 1 2.02 48
AC .32 1 .32 .08
BC .28 1 .28 .07
ABC .11 l .11 .03
Error II 125.41 p 30 4.18
TABLE 18. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
for "Number of Times Spoken" Category.
Source SS df MS F
A 230.40 1 230.40 .11
B 933.26 1 933.26 .45
AB 1712.52 1 1712.52 .83
Error I 61975.80 30 2065.86
C .32 1 .32 .003
AC 89.22 1 89.22 .98
BC 3.56 l 3.56 04
ABC 69.72 1 69.72 .77
Error

III 2725~3°. 30 g 90.86

 

81

TABLE 19. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
for "Length of Time Spoken" Category.

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
A 38913.37 1 38913.37 2.61
B 42145.29 1 42145.29 2.83
AB 40752.85 1 ’ 40752.85 2.73
Error I 447523.50 30 14917.45
C 205.10 1 205.10 .04
AC 78.70 1 78.70 .02
BC 1199.33 1 1199.33 .25
ABC 1321.43. 1 1321.43 .28
Error II 144188.00 30 4806.27

 

TABLE 20. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
for "Number of 'I's' Spoken" Category.

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
A 112.33 1 112.33 .14
410.54 1 410.54 .52
AB 224.93 1 224.93 .29
Error I 23493.17 30 783.11
C 570.43 1 570.43 2.83
AC 210.16 1 210.16 1.04
BC 106.12 1 106.12 .53
ABC 65.38 1 65.38 .32

Error II 6044.18 30 201.47

 

82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 21. Summary of Analysis of Variance From.Data Collected
.for "Number of 'WE's' Spoken" Category.
Source SS df MS F
A 30.91 1 30.91 .40
B 15.21 1 15.21 .20
AB 15.50 1 15.50 .20
Error I 2322.49 . ‘30 77.42
C 6.58 1 6.58 13
AC 14.16 1 14.16 .28
BC 8.74 1 8.74 17
ABC 82.35 1 82.35 1.62
Error II 1525.06 30 .50'84
TABLE 22. Summary of Analysis of Variance From Data Collected
for "Communication of Acceptance" Category.
Source SS df MS F
A .00017 1 .00017 .04
B .00331 1 .00331 .81
AB .00019 1 .00019 .05
Error I .12340 30 .00411
C .00005 1 .00005 .06
AC .00002 1 .00002 .03
BC .00068 1 .00068 .85
ABC .00197 1 .00197 2.46
Error II .02410 _. 30 .00080

 

APPENDIX B

83

 

84

Pupil Behavior Rating Scale

 

Teacher Name:

 

School:

 

Grade:

 

Date:

 

INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACHER "

 

Please rate all of the children (boys 229 girls) in your
class as "most like" to "least like" the pupil descrined on
each of the following pages. I

For each description we are asking you to first list the
names of the Ehggg children (boys and/or girls) "most like",
and the Ehggg children (boys and/or girls) "least like" the
pupil described on that page, in the appr0priate boxes. If
you genuinely feel none or only one or two of the children in
your class are "most like" the pupil described on that page,
feel free to leave it blank or write in the number of names
you feel accurately reflects your perceptions. Then, please,
list the names of the fiyg children "next most like" and the
fiyg children "next least like" the described pupil, in their
boxes. Finally, please list the names of the remaining child-
ren in your class in the middle box of that page using as many
lines as needed.

Although we expect that one or more children will be rated
as "most like" or "least like" the described pupil on two or
more pages it is not expected that a particular child will be
rated as "most like" or "least like" the described pupil on

every page or that only boys or only girls will or have to be

 

8S

chosen as "most like" or "least like" the described pupil.
That is, it is possible for a particular boy or girl to be
"most like" the described pupil on one, two, or three pages,
"least like" the described pupil on another page, and "next
most like" the described pupil on another page.

Please complete all pages.

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in

completing this rating form.

:.>AHm¢M WMHMU 924 ~HMDB¢ZZH mH AHmDm mHmB:

 

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3oamm ommHmowmo .3oqmm ommHmomma ommHmommo ”WNW” .3oqmm ommnmommn
endow use msHa quam are msHa amass are mMHa emoz aHmsm are mung
amend zmmoaHmo are exmz zmmaaHmo use exmz zumqumo are emoz zmmnaqu use
fl 4
.m _ .m .ma .m .m
.N .v .vH .v .m
.H .m .ma .m .H
.m 1 .NH .m
.H .HH .H
.OH
.0
.m
.s.
.e
.m
.e
..M
.m
.H

ZHNQAHIU
UZHZHmzmm

 

 

 

87

:..H¢Hmmh.§ .HOOEUm UZHzmdmaH wagUHmEHQ m§ AHmDm mung:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3oqmm ammHmomma .3oqmm ommHmomme .zoqmm ammamumma .3oqmm ammHmomma
qu3a are mxHa qHaoa use mqu emcee qHasa use mxHq smog aHasa may mean
amass zamaqomo use exmz zumoaHmo are exmz zmmaquo use emoz zumaquo use
a a
1. l a _ .
.mm _ .1: .mi .maw .m m
a: ._ :_ .. .N
-1 _ It: _ -1. .
.C .mw .mH. .m H
-- .m_ .NHM .N
_ ..
.H. .Ham .H
II_ _
.06
.e.
_
0mm
. _
j
.o_
.m
.e
.m
.m
.H
zmmoaHmo
oszHazmm

 

 

 

 

88

:.mAHmDm.mmmBO EBHS mAmmmcfio m0 mBmUHm OBZH mfimw AHmDm mHmB:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.333 ommHmommn 835me ”Magnum .3Smm ommHmommo .3Smm oumflomma
dead are. and use mama Same fined ems Sad .50: dead as. Baa
amass amenflmo use exmz 3335 was axmz fixaflmo are So: zmmoflmo are
.m .m .3 .m .m
I N .e .2 .e .m
.H .m .ma .m .H
.m .3 I.m
A .2 A
.3
.e
.m
.n
.e
.m
.e
.m
.m
.H

zmmaflHmU
UZHZH‘SMm

 

 

 

89

:.mAHmDm mmmBO mBHB OZHM¢AQ m0 UZHMmO3 OZHQHQ>< >AM>HBU<

.BHHDO 92d mzoqd AOOflUm 2H mZHB mmB mo :05: mnzmmm AHmDm mHmB:

.3oamm DmmHmUmma .Boqmm QmmHmUme
AHmDm Ema mMHA AHmDm mma mMHA Bm4flq
Bmqu ZHmQAHmU MIR me2 zmeAHmU mmfi

.30Qmm QmmHmUmMQ

AHmDm mmB NMHA BmOE

mez.zmmGAHmU Ema

.3oqmm QmmHmUmmfl
AHmDm mmB HMHH
BmOZ zumnflHmU Hue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZMKQAHZU
UZHZHdSmm

.mH
.va
.MH

.HH

 

 

w

 

o
L')

 

 

 

 

00.0
0-1wa

 

 

 

 

.m
.N
.H

 

 

 

 

 

90

.33qu .Hoomom QZd mBmNDONm M2 BmZHdwd mmow MANDHBUd .HHmBm mHE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3oamm ammamommn .zoamm ommHmumma .zoamm ommamomma .zoamm ammHmommo
gamma use mMHq quoa are muHa enema oHdam are mng emoz qHaoa are mean
enema zmmaaHmo use exmz zumogHmo are exmz zmmeaHmo use emoz zmmoqnmo was
. a
.n .as.n % .na .m .m
.N .e M .ea_ w .e .m
.I.H .m _I .ma m .m .H
n .ma W .m r:
a .HH “ .H
.0H
.0
.m
.nm
.rm
.m
.e
.m
.N
.H
zmmaquu
oszHazmm

 

 

 

:.mmHBH>HBU< .HOOmUm AgOZ UZHmDQ mmmzommmm amamommmgH m0 .HflDmDZD mmvzz .HHmBm mHFH...

 

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3oqmm ommHmommn .3oqmm ammHmommo .zoqmm ommHmommn .zoamm ommHmommo
qHaaa are mxHA gamma are mqu emamq qHaaa are mxHq ewes qHasa are mxuq
enema zumqumo use exmz zmmaaHmu are exmz zumqumo are emoz zmmaaHmo use
.
.m .m .ma .m .m
.m .4 .4H .4 .~
a .m .MH .m .H
.m .NH .m
.H .HH .H
.oa
.m
.m
.n
.e
.m_
.e
.m
.N
.H
zmmaaHmo
oszHazmm

 

 

 

=.Mmfiqdmm MAJflUHUQAOZUNmm Q24 MAHfiZOHBOSM mH 02¢ mZOHadflmm
A<zcmmmmmmBZH 024 Nmflm .MfiOS Ed HMDde 02¢ BZMBMAZOU mH AHmDm mHmB:

 

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.zoqmm ammamomma .zoqmm ammHmomma .zoamm ammHmommn .moqmm ommHmommo
qusd use muHa Amman are mqu amass qusa may mMHa amoz quad may mqu
emamn zmmoaHmo use exmz zamaquo may exmz zmmaquo use amoz zmmoaHmo are
a 4
.m _ .m as .m .m
m .v. .va .o .N
us m .ma .m H
. .N NH .N
.I.H_ as .H
.oa
.a
.m
.s
.e
.m
.e
.m
.m
.H
zmmaaHmo
oszHazmm

 

 

 

93

Instructions for Testing Procedure
(fer couple deEisiOn-making taSkT

The tester introduces the couples to the task at hand:
"The following questionnaire contains a number of situations
which, though they may not happen, you are to pretend are true
and real. You are to indicate for each situation the Ehggg

choicesyyou like the most and the three you like the least in

 

the spaces provided. For example, a question might be:

'You are going to be travelling. The months of
the year you would most like to travel in are:

a)
b)
e)

The months of the year you would least like to travel
in are:

 

 

 

a)
b)
:2)

Once the couples understand the task ahead, they are

 

 

 

taken to separate rooms where, in isolation from.each other,
they proceed to fill out the questionnaire. When they finish
these individual tasks, they are brought back together again.
Before they have a chance to talk to each other, they are in-
formed that: "You have filled out the same questionnaire"
and that "Your individual choices will remain confidential."
Also, they are told that "the answers do not involve good-bad,
right-wrong, or normal-abnormal choices, but simply show that
different people have different likes and dislikes in a given

situation."

94

After this, they are told that "your next task will
be to fill out the same questionnaire again but this time
together as a couple." They are given another copy of the
questionnaire and it is explained that 'as a couple' means
that "whatever you choose for each situation will apply to
both of you. Again, assume that the situations described are
true and real and that the two of you have to make the
decisions together. You are to discuss the choices among
yourselves and to indicate in the questionnaire for each
situation the three choices that you as a couple like the most
pad the three choices that you as a couple like the least.
Your discussion during this time will be tape recorded.

Please be sure to complete all the questions. I will be out-
side. Let me know as soon as you are finished."

The couple is then left in the testing room deciding
what they want and do not want if they were, as a couple, in
the situations shown in the questionnaire. The door is closed
and the tape recorder turned on with, again, their full know-

ledge that the discussion is being tape recorded. Also,

 

their decision time is recorded by watch, i.e., the time in
minutes spent by the couple to complete the joint questionnaire
measured from the moment the tester leaves the room until the
couple announces that the task has been completed. The task
must be fully completed in order for decision time to be com-

puted.

95

Questionnaire

For each situation, indicate the three choices you
like the most and the three you like the least in the spaces
provided. For example, a question might be:

You are going to be traveling. The months of

the year you would peep like to travel in are:

a) May
b) July
c) September

The months of the year you would leegg like to travel

in are:

a) January
b) February

c) October

 

 

Please answer all of the following:

1) You are going out to a party this weekend. Famous people
you would mp§2_want to meet there are:
a)
b)
e)
Famous people you would leegp'want to meet there are:
a)
b)
e)

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

2) You are going out to dinner tomorrow night. The foods you

3)

4)

would TEES want to eat are:
a)
b)
e)
The foods you would leesp want to eat are:
a)
b)
C)

You are going out to a movie this weekend.“ The movies (old

 

 

 

 

 

 

or new) you would mpgg want to see are:
a)
b)
e)
The movies (old or new) you would leegg like to see are:
a)
b)
C)

You are going to live in another country for a year. The

 

 

 

 

 

 

countries you would mpg; want to live in for a year are:
a)
b)
a)

The countries you would least like to live in for a year

 

 

 

are:
a)
b)
e)

 

 

 

5)

6)

7)

97
You are going out this afternoon. The activities you
would peep want to engage in this afternoon are:
a)
b)
e)

The activities you would least want to engage in this

 

 

 

afternoon are:
a)
b)
C)

You are going to get a magazine subscription. The magazines

 

 

 

you would peep want to subscribe to are:
a)
b)
e)
The magazines you would leegp want to subscribe to are:
a)
b)
C)
You have been given $1000 to spend. The things you would

 

 

 

 

 

 

peep like to spend the money on are:
a)
b)
e)
The things you would leesp like to spend the money on are:
a)
b)
e)

 

 

 

 

 

The end

98

CommunicatiOn of Acceptance RatingScale

 

The scale ranges from a high rating of ”one" to a low
rating of "five." Each point on the scale is followed by
typical responses for that point.

1. Verbal Recognition and Acceptance of Feelings: Examples:
You' re proud of how you did that; That makes you feel good;
That made you angry; You feel better already; You're enjoying
that.

2. Verbal Recognition and Acceptance of Behavior Only.
Examples: YOu get it that time; You reallyYh1t‘h1mijou' re
getting a workout; You' re standing up again; You're smoking
another cigarette.

 

3. Special Conversation or No Conversation: Examples: She's
been away most of the summer. TThese are nice curtains; I'm
not good at doing dishes; The weather is really nice today.

4. Slight or Moderate Verbal Criticism.Stated or Strongly
implied: Examples: That' s Cheating; You' ll ruin it; That's
not fair; You' 11 have to be more careful; No, not that way;
Watch what you're doing.

 

5. Verbal Criticism: Argumentative; "Preachingg" Openly
Rejecting Feelings of’BehaviOr, AbusivefLang_ag_: It's not
nice to feel that way; You' re nasty; I‘ m,t§Iking to a dope;
You're not so hot yourself; You see, I told you to do it the
other way.

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

came

msmz

 

 

 

 

amxomm m.o3 mo Monasz Amv
cmxomw m.H mo Honabz Amv

cmxomm
«Ewe mo suwcoq ARV

coxomm
mQEHH mo .oz on

"nomomm
mnomcmuanfiwm mo .wmum Anv
"maoaumduumucu mo .02 on
"vmwamnoxm Gofiumahomcm Amv

mmaz pawnmsm

"mafia coamaoon mo N noonmawm ANV
"Hayes "mafia coamauma Aav

wcauoo

 

3QH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ema:
om mm mm nm mm mm vm mm mm Hm om ma ma ha ma
3Qq
swam
ma ea ma NH Ha oa m m h m m e m m .H
mugs
0
no
1.
3oa
amam
on mm mm mm mm mm vm mm mm Hm om ma ma ha ma
30A
- swam
ma va ma NH dd 0H m m n m m v m m a
vcmnmsm
mocmummood mo GOwumowcSEEoo, Aoav

 

 

REFERENCES

References

 

Ard, B.N. Communication Theory in Marriage Counseling: a
critique, in B.N. Ard, and C.C. Ard (Eds.). Handbook

of Marria e Counselin . Palo Alto: Science and Behavior
Books, I969, 213-219.

Axline, V.M. Play Therapy. Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside
Press,*l9472

Bateson, 6., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., and Weakland, J.H.
A note on the double-bind. Family Process, 1963,
2, 154-161.

 

Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of
preszhool behavior. Gen. Psychol. MOnographs, 1967,
75, 3-88.

Baumrind, D. The development of instrumental competence
through socialization. Minnesota Symposium.on Child

Ps cholo , Vol. 7, Minneapolis, Minn.: University of
Minnesota Press, 1973.

Bell, J.E. A theoretical position for family group therapy.
Family Process, 1962, 2, 1-14.

Bower, E.M. Early Identification of Emotionally Handicapped
Children in schOOl (2nd Ed.), Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas, 1969.

Buckley, W.F. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice:Hall,—l967.

Cross, H.J., and Aron, R.D. Relationship of unobtrusive
measures of marital conflict to remembered differences
between parents. Proceedings, 79th Annual Convention,
American PsychologicaI'AssoEiation, 1971, 365-366.

Farina, A. Patterns of role dominance and conflict in parents
of schizophrenic patients. J.+Abn. Soc. Psychol.,
1960, 61, 31-38.

Farina, A., and Dunham, R.M. Measurement of family relation-
ship: agd their effects. 'Arch. Gen.‘Psychiat.,l963,

101

102

Ferreira, A.J. Decision-making in normal and pathological
families. Arch. Gen. Paychiat.,l963, 8, 68-73.

 

Ferreira, A.J., and Winter, W.D. Family interaction and
decision-making. Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 1965, 13, 214-223.

 

Ferreira, A.J., and Winter, W}D. Information exchange and
silence in normal and abnormal families. Family
Process, 1968, 7, 251-276.

Ferreira, A.J., Winter, W.D., and Poindexter, E.J. Some
interactional variables in normal and abnormal
families. Family Process, 1966, 5, 60-75.

Fleck, S., Lidz, T., and Cornielson, A. Comparison of parent-
child relationships of male and female schizophrenic
patients, Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 1963, 8, 1-7.

 

Friedman, C.J., and Friedman, A.S. Characteristics of schizo-
genic families during a joint family story-telling
task. Family Process, 1970, 9, 333-352.

 

Guerney, B.G., Stover, L., and DeMeritt, S. A measurement of
empathy in parent-child interaction. J. Genet.
Psychol., 1968, 112, 49-55.

 

Haley, J. Strategies of Psychotherapy. New York: Grune and
Stratton, 1963.

Haley, J. The family of the schizophrenic: a model system.
J. Nerv. Ment. Diseasey 1959, 29, 357-374. (a)

 

Haley, J. The Power Tactics of Jesus Christ. New York: Avon
Books, 1969.

Hubbell, R.D., Byrne, M.C., and Stachowiak, J. Aspects of

communication in families with young children.
Family Process, 1974, 13, 215-224.

Jackson, D.D., and weakland, J.H. Conjoint family therapy:
some considerations on theory, technique and results.
Psychiatry; 1961, 24, 30-45.

Jacob, T., and Davis, J. Family interaction as a function of
experimental task. Family Process, 1973, 12, 415-427.

 

Kahn, M. Nonverbal communication and marital satisfaction.
Family Process, 1970, 9, 449-456.

Laing, R.D. Mystification, confusion and conflict. In
Boszormenyi-Nagy and J. Frame (Eds.), lntensive Family
Therapy. New York: Harper and Row, 1965,'343-364.

 

103

Leary, T. Inteppersonal Diagnosis of Personalipyy New York:
RonaId*Presswl957.

Leighton, L.A., Stollak, G.E., and Ferguson, L.R. Patterns
of communication in normal and clinic families.
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., 1971, 36, 252-256.

 

Levin, G. Communicator-communicant approach to family inter-
action research. Family Process, 1966, 5, 105-116.

 

Lidz, T., Cornielson, A.R., Fleck, S., and Terry, D. Schism
and skew in the families of schizophrenics. In N.W.
Bell and E. Vogel (Eds.), Modern Introduction to the
Family. Ontario: The Free Press, 1968, 650-662.

Linden, J.I., and Stollak, G.E. The training of undergraduates
%? play techniques. J. Clin. Paychol., 1969, 25,
3- 18.

 

Mendelson, L.A. Communication patterns and marital adjustment.
Florida St. Univ., Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
1970. Cited in Murphy, D., and Mendelson, L.A.
Communication and adjustment in marriage. Family
Process, 1973, 12, 317-326.

Messé, L., and Stollak, G.E. Adult perceptions and child be-
havior dysfunctions. Unpublished paper (of research
in progress), Michigan State University, 1976.

Mishler, B.G., and Waxler, N.E. Interaction in Families,
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968.

Moore, M. Consistency of interaction in normal and clinic
families. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1966.

Mbustakas, G.E. Psychotherapy With Children. New York: Harper
and Row, 1959.

 

Murphy, D.C., and Mendelson, L.A. Communication and adjust-
ment in marriage. Family Process, 1973, 12, 317-326.

 

Navran, L. Communication and adjustment in marriage. Family
Process, 1967, 6, 173-184.

Odon, L., Seeman, J., and Newbrough, J.R. A study of family
communication patterns and personality integration in
ihildgegés Child Psychiat. and Human Deve10pment, 1971,

Rabkin, R. Uncoordinated communication between marriage
partners, Family ProceSs, 1967, 6, 10-15.

104

Raush, H.L., Marshal, K.A., and Featherman, J.M. Relations
at three early stages of marriage as reflected in

the use of personal pronouns. Family Process,
1970, 9, 69-82.

Raush, H.L., Barry, W.A., Hertel, R.K. and Swain, M.A.
Communication, Conflict and Marriage, San Francisco:
JOssey-Bass,fl974.

 

Rogers, C.R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of
therapeutic personality change. 'J. Consult. Psychol.,
1957, 21, 95-103.

 

St. Pierre, 8., Stollak, G.E., Ferguson, L.R., and Messé, L.
Differences in interaction patterns of families with
first or second grade sons rated hir or low in class-
room adjustment. Paper presented at the 1971 meeting
of the Midwest. Psychol. Assoc., Detroit, Mich.,
May, 1971. . ‘

Satir, V. Conjoint Family Therapy. Palo Alto: Science and
Behavior’Books,—1967.

Satir, V. Family communication and conjoint family therapy.
In B.N. Ard and C.C. Ard (Eds.), Handbook of Marriage
Counseling, 1969, 181-195.

 

 

Scanzoni, J. A reinquiry into marital disorganization.
J. Marr. Family, 1965, 27, 483-491.

Schreiber, J. The effects of training on undergraduate be-
havior in play interaction with clinic-referred child-
ren. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State
University, 1972.

Singer, M.T., and Wynne, L.C. Principles for scoring communi-
cation defects and deviances in parents of schizo-
phrenics: Borschach and TAT scoring manuals.
Psychiatryy_l966, 29, 260-288.

 

Stollak, G.E., Scholom, A., Green, L., Schreiber, J., and
Messé, L. The process and outcome of play encounters
between undergraduates and clinic-referred children.
Psychotherapy:' Theory, Research and Practice, 1975,
12, 257-261.

Stover, L., Guerney, B.G., and O'Connell, M. Measurements of
acceptance, allowing self-direction, involvement and
empathy in adult-child interaction. J. Psychol.,
1971, 77, 261-269.

 

Sullivan,‘H.S. ‘The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry.
New York:’W§WL NOrton, 1953.

105

Watzlavick, P. A review of the double-bind theory. Family
Process, 1963, 2, 132-153.

Watzlavick, P., Beavin, J., and Jackson, D.D. Pragmatics of
Human CommunicatiOn, New York: W{W. Norton, 1967.

 

 

Winter, W., Ferreira, A., and Bowers, M. Decision-making in
normal and unrelated couples. 'Family Process,
1973, 12, 83-94.

 

Wynne, L.C., and Singer, M.T. Thought disorder and the

family relations of schizophrenics. Arch. Gen.
Psychiat., 1963, 9, 191-198.