3 :.
.V.,.,,....H,.,_,.,...,.z,

+3..)

     
        

 

L
T

NA

ON IN A FAMILY CONT
ré‘e'

 

h D:

SA

SAND TRAN

of?

 

,2.

 

 

'the be

I,
0".

CAT
" is. '1‘

WW
‘ Th
M

1
'

‘DYADIC SYSTEM
0

C

_
.
a
m
.
_.
V“

.rtl.vh| .
91:11.. u

    

,,. .‘ 4 .... .

   
 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Dyadic Systems and Transactional Communication
in a Family Context

presented by

L. Edna Rogers

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. Jegree in Communication

 

{3;L ‘ 7 // /{/‘
.1 C@,.y{ Z. ‘(L/ggz...ce,/

Major professor

Date October 16, 1972

0-7639 ‘

-..—._____._._———-

      
 

‘ amomc av

‘: ”BAG 8 SONS'

. n" " wru- ‘. '
{M' 3‘1, 7! WC

, 7r 3' ~ >7 ‘r :f: S
smncponr
1 ' " “I

\

 
 

51.75151.) 1 ‘.

.——-—~_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

DYADIC SYSTEMS AND TRANSACTIONAL COMMUNICATION

IN A FAMILY CONTEXT

BY
L. Edna Rogers

This research investigated communication behaviors
of dyadic systems. The study, designed within a general
systems theoretical frame, emphasizes the relational and
process aspects of interpersonal communication. The
research problem involves a theoretical description of
system characteristics of dyads, the indexing of system
states concerning role relationships and the measurement
of system patterns and processes of communication. The
major purpose of the study was to compare the interper—
sonal behaviors and transactional communication patterns
of dyadic systems exhibiting different levels of perceived
role discrepancy strain.

The data for this study were obtained by personal
interviews with a random sample of 65 husband—wife dyads.

Two types of information were gathered: (1) self-report

questionnaire data from each husband and wife separately,

L. Edna Rogers

and (2) discussion interaction data from each husband and
wife pair as they discussed four different topics.

An important aspect of this study was the develop-
ment and application of a transaction level interaction
coding system (in conjunction with Ericson, 1972, and
based on the earlier work of Sluzki and Beavin, 1965, and
Mark, 1970) which was utilized in a relational analysis
of the dyadic discussions. Relational communication
refers to the transactional characteristics of message
exchange by which system members reciprocally control
and define the ongoing nature of their relationship. The
major transactional patterns investigated were symmetry,
complementarity and transitory.

The principle dyadic variable under study was
role discrepancy, a measure of the degree of inequity
strain perceived to be present in the dyadic System.
Length of existence, or history, of the system was
utilized as a controlling variable.

A comparison of dyads differentiated by role
discrepancy level, showed significant differences in
dyadic communication behaviors. Compared to high role
discrepand dyads, lower role discrepancy dyads spent more
time together, talked with one another more, talked about
more topics, particularly more personal topics, were more
satisfied with their communication relationship and with

their marriage.

L. Edna Rogers

The relational analysis of the dyads' topic dis-
cussion interaction showed that high discrepant dyads as
compared to low discrepant dyads, expressed fewer support
messages, had more wife one—up control movements, fewer
husband one-down transitory transactions, fewer unsuccess-
ful talk-overs, and more symmetrical transactions.

It was concluded from this research that the
general systems approach provided sound theoretical
guide for relating system states and communication be-
haviors, and that the relational communication analysis
procedures gave not only useful message-level descrip-
tions of interaction, but has particular value for
operationalizing and describing transactional—level

communication patterns.

DYADIC SYSTEMS AND TRANSACTIONAL COMMUNICATION

IN A FAMILY CONTEXT

BY

L. Edna Rogers

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

1972

COpyright by
Lilian Edna Rogers
1972

ii

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of
Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan
State University, in partial fulfillment of the require-

ments for the Doctor of PhilOSOphy degree.

flaw y K W/

Director ofTT eSlS

flcée/ 1/ 64m,»

Chairman

Guidance Committee: ,

My flaw \

4\

 

 

 

iii

To my parents

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my appreciation to Dr.
Richard V. Farace for serving as my committee chairman
and to Dr. Erwin P. Bettinghaus, Dr. Hideya Kumata and
Dr. Beatrice Paolucci for being members of my guidance
committee. Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. David
K. Berlo. The support, time and helpfulness of each
has been greatly appreciated.

I am particularly grateful to my friends and
colleagues, Phil Ericson, Frank Millar and Ken Villard.
Because of them the project was successful. I also
wish to thank Lee Russell and Judy Osborne for their
contribution to the study. A

Special appreciation for understanding is given

to my son, David Rogers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overview and Importance of the Research

PrOblem o c o o o o o O o o q o o o

A General Statement of the Research
Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dyadic Dimensions . . . . . . . .
Dyadic Evaluation Dimensions . .
Dyadic Communication . . . . . .

smary I O O O O O O O O O O Q C C

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE:
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . .

Dyadic Dimensions . . . . . . . . .

Uniqueness of the Dyad as a Small
Need for a Classification System
The Search for Group Properties .
Review of Attempts to Define and
Classify Dyads . . . . . . . .
Basic Dyadic Dimensions . . . .

Communication Variables . . . . . .

Review of Selected Observational Systems
Overview of the Observational Approach

Family Communication Research . . .
Family Studies . . . . . . . . .

Length of Marriage . . . . .
Sex Differences . . . . . . .
Role Perceptions . . . . . .

Family Interaction Studies . . .
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . .

Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . .

vi

0

Page

10
12
14

16

18

18

18
21
22

27
31
34

34
48

49
49

49
52
53

57
64
64

Chapter

Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Type Of Data 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Description of the Sample . . . . . . . .
Operationalization of Variables . . . . .

Role Discrepancy . . . . . . . . . . .
Relational Communication Patterns . . .

Coding System . . . . . . . . . . .

Code Categories . . .
Control Dimensions .
Transactional Codes .
Analysis Levels . . .

suma ry I O I O O O I O O O O O O I
Coding Procedures and Reliability for
the Discussion Data . . . . . . . . .
IV. ANALYSIS PLAN AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES . .

SGlf-Report Data 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Discussion Data . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exploratory Questions . . . . . . . . .

V. RESEARCH FINDINGS O O O O O O O O O O O V O

self-Report Data 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Time Allocations . . . . . . .
Topic Discussion Frequency .
Communication Control . . . .
Desired Talk-Time . . . . . .
Communication Satisfaction .
Marital Satisfaction . . . .

Discussion Data . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Message and Transactional Descriptions

Message Types . . . .
Message Control . . . . . . . . . .
Transactional Types . . . . . . . .
Summary of Message and Transactional

Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

66

66
69

70
71

72
75

8O

82
87
91
93

101

102
107

108
112
115

116

116

117
135
141
143
147
153

157
158

158
164
165

167

Chapter

Message and Transactional Hypotheses . . .
Activity Level Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Message Level Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Transactional Level Hypotheses . . . .
Summary of Message and Transactional

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Exploratory Questions . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Exploratory Questions . . .

Transactional Examples . . . . . . . . . .

VI. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . .

Self—Report Description Summary . . . . .
Time and Talk-Time Allocations . . . .
Discussion Frequency and Communication

Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desired Talk—Time, Communication and
Marital Satisfaction . . . . . . . .

Relational Communication Analysis Summary
Message Type and Control Direction . .
Transactional Activity and Flexibility
Transaction Types . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration Patterns . . . . . . . .

Implications O O I O O O O I O Q O O O O 0

Major Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Suggestions . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O I

BIBLIOGRAPHY O I O O I O O O O O C O O O O O O 0

viii

Page

168
170
175
180
195
195
211
214
220
220
220
222
223
224
224
225
226
228
228

228
232

236
281

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Number of percent of dyads by interview
category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2. Percentage agreement between coders on
three digit message codes . . . . . . . . . . . 106

3. Mean score estimates of total time with
spouse on a weekday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

4. Mean score estimates of total time with
spouse on a Sunday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5. Mean estimates of time spent with spouse
on a weekday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

6. Mean estimates of time spent with children
alone on a weekday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

7. Mean estimates of time spent outside the
family on a weekday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

8. Mean estimates of talk-time with spouse
on a weekday O O O Q 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 32

9. Mean estimates of talk-time with spouse
on a Sunday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

10. Mean discussion frequency across ten topics . . 136

11. Significance levels of mean discussion fre-
quency scores by topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

12. Response frequencies and total frequency

percentages for self-report communication

contrOl by item I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 142
13. Mean scores of desired talk-time on a weekday . 144

14. Mean scores of desired talk-time on a Sunday . . 145

ix

Table Page

15. Mean desired talk-time for a weekday and a
Sunday by wife—husband . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

16. Mean scores on general communication
satisfaction measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

17. Mean scores on composite communication
satisfaction scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

18. Mean marital satisfaction scores . . . . . . . . 155
19. Summary of major self—report dyadic findings . . 156
20. Frequencies and percentages of message types by

wife, husband, and dyad and rank order of

percentage usage above 1 percent . . . . . . . . 159
21. Frequencies and percentages of second digit

message types by wife, husband, and dyad and

rank order of dyad percentages . . . . . . . . . 162
22. Frequencies and percentages of third digit

message types by wife, husband and dyad and

rank order of dyad percentages . . . . . . . . . 163

23. Percentages of control direction by wife,
husband and dyad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

24. Percentages of transaction types . . . . . . . . 166

25. Percentages of the three general transaction
types I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16 7

26. Mean discussion time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
27. Mean silences per minute . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
28. Mean number of transactions . . . . . . . . . . 174
29. Mean proportions of support messages . . . . . . 176
30. Mean proportions of talk-over messages . . . . . 178

31. Mean proportions of successful talk-over
messages I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 179

32. Mean proportions of unsuccessful talk-over
messages I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 180

Table

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.
43.
44.
45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Mean difference scores from random usage of
each transactional type . . . . . . . .

Mean proportions of
actions . . . . . .

Mean proportions of
transactions . . .

Mean proportions of
transactions . . .

Mean proportions of
(++) transactions .

Mean proportions of
transactions . . .

Mean proportions of
transactions . . .

Mean proportions of
transactions . . .

Mean proportions of
transactions . . .

Summary of discussion data hypothesis

Mean proportions of

Mean proportions of

Mean proportions of
Mean

(++)

proportions of
transactions .

Mean
(++)

proportions of
transactions .
Mean proportions of

Mean proportions
transactions

Mean propor

configuration trans—

H+ W+ complementary

H4 W+ complementary

competitive symmetry

H+ W+ transitory

H+ W+ transitory

O I o O I I o o I

H+ W+ transitory

H+ W+ transitory

one-up messages . .
one-down messages
one—across mess

submissive

xi

testing

Page

182

184

186

187

188

190

191

  
   
    
     
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  

203

204

205

206

 

Table Page

51. Most frequently expressed transactional
pattern by discrepancy level . . . . . . . . . 208

52. Frequencies and sub—total percentages of
configuration patterns by discrepancy
level I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 210

53. Summary of exploratory question findings . . . 213

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Message transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2. Message type and control direction . . . . . . . 88
3. Matrix of transactional types . . . . . . . . . 92
4. An example of ten transactional configurations . 97
5. Transactional configuration typology . . . . . . 98

6. Transactional patterns of high, medium, and
low discrepancy dyads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

7. Transactional patterns of high discrepancy

short and long history dyads and a low
discrepant dyad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix
I. INTRODUCTORY LETTER . . . .
II. SELF-REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE .
III. DISCUSSION TOPICS . . . . .
IV. INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS .
V. DISCUSSION TIME BY TOPIC .
VI. SECOND AND THIRD DIGIT CODE
EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . .
VII. TRANSCRIBING PROCEDURES . .
VIII. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODERS . .

xiv

CATEGORY

Page

236
237
254
256

265

266
269

272

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A developing theme in the area of family research is
one that focuses on interaction processes. Since Burgess'
(1926) innovative definition of the family as a "unit of in-
teracting personalities" this theme has gained momentum.
Concurrent with this movement toward interaction research is
a growing interest in communication theory. In attempting
to understand the "psychosocial interior" (Hess and Handel,
1959) of the family, researchers and clinicians have increas-
ingly recognized the necessity of studying interpersonal
communication behavior.

7 Inquiry into the nature of interpersonal relation-
ships has required a theoretical approach emphasizing the
interdependence of interactors and the notion of process.
This approach is found in general systems theory (Hall and
Fagan 1956,Bertalanffyhl962); it necessitates a shift of
concern away from individual actions to transactions as they
occur over time. The study of system characteristics, rather
than individual behavior or component characteristics, in-
volves a variety of new conceptual and methodological pro-
blems. Research efforts dealing with ongoing interaction at

a systems level have been delayed and detoured by these

1

difficulties. Nevertheless, strong beginnings are being
made and this dissertation is aimed at furthering the
study of interpersonal transactional communication.

Overview and Importance of the
Research Problem

 

 

The key features of the general systems model are
the emphasis on organization, the recurrent patterns of
interrelated component actions, and the transmission of'
information that underlies organization. When this model
is applied to social systems, the exchange and processing
of symbolic information becomes of central importance.

By definition, system components influence one another
and in human systems, this mutual interdependence is
mediated through communicative acts.

As system theorists point out, a distinguishing
characteristic of human systems over mechanical or organic
systems, is that they are based primarily on the flow of
information rather than energy. Further, they are not
only oriented toward structural maintenance, but toward
structural evolution. Buckley (1967) refers to these
processes respectively, as morphostasis and morphogenesis.

Human systems may be described as adaptive, informa-
tion processing systems. They are open systems, operating
continually within a potentially influential and changing

environment. Likewise, there are internal tensions, or

pressures, that affect the goal-directed behavior of system
members. The level of tension within the system varies over
time, but some degree of tension is characteristic of human
systems and is considered a motivator of action.

Cybernetic self-governing principles operate to moni-
tor and control system actions. The dynamics of self-regula-
tion in human systems are based on a selective set of inter-
nal criteria, i.e., rules of distributive justice (Homans,
1958), that function to maintain action limits for the sys-
stems.'The level of tension or perceived inequity within a
system is increased as component behaviors deviate from the
criteria rules toward the tolerance limits. With rule
stretching or breaking, the maintenance of a system's organ-
ization or "working agreement" at that given point in time
become problematic. McCall and Simmons (1966) state that a
working agreement exists "when the cognitive processes of
one person,are not in gross conflict with the expressive
processes of the otherperson" (p. 142).

The attainment and maintenance of such an agreement
or consensus validation (Sullivan, 1953) is always somewhat
problematic and rarely stable. The cybernetic notion of
feedback implies that reciprocal definitions of relation—
ships are continually being negotiated via control communica-
tion, and as a system moves further from an equity "balance",
error-correcting communication increases. Transactional

feedback may result in maintenance of a given steady state

or in the elaboration of a new transitory steady state. The
multiple sources of potential strain on human systems, as
well as the plasticity of human adaptive alternatives, func-
tion to give a fluid, dynamic nature to the structural pat-
terns of social systems.

It is within this general systems orientation, with
its emphasis on communication processes, that the present
research problem was generated. This research deals with
dyadic systems, i.e., two-person interaction systems. It is
viewed as an application of cybernetic principles to the in-
teraction of husband-wife pairs. The major purpose of the
study is to compare the transactional communication patterns
of dyadic systems that have lower levels of perceived in-
equity, to dyadic systems of higher levels of perceived
inequity.

The communication conceptualizations basic to the
present study are those that have been developed in apply-
ing the systems approach to the family area. This is notably
the accumulative efforts of Bateson (1936), Jackson (1959,
1965), Watzlawick, et_§l., (1967), Haley (1963), Sluzki and
Beavin (1965) and others whose prime orientation has been
one of viewing interaction as a transactional phenomenon.

A transactional level of concern refers to the circular af-
fect of interactors upon one another, such that person A's
behavior affects person B's behavior and B's response af-

fects A which in turn affects B. This does not negate the

value of lower levels of interaction analysis, e.g., the ef-

fect of one person's behavior on another, but it goes beyond

it.

A transactional focus requires more adequate models

of communication processes than allowed by traditional mona-

dic oriented theories; it presses for at least a dyadic level
of analysis. In emphasizing the inadequacy of present termi—
n0109Y and methodology for describing and explaining trans-

actions within the family system, Jackson states:

It is only when we attend to transactions between
individuals as primary data that a qualitative
shift in conceptual framework can be achieved.

Yet our grasp of such data seems ephemeral; des-
pite our best intentions, clear observations of
interaction process fade into the old, individual
vocabulary, there to be lost, indistinguishable

and heuristically useless. To put the problem
another way, we need measures which do not sum

up individuals into a family unit; we need to
measure the characteristics of the supra-individual
family unit, characteristics for which we presently
have almost no terminology (1965, p. 4).

 

In developing a "transactional" language, a basic
distinction was made by Ruesch and Bateson (1951) between
the report and command aspects of messages. Later theorists
have referred to this distinction as the content and the

meta or relational level of communication.

Every message has both a content (report) and a
relationship (command) aspect; the former conveys
information about facts, opinions, feelings, ex-
periences, etc., and the latter defines the nature
of the relationship between the communicants . . .

In every communication, then, the participants
offer to each other definitions of their relation-
ship . . . . (Jackson, 1965, p. 8).

Jackson conceptualizes the family as a rule-governed
system, characterized by certain repetitive interaction se—
quences. Based on Bateson's (1936) earlier work, two prin-
ciple patterns of transactions have been defined on the
basis of relational control. One pattern, symmetry, refers
to the interchange of similar control messages, and the
other, complementarity, refers to the interchange of maximal-
ly dissimilar control messages.

The terminology available for describing relational
communication is increasing, but operational definitions of
relational concepts, are particularly lacking. At present,
only Sluzki and Beavin (1965) and Mark (1971) have dealt
with the measurement of symmetrical and complementary trans-
action patterns. These patterns will be investigated as
part of the further development of a methodology for analy-
zing relational communication. The conceptual and opera-
tional aspects of this effort are discussed at length in
Chapter III.

The present study represents a flow of concerns that
are necessarily involved in increasing the understanding of
interpersonal dyadic communication.

One of the first concerns is to present a theoreti-
cally derived classification framework for categorizing

dyads in a conceptually meaningful way. The value of a

classification scheme becomes apparent as one reviews the
over-abundant literature on small groups and the often non-
accumulative nature of the research results. Using a typo-
logical frame for classifying dyads along basic, generic
dimensions, research findings can more readily be accumula-
ted concerning the similarities and differences of communi-
cation patterns in different kinds of dyads.

The study will investigate the communication patterns
of one example of one category of dyads. A notable feature
of the dyad under study (husband-wife pairs) is that it is
a system with a history. Long-standing, intimate dyadic re-
lationships have less frequently been the subject of small
group research, than ahistorical, non-future oriented, ad
hog groups. An assumption of most ad Egg group research is
that the same dynamics apply to historical groups; the pre-
sent research avoids this doubtful generalization.

The investigation of communication patterns will in-
volve two levels of analysis. Descriptions of communication
behavior at the monadic level are important and will be made,
but this study has particular significance for the analysis
of communication behavior at the relational level. As pre—
viously mentioned, this involves the development of a trans-
actional level coding scheme. This scheme focuses on mes-
sage sequences rather than individual messages; on relation-
al control rather than content of message exchange and on

mapping transactional patterns over time. This coding system

and its empirical application is an important contribution
to the study of interpersonal communication.

Interactional research concerned with the relational
level of communication has largely been based on family sys-
tems which contain a schizophrenic child. The present re-
search is based on "normal" family systems.1 This study will
provide insight as to whether relationships found in studies
of "sick" families have relevance for normal families.

The present study has importance in a number of ways,
but particularly in its methodological contributions and re-
lational level analysis of interpersonal interaction systems.
It is seen as a contributing effort toward future higher
level, process-oriented analyses of transactional communica-
tion.

A General Statement of the
Research Problem

 

 

The purpose of the present study is to investigate
dyadic communication behavior in a family context. This
study is part of a larger research project which is concern-

ed with family communication patterns and Optimal strategies

 

1Another aspect of this study which has merit at
least in the area of the sociological study of the family,
is that it includes the husband's views and descriptions of
family system behaviors. See Salfilios—Rothchild's article
"Family Sociology or Wives' Family Sociology? A Cross-
Cultural Examination of Decision-Making," 1969.

for introducing information on emergency preparedness into
the family system.2

The present research is designed to describe the
relationship between selected dyadic system dimensions and
dyadic communication patterns. In this endeavor a general
systems approach, as applied to the family research area is
taken as the main theoretical guide. A basic assumption of
this approach is that dyads Operate on the basis of relation-
al rules that define how the members are to interact with
one another and that these rules, or the attempt to esta-
blish these rules, will be reflected in the communication
behaviors of the system's members. In line with the systems
point of view, the dyad is seen as an open, rule-governed
system of interdependent members linked together by communi—
cative acts oriented toward an adaptive steady state.3

To further our understanding of the application of
the systems approach to the study of communication behavior,
the present research problem will involve a movement of con-

cern from theoretically describing system characteristics of

 

21n this research the system under study was limited
to the husband-wife relationship. This decision was based
on (1) reducing the complexities of studying family commun-
ication at this exploratory state and (2) the assumption
that the husband-wife components form the most basic sub-
system around which other family relationships are formed
(Satir, 1967).

3Haberstroh (1965) defines a steady state in terms of
a "consistent shared set of perceptions (among system ele-
ments) of what the task is and how it should be accomplished
(p. 1173)."

10

dyads to indexing system states concerning role relation-
ships, to observing system patterns and processes of com-
munication. Thus, the major tasks of the study are: (l)
the identification of basic or "generic" characteristics
of a dyadic communication system, (2) obtaining and com-
paring member evaluations of the system, and (3) sampling
and operationalizing dyadic communication. The final task
will consist of describing and interrelating selected as-

pects of these system variables.

Dyadic Dimensions

 

The focus of the research is on interpersonal com-
munication within the dyad. There are, however, many
kinds of dyads. The accumulation of research findings in
this area has been hindered by the lack of a conceptual a
framework within which to describe the behavioral variabil-
ity of different dyadic systems. In previous research
these differences have too often been ignored, with the
assumption that all dyads behave in a similar way. What
is needed is a classification scheme by which to delineate
ciifferent types of dyads.

A search of the theoretical literature concerning
<211aracteristics of different types of social groupings and
illle more empirical oriented of group "properties" resulted

'jlrl the formulation of five dimensions by which to describe
.

€11??ads. These dimensions were selected on the basis of the

1?‘:>3Llowing concerns: that they have reference to the

 

11

relationship, not to individual members alone; that they
have a potential variation effect on communication patterns;
that they are operational; that they have as low a degree
of subjectivity as possible; and that they are general
enough in level to be descriptive of most, if not all,
dyads. The dimensions are as follows:

1. History: The length of existence of duration of

the relationship.

2. Time allocation: The frequency of interaction be-

 

tween the two participants and the amount of time

expended in the dyad.

3. Continuance: The probability of recurring inter-

action between the two participants.

4.’ Function: The extent to which the purpose of the
interaction is based on production, maintenance,
and innovation (Berlo, 1970). Interaction may
focus on the task to be accomplished (the produCr
tive function); on routine events and problematic
concerns of the participants (the maintenance func-
tion); or on non-routine concerns, the generating
of new ideas, techniques and goals, the expansion
of alternatives of the participants (the innova-

tive function); or on any mixture of the three

functions.

5. Regulation: The extent to which interaction is

 

guided by role position rules or by personal

qualities of the participants.

12

Within this framework, the present research will look at
one example -— husband-wife pairs -- of one type of dyad.
These dyads are described as having a history, varying time
allocations, high probability of continuance, being multi-
functional with an emphasis on maintenance and being role
diffuse. The formulation and discussion of these dimensions

are described in detail in Chapter II.

Dyadic Evaluation Dimension

 

Considering the dyad under study as a micro-social sys-
tem, defined by basic relational rules, we now move "into"
the system itself to measure the members' evaluation of the
system in terms of discrepancy from each members' definition
of distributive justice, i.e., equity. There is both theo-
retical (Homans, 1958, Thibaut and Kelley, 1959) and empiri-
cal (Adams, 1965, Blumstein and Weinstein, 1969) evidence to
suggest that exceeding the limits of the rule of distributive
justice is a basic rule violation of fair exchange which
underlies the negotiation and maintenance of open relation-

ships.4

The amount of inequity that is perceived by the
members to exist in the dyadic relation is the major index
of the "state of the system" to be investigated. The in-
equity dimension is referred to as role discrepancy and is

4See "Social Exchange: Basic Issues" (1971), an un-
published paper by the author for a discussion of this
issue.

l3

operationalized by the difference between the normative and
behavioral aspects of the dyad. This involves a comparison
of relationship expectations with perceived behavior per-
formance.5

Expectation can have two meanings, one of prediction
that does not involve evaluation and one of prescription
that does. The prescriptive aspect (referring to ranges of
preferred, or acceptable behaviors) is the concern here.
These expectations serve as a criteria for evaluating the
actual behavior of a dyad.

The assumption is that dyadic relations of the type
being investigated are oriented toward equity, fluctuating
within a range of expectational tolerance limits. Inequity
exists when the actual performance (outcome) is discrepant
from the expectation criteria of the person making the so-
cial comparisons. When system members perceive that the
rule of distributive justice is not being met, they will
activate control communication in an attempt to redress the

inequity. It is hypothesized that the communication patterns

 

5To obtain data on role performance and expectations
each system member was presented (in an interview situation)
a list of selected family tasks, e.g., child care, house
care, social-emotional, etc., and they were asked to respond
as to who actually does the task, and who should do the task.
A comparison of each members' description of task performance
and his preferences or expectations about this performance
provide the discrepancy scores. A complete discussion of
these procedures is given in Chapter III.

14

of dyads with lower perceived inequity will be differentiated
from the communication patterns of dyads with higher perceived

inequity.

Dyadic Communication

 

Two different sets of communication measures were
gathered: First, self-report data from the respondents and
secondly, observational data of dyadic discussions. The
self-report data secured by questionnaire6 provides the
following descriptions of dyadic interaction:

a. Talk-time and time allocations: The amount of

 

time spent talking with spouse and the amount of
time spent with spouse, with family, with others.

b. Talk-time desired: An index of the time desired

 

to talk with spouse on both a weekday and a Sun-
day. This provides a relative deprivation or
saturation measure of dyadic communication.

c. Topic distribution: Frequency of dyadic commun-

 

- ication on various topics.

d. Control of communication: Measures of who talks

 

the most, who initiates and ends conversations

and who dominates the subjects discussed.

 

6Background information about the dyads, as well as
the previously mentioned evaluation measures, were also
gathered by questionnaire. See Chapter III.

15

e. Communication satisfaction: Measures of general

 

dyadic communication satisfaction and a composite
measure of satisfaction on a number of communica-

tion items concerning the dyad.7'

The discussion data were obtained by tape recording
conversations of husband and wife dyads as they discussed
four tOpics, two dealing with predicting family behavior
under threat of emergency and two with family oriented con-
cerns. These topics discussions provide the data base for
the relational communication analysis.

Relational communication refers to the transactional
characteristics of message exchange by which dyadic members
reciprocally control and define the ongoing nature of their
relationship. The major relational patterns investigated
are complementarity and symmetry as mentioned before, and
transitory, a control neutralizing category developed in
the operationalization of a procedure for indexing relation-
al patterns. The present research involves both the develop-
ment of a relational coding scheme and its application. See
Chapter III for a more complete discussion of relational

communication concepts and the present analysis system.

 

7Satisfaction with the dyadic relationship was also
measured and will be related to dyadic role discrepancy.

16

Summary

The major variables of the overall research design

are given below:

 

 

 

 

Dyadic Dimensions Dyadic Communication
A. Descriptive dimensions8 I. Self-report data
Measured dimensions a. Talk-time
1. History b. Talk-time desired
2. Time allocations c. Topic distribution
Typological assiments d. Control of communi-
cation

3. Continuance

e. Communication sat-
4. Function isfaction
5. Regulation

B. Evaluation dimensions II. Discussion data

1. Role discrepancy a. Relational patterns

Within the five-dimension descriptive framework for
classifying different types of dyads, the communication pat-
terns of husband-wife pairs, representing one example of one
type of dyad, will be investigated. The major dyadic variable

under study is the role discrepancy evaluation measure. The

8Two of the theoretically derived dyadic dimensions
were measured. The history of the dyad, i.e., length of
marriage, and estimates of the time spent in the dyad were
obtained from the dyad members. The other three dimensions
were assumed to be generally descriptive of the dyads studied,
e.g., that they have high probability of continuance, are
multi-functional and role diffuse.

17

history, or length of the marriage dyad, however, will also
be investigated. These two dyadic variables will be related
to both the self-report and the discussion communication
data.

The central aims of this study are: (l) to describe
dyadic communication patterns of husband-wife pairs; (2)
to determine what and to what degree differences exist be-
tween the communication patterns of husband-wife dyads who
have different levels of discrepancy in evaluations of role
behavior and expectations; and (3) to further explore pos-
sible dyad-communication relationships, particularly at the
relational level.

This study has importance not only in increasing
the descriptive knowledge of the dyadic system, but more
importantly, in increasing the understanding of processes
and patterns of communication which develOp over time in

long-term, intimate relationships.

CHAPTER II

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE:
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The concern of this study is the dyad and the commun-
ication patterns of this two-person interaction system. In
placing this problem in perspective, three major areas of
study will be reviewed. First, the literature dealing with
the categorization of dyads along theoretical dimensions will
be reviewed. The concern will be the delineation of basic
dimensions by which behavioral variability of dyadic system
can be described. The second area of concern is the litera-
ture dealing with the description of interpersonal communica-
tion activity. A review of the observational approaches
used in conceptualizing ongoing communication will be pre-
sented. Third, a review will be given of the research on

family communication that has relevance for the present study.

Dyadic Dimensions

 

Uniqueness of the Dyad as a Small Group

A dyad, the smallest of the small groups, has certain
distinctive characteristics. Simmel (1950) was one of the
first social scientists to be particularly sensitive to the

inherent frailty of the two-person interaction system. "A

18

19

dyad depends . . . on each of its two elements . . . for its
life, it needs both, but for its death, only one" (p.124).
The negation of a dyad comes not so much from the physical
departure, but from the removal of relational reciprocity.
In larger groups, the effect of one member upon the group's
existence and continuance is considerably reduced.

Simmel points out that the . . .

. . . dependence of the dyad upon its two
individual members causes the thought of its
existence to be accompanied by the thought

of its termination much more closely and im-
pressively than in any other group . . . This
fact is bound to influence the inner attitude
of the individual toward the dyad . . . it
makes the dyad into a group that feels itself
both endangered and irreplaceable . . . (pp.
123-124).

The uniqueness, the potential intimacy, and particular—
ly the directness of reciprocity are distinct features of a
dyad.

Neither of the two members can hide what he
has done behind the group, nor hold the group
responsible for what he has failed to do . . .
The significance of this characteristic, how-
ever, is by no means only negative. On the
contrary, it also makes for a close and highly
specific coloration of the dyadic relationship
(Simmel, 1950, pp.134-135).

The research literature, based mainly on laboratory
discussion groups of varying size, indicates that groups of
two show more signs of tension, have higher rates of asking
for opinions, of giving information and agreement while a-

voiding disagreement than larger groups (Bales and Borgatta,

1955; Borgatta and Guerin, 1960; Thomas and Fink, 1963).

20

Other distinctions of a dyadic system are the limited
dynamics of power. In a dyad, maneuvers are of a less com-
plex nature than in a triad or larger social system. In a
two person group each participant relates directly to the
other; sub-systems and coalitions are not possible. There
is no involved audience or mediator present.1 Simmel ob-
serves, "The essential point is that within a dyad, there
can be no majority which could outvote the individual"2
(p. 137). The addition of one member to a dyad allows the
addition of several group dimensions.3 Becker (1932) sug-
gests that the addition of a third person is more significant
in its consequences for interaction in the group than the ad-
dition of any 4th, 5th, or 6th person. Bossard's (1945) for-
mula for the number of possible relations between members of
various sized groups, NZ-N/Z, gives a sharply accelerating
curve of potential relationships. Group size is found to
vary with increased differentiation of communication parti-
cipation, decreased satisfaction and a decreased feeling of
unity.

The importance of the dyad seems evident. What is
needed, however, if we are to compare dyads, is a system for

classifying them.

 

1One must always be aware, however, of the openness
and connectedness of a dyadic system to the potential effects
of the larger systems in which it operates.

2For sure, there may be power differences in a dyad
but numerically there is no majority.

3See Simmel (1950) pp. 135-169 and Weick (1969) pp.23-25.

21
Need for a Classification Scheme

If one were to enumerate dyads on the basis of noun-
pairs, e.g., nurse-doctor, mother-son, son-father, client-
counselor, teacher-student, friend-friend, pilot-passenger,
seller-buyer, etc., the list would be extensive. A compre-
hensive classification of dyads in this fashion, at the
paired individual or positional level, would also be end-
less. There needs to be a more abstract system of classifi-
cation that is built upon a relatively small number of basic
dimensions on which large numbers of dyads can be placed.

At the theoretical level there have been a variety of
efforts to categorize dyads but usually only on one dimen-
sion; e.g., voluntary - nonvoluntary, formal-informal,
primary-secondary, fleeting-repetitive, ritualistic-idiosyn-
cratic, instrumental-expressive, etc. At the research level,
distinctions concerning the kinds of dyads being investigated
are too often ignored. The implied but unstated assumption
is that "a dyad is a dyad, and what is true for one will be

true of another."4

 

-4This assumption underlies research in groups larger
than the dyad as well. Argyle's comment concerning the
"artificiality" of much small group research is appropriate
here. "The implicit strategy of research has been to assume
that all kinds of small groups follow the same empirical laws,
and that these can best be studied under controlled labora-
tory conditions, where confusing environmental variables are
absent. The result is that there is now an extensive litera-
ture about small social groups of students engaged mainly in
problem-solving or allied tasks, and we really do not know
very much about real groups in the outside world" (1969, p.216).

22

Small group hypothesis, such as the one that increas-
ed interaction increases liking, would benefit from taking
into account the kind of dyad for which the prediction is
being made. The process might be quite different for non-
voluntary versus voluntary interactors. Thibaut and Kelley
(1959) point out that many times individuals stay in dyadic
relationships in which reward outcomes are below their com-
parative level because of their dependency on the relation-
ship. This is antagonistic to the general unqualified social
exchange proposition that interaction ceases when outcomes
are not profitable ones. When the dependency of a relation-
ship is altered by a modification of the alternatives, so is
the dyadic behavior.

The need for a unifying descriptive frame is strongly
suggested as one reviews the massive literature dealing with
small groups and the confusion that results from it? Re-
search findings are nonadditive if there is no accounting
for the type of small group being studied. A conceptual
framework for classification of dyads is not only necessary
for an inventory of research but for the further develop-

ment and accumulation of research propositions.

The Search for Group Properties

A classic problem in the social sciences has been the

search for determining the basis (or bases) of unity of

 

5 See Golembiewski (1962), especially Chapter II.

23

group members. From the field of sociology has come a series
of polar typologies which have been developed to describe dif-
ferent dimensions of social organization. Prominent examples
are T3nnies (1957) distinction between Gemeinschaft and
Gesellschaft, Durkheim's (1947) contrast between mechanical
and organic solidarity, Redfield's (1941) folk and urban con-
structs, and Becker's (1932) sacred and secular distinctions.
These ideal types are based on the kind of bonds that bring
and hold men together in social groups and associations.

One basis of unity (Gemeinschaft, folk,mechanica1,
sacred) is conceptualized as resting on the intergrative
"forces" of mutual sentiment between group or society mem—
bers, while the other (Gesellschaft, urban, organic, secu-
lar) rests on the contractual obligations that exist between
people. The former is characterized by normative homeo-
geneity and psychological dependency; the latter by differen-
tiation and functional dependency.

With few exceptions, these early efforts were in-
terested in characterizing total societies, not small groups
or dyads. The predominance of the macroscopic study of
social organization continued until the World War II re-
search era and the discovering of the influence of the
"small group." The emergency of small group research
rested on the premise that we could explain behavior in ways
that were not possible by utilizing individual psychologi-

cal concepts on the one hand, nor the global society level

24

concepts at the other extreme. Since that time there has
been a flood of small group studies, but the concern over
the dimensions problem has been small. In reviewing this
situation, Golembiewski states:

Whatever the reason, the state of research may

be typified fairly in this way: most students
have been content to handle a few variables, to
make some assumptions concerning the homogeneity
of the population considered along other dimen-
sions, and to determine statistically significant
relations between the few variables. The implied
conclusions hardly needs detailing: the general
approach is less demanding than the search for
group dimensions; unfortunately, the general ap—
proach is also less promising (1962, p. 73).

Homans' work, beginning with The Human Group (1950),

 

is one attempt to integrate a number of empirical studies
on the basis of four basic variables -- activity, inter-
action, sentiments and norms. Emphasis is placed on the
quantity (frequency) of activity and interaction, and the
value (sentiment based on normative evaluation) of the
activity.

Parsons' (1951) patterned variable analysis is another
prominent attempt to classify social systems along several
dimensions. These dimensions or modes of social integra-
tion are based on the choices any actor mustmake between
incompatible alternative-pairs when acting in relation to
any other actor. These alternatives or "dilemmas of action"
are: Affectivity vs. affective neutrality, diffuseness vs.

specificity, particularism vs. universalism, ascription

25

(quality) vs. achievement (performance), self-orientation
vs. collectivity orientation.6
Other efforts to outline dimensions by which groups

may be classified, which are more specific in nature, are
offered by several students of small groups.7 Hemphill
(1949, 1956) and Cattell (1948, 1951) have developed lists
of variables by which to describe groups characteristics and
have used factor analysis to reduce this larger number to the
major factors. Borgatta and Cottrell (1955) have used a
similar procedure and in an article with Meyers (1956) have
discussed some of the problems involved in this procedure.
One particularly perplexing problem noted by Golembiewski is
that:

a factor-analytical approach to the dimensions of

the small group requires the existence of a set of

dimensions which can determine whether or not a

batch of collectivities is homogeneous ' as-a

species.‘ And this set of dimensions, of course,

is precisely what does not exist (1962, p. 81).

Hemphill's scheme consists of 14 group dimensions by

which a group may be described (on a five point scale for

each dimension). These are as follows:

 

6These are the original five variables which were later
reduced to four.

7Some classification efforts which by title seem ap-
propriate to the problem at hand, but by content are not,
were not included for review. For example, DeGre (1949) in
an article entitled "Outline for a Systematic Classification
of Social Groups" proposes a classification of roups on the
bases of three major considerations: (1) terri oriality or
nonterritoriality bases, (2) degree of organization and (3)
degree of complexity of organization. Ei ht sub-categories
result by which he classifies nations, vi lages, neighborhoods,
families, friends, structured organizations, collectivities,
and crowds.

26

l. Autonomy, the degree to which a group functions
independently of other groups.

2. Control, the degree to which a group regulates the
behavior of individuals while they are functioning
as group members.

3. Flexibility, the degree to which a group's activities
are marked by informal procedures rather than by ad-
herence to established procedures.

4. Hedonic tone, the degree to which group membership
is accompanied by a general feeling of pleasantness
or unpleasantness.

5. Homogeneity, the degree to which group members are
similar with respect to socially relevant charac-
teristics.

6. Intimacy, the degree to which members of a group
are mutually acquainted and are familiar with the
personal details of one another's lives.

7. Participation, the degree to which members of a
group apply time and effort to 'group' activities.

8. Permeability, the degree to which a group permits
ready access to membership.

9. Polarization, the degree to which a group is oriented
and works toward a single goal.

10. Potency, the degree to which a group has primary
significance for its members.

11. Stability, the degree to which a group persists
over a period of time with essentially the same
characteristics.

12. Stratification, the degree to which a group orders
its members into status hierarchies.

13. Viscidity, the degree to which group members func-
tion as a unit.

14. Size.
These efforts to categorize groups are laudable; how-

ever, they have had limited impact on the development of a

27

typology of groups. Clarification of group dimensions has
suffered from the lack of consistency in the use of terms by
different investigators. Extensive lists of descriptive
characteristics fail to identify the key properties of groups
while one-dimensional classifications (dichotomies)combine
and conceal independent distinctions. A comprehensive, yet
useful set of group properties that have theoretical linkage,
are operational and limited in number, is still to be for-
mulated.

Review of Attempts to Define and
Classify Dyads

Other than the many one-dimensional classifications of
dyads, there have been few attempts to delineate dyads in a
generic way. One exception is the scheme formulated by Becker
and Useem (1943). However, their definition of a dyad is
limited to the following:
Two persons may be classified as a dyad when intimate,
face-to-face relations between them have persisted
over a length of time sufficient for the establishment
of a discernible pattern of interacting personalities
(p.13).
Thus, from a larger set of two-person interactions they have
selected only one subset with which to deal.
In line with their definition of a dyad they set up
a classification scheme based on the extent to which the
personality is involved in the dyad. Their classification

permits two major breakdowns: (1) comprehensive dyads --

"those pairs in which a relatively large portion of the

28

personalities of both are included in the relationship."

(p. 21) and (2) segmentalized dyads -- "those groups of two
which involve relatively less of 'segments' of the personali-
ties of both." Under the first category are three subsets:
(1) friendship pairs, (2) sexual pairs, (3) generation pairs.
Under the latter category are five subsets: (l) aider-aided
pairs; (2) teacher-pupil pairs; (3) ordinated pairs [an
supersociate-subsociate, (b) equisociates, (c) superordinate-
subordinate -- the distinction between a and g rests on a
subsociate having some power over a supersociate while a sub-
ordinate has little or no power over a superordinate]; (4)
common interest pairs; and (5) patterned-contact pairs.

On the basis of Simmel's work, Becker and Useem dis-
cuss many important characteristics which they feel must be
present to meet their definition of a dyad. Their discussion
of these characteristics seems more descriptively insightful
than the devised classification scheme.

Marwell and Hage (1969) offer an interesting analysis
of 100 dyadic role relationships on the basis of a matrix of
16 general variables. These variables are generated from a

combination of four "fundamental elements" of all relation-

ships -- occupants (who), activities (what), location (where),
occurrences (when) -- with four "basic characteristics" of
all relationships -- the sc0pe, intensity, integration and

independence of the relationship. Raters scored each role-

relationship on each of these variables. A factor analysis

29

of the ratings reflected three major dimensions: (1) in-
timacy (expressive vs. instrumental), (2) visibility (pri-
vate vs. public nature of role relationship), and (3) re-
gulation (high vs. low behavior specification of relation-
ship). A dichotomized cross-classification of these three
dimensions resulted in eight types of relationships. The
similarity of these dimensions to those described by Tonnies,
prompted Marwell and Hage to discuss their eight-fold classi-
fication as sub-categories of the Gemeinschaft and Gesell-
schaft typology.

In an insightful essay, McCall (1970)8 describes
five types of social bonds: (1) ascription: a linking of
two people based on social position, not on individual
characteristics; (2) commitment: the extent to which a
person "has privately and publically committed himself, or
been committed, to honoring a restrictive covenant, a trade
agreement, with another party" (p. 7) -- this refers to an
actor's self involvement in giving energy and loyalty to the
fulfillment of a promise; (3) attachment: the "building of
specific others into the very contents of (self) role-iden-
tities" (p.8); (4) investment: the consideration of self

and alter's amount of scarce resources (time, energy, money,

 

8This builds heavily on the previous work of McCall
and Simmons (1966) concerning the nature of interpersonal
ties (PP. 170-175) 0

30

etc.) expanded in establishing and maintaining a relation-
ship; (5) reward dependability: the degree of dependability
of others as a source of social rewards.

McCall feels these are the most important elements
for promoting continued relationships between two people.
These bounds are often found in combination, yet McCall also
feels "they are distinct factors; they are present in dif-
ferent proportions in different relationships, and they often
vary independently of one another" (p. 9).

In a paper on deviance, Denzin (1970) discussed the
nature of social relationships9 and suggests three very
basic analytical dimensions: (1) duration, (2) location,
and (3) degree of mutual involvement. Relationships that
are time-specific, place-specific and involvement-specific
(e.g., buyer-seller, civil authorities, employer-employee,
acquaintances) are quite distinct from diffuse relation-
ships of long duration and many levels of involvement (e.g.,
friends, lovers, relatives).

While Denzin feels these are clearly important analy-
tical dimensions, he states that the distinction must be
more refined. This task yet remains. Denzin comments

that,

 

9A relationship, as defined by Denzin, exists between
two or more people when those people engage in recurrent
forms of either symbolic or co-present interaction.

31

The range and types of social relationships that
characterize human interaction have remained
largely unconceptualized by the sociologist. So-
ciologists have yet to describe adequately the ef-
fects of such relationships and to sufficiently
come to grips with how these ranges of experience
are created, stabilized, and dismissed by persons
themselves (p. 67).

Basic Dyadic Dimensions

In seeking to analyze the range of dyadic relation-
ships, it was suggested that it is useful to think in terms
of a number of analytical dimensions upon which any relation-
ship can be located for descriptive and comparative purposes.
Producing the argument for the necessity of being concerned
with general properties of groups may be easier than genera-
ting the dimensions themselves. The present offering of
dimensions is not an exhaustive list. The dimensions are
suggestive, not definitive. The previous review of group
properties and the commonalities that exist among them have
been heavily taken into consideration.

The guiding question, however, is: Given a dyad, what
are the general kinds of descriptive statements that can be
made about the relationship -- not the individuals, but the

relationship?10 A relationship exists between two people

 

10As we have noted, relatively few studies have been
truly based on a dyadic conceptualization, that is, the

linking of the components of a system rather than based on

the components themselves. Cha p e,(l940),and Homans (1961),
for example, have given us gui e Wlth their concern With fre-

quency and duration of interaction. These are variables that
age measurable for all relationships, and only for relation-
s ips.

32

engaging in recurrent forms of symbolic interaction. Thus,
the focus is on the occurrence and organization of reciprocal
behaviors. How long has the relationship existed? How fre-
quent and for how long does it get "put into action?" How
likely is it to occur again? For what reasons do the parti-
cipants "come together?" What are the constraints that guide,
limit, and pattern otherwise random activity?

Dimensions of interest are those that (1) refer to the
relationship, not to individual members alone, (2) have re-
levance for probable explanation of communication variance,
(3) are operational, (4) have as low a degree of subjectivity
as possible, and (5) are general enough in level to describe
most dyadic occurrences by use of relatively few dimensions.
With this in mind, as well as the review of the theoretical
identifications of characteristics of groups of different
types and the more empirical oriented listings of group
"properties," the following dimensions were formulated by
which to distinguish most, if not all, dyadsJJ- Size in
this case is, of course, a given.

1. History: The length of existence or duration

of the relationship, varying from newly formed

to long-time established dyads.

 

lLThe discussion of groups and group properties has been
predominantly concerned with voluntary groups rather than in-
voluntary ones. While the totally compliant relationship can
be described b the dimensions given, these dimensions were
formulated wit the more .freguent occurring type of dyads in
mind, the ones with varying egrees of voluntariness.

33

Time allocation: The frequency of interaction be-
tween the two participants and the amount of time
expended in the dyad. This may vary from infre-
quent to regularly recurring interactions with
little time involved to high time involvement.
Continuance: The probability of recurring inter-
action between the two participants. This rests
on the mutual involvement or investment in the
preservation of the dyad. It may vary from high
to low obligation and/or commitment, and thus
reflects the substitutibility of participants.
Some relationships may be highly transferable
while others are much less so.

This dimension forces us more into the domain
of the actors' feelings than the others. Thus,
there is a hesitancy to include it; yet it touches
such a fundamental aspect of social intergration,
it is difficult not to include it.

Function: Dyadic interaction may be based on
variations of productive, maintenance and innova-
tive functions. The interaction may focus on the
task to be accomplished (the productive function),
or on the preservation of the interaction of the
participants (the maintenance function) or on the
generation of new ideas, techniques and goals, the

expansion of alternatives of the participants

34

(the innovative function), or on any mixture of
the three functions.

5. Regulation: Dyadic interaction varies to the
extent that it is guided by role position rules
or by personal qualities of the participants.

All interaction operates within some minimal de-
gree of normative or consensual framework; how-
ever, it may be based on variations of knowledge
of the role relations or on knowledge of persons.
This distinction has been similarly referred to

as formality-informality, ascription-attachment.

Communication Variables

 

Review of Selected Observational Systems

An understanding of man and his relationships can be
abstracted from the character of talk. Verbal behavior is a
rich source of data, but analytically difficult to handle.
The analysis of talking behavior seems to necessitate "out-
side" observation. The objective awareness and descriptive
ability of one's own behavior or that of others when involved
in a conversation is difficult, if not impossible. Kenkel
(1963), for example, found that perceptions of a variable as
simple as the amount of time that respondents and their mari-
tal partner talked during a discussion period were quite

different from the actual times.

35

A variety of observational methods have been devised
since the beginning work in the 1930's for describing the
communication processes of group interaction.12 These methods
vary from simple two category systems to highly complex, multi-
categorical ones, from minimally inferential to highly inferen-
tial descriptions, from interpretation of individual intention
to group function of messages, from broad to specific commun—
ication situation application.

The observational systems that are reviewed here were
selected to be representative of a larger set of methods that
have been developed over the past 30 years, that have appli-
cation to many interaction situations, are not specific in
nature, are not necessarily intended for a therapeutic popu-
lation, and that focus on verbal behavior. Thus, eliminated
from consideration were systems that apply to particular
types of groups, e.g., teacher-students, (Flanders, 1960;
Amidon and Flanders, 1963); that are highly specific in analy-
sis, e.g., tabulating nouns, pronouns, etc., (Goldman-Eisler,
1954); that deal with nonverbal behavior (Rosenfeld, 1966);
and that are mainly used in therapeutic setting with a heavy
emphasis on inferring the psychological function of the
message and/or the psychological state of the actor (Leary,

1957; Adler and Enelow, 1965).

 

12Carr (1929) and Thomas, et al., (1933) pioneered
in this area.

36

The subset of methods to be reviewed was purposely
chosen across time to sample the kinds of recurring commun-
ication variables that have been described, defined, and
measured by various observational techniques.

The classification system of Chapple (1940) treats
only the time element of interaction. His scheme deals with
the observation of action (linguistic) and inaction (silence)
between two interactors. Chapple describes the number and
length of units of actions of each individual. This fairly
uncomplicated procedure gives a variety of structural mea-
sures of interaction -- the length of the total interaction,
the length and ratio of each participant's action, the fre-
quency and ratio of each participant's action, etc. Chapple
(1949) has conceptualized the characteristics of tempo, acti-
vity, initiation, etc., on the basis of the time element of
interaction. 7

The Scheme has the advantage of being relatively sim—
ple and highly reliable. It produces more indicates of in-
teraction than one might think, based only on a time dimen-
sions; however, the shortcoming, of course, is the limited
amount of information that it gives about the total commun-'
ication process.

Taking into account interaction content, Steinzor
(1949) developed a fairly complicated classification system
to analyze the intent of verbal behavior in face-to—face

groups. His scheme includes 18 categories describing the

37

communication intent of the actor, with three sub-classifica-

tions according to the direction of the intent; (1) toward

self, (2) toward group, and (3) toward issue. The 18 cate-

gories are:

15.
16.
17.
18.

.Activate and originate,
Structure and delimit,
Diagnose by labelling,
Evaluate,

Analyze and explore,
Express and give information,
Seek information,
Clarify confusion,
Defend,

Offer solution,
Conciliate,

Understand and reflect,
Give support,

Seek support,

oppose and attack,
show deference,
Conform,

Entertain.

A nineteenth category labeled miscellaneous included all un-

classifiable statements.

Steinzor's basic assumption was that behavior is mo-

tivated, that an understanding of motivation is necessary to

an understanding of behavior, and that a significant aspect

of motivation is the intent or purpose of the individual's

verbal behavior.

It was assumed that the greatest understanding of
group relationships would be gained if inferences

as to the individual's intent or purpose most nearly
approximated the way the individual would define his
purpose (pp. 104-105).

The complexity and nonordered pot pourii aspects of

 

these categories cause serious problems in coding. He also

38

lacks a unifying notion of what communication variables are
being measured. Disagreement with his basic assumption can
be defended, and the methodological approach is highly in-
ferential with low potential for reliability. Steinzor does
not specifically take into account the sequence of sequen-
tial effects of the verbal behavior being analyzed.

Carter, et_§l. (1951), in their studies of leadership,
devised a 53 category system by which to classify verbal acts
according to their function in the group process as seen by
an outsider. There are seven main category groupings with
from three to fifteen subcategories. The main category
headings are:

. Shows personal feeling,

Proposes and initiates action,

Disagrees and argues,

Leader role in carrying out action,

Follower and worker role in carrying out action,

Abortive and nonproductive behavior,.
. Miscellaneous.

\lO‘U‘IubWNl-J
I

Except for the first section dealing with personal feelings,
the categories require minimal coding inference. This array
of categories allows a large amount of specific information
to be taken into account, but this also produces a very com-
plex and cumbersome system.

Bales (1950) produced a category scheme concerned with
interaction content, but one with higher classification ob-
jectivity than Steinzor's and more conceptual structure than
Carter's. Perhaps the longevity of Bale's scheme, Interac-

tion Process Analysis, is indicative of this.

 

39

The emphasis of Bale's observational scheme is more
on the group and less on the individual. The conceptual
framework is based on four main problems confronted by a
social system: Adaptation to outside influences, instru-
mental control over task, expression of feeling and mainten-
ance of integration. Adaptation and instrumental control
are considered to be basically task oriented and are handled
primarily by expression of question and answers, that is, the
giving and the asking for information (orientation), opinion
(evaluation) and suggestions (control). Expression of feel-
ings and maintenance of integration are considered to be
basically socio-emotional oriented and are dealt with pri-
marily by the expression of positive and negative reactions.
The observation list for coding behavior is as follows:

. Shows solidarity,
Shows tension release,
Agrees,

Gives suggestion,
Gives opinion,

Gives orientation,

. Asks for orientation,
. Asks for opinion,

. Asks for suggestion,
10. Disagrees,

11. Show tension,
12. Shows antagonism.

\OQQO‘UIQWNH
I

The major communication variables imposed upon these
categories are: Orientation (6,7), Evaluation (5,8), Con-
trol (4,9), Positive reaction (1,2,3), Negative reaction
(10,11,12). The main measures of message frequency and

flow available from the coding scheme are: Distribution

40

of acts by category and total, who-to-whom matrix by category
and total, and ratio of instrumental acts to socio-emotion-
a1 acts. An important measure of communication process that
is possible by using the Bales' system is a phase analysis

of the distribution of acts over time. This type of analy-
sis, utilized by Bales and others, has significant implica-
tions for the study of the process aspects of communication.

Borgatta's (1961) revision of the IPA was designed to
sharpen the discrimination of several of Bale's categories
by further specification. For example, category four, "gives
suggestion" becomes (4a) "gives procedural suggestion" and
(4b) "gives solution suggestions." Borgatta's subdivisions
and reorganization were made within the "parent" framework,
thus maintaining the continuity and comparability of commun-
ication variables and research results.

The revised categories referred to as the Interaction
Process Scores, are listed below with the numbers in paren-
theses indicating the connection to the original IPA cate-
gories.

1. Common social acknowledgments (1a)

2. Shows solidarity through raising the status

of others (1b)

3. Shows tension release, laughs (2)

4. Acknowledges, understands, recognizes (3a)

5. Shows agreement, concurrence, compliance (3b)

6. Gives a procedural suggestion (4a)

7. Suggests solution (4b)

8. Gives opinion, evaluation, analysis, expresses

feeling or wish (5a)

9. Self-analysis and self-questioning behavior (5b)

10. Reference to the external situation as redirected
aggression (5c)

41

11. Gives orientation, information, passes
communication (6a)

12. Draws attention, repeats, clarifies (6b)

13. Asks for opinion, evaluation, analysis,
expression of feeling (8)

14. Disagrees, maintains a contrary position (10)

15. Shows tension, asks for help by virtue of
personal inadequacy (11a)

16. Shows tension increase (11b)

17. Shows antagonism, hostility, is demanding (12a)

18. Ego defensiveness (12b)

13 categorizes

Borke's (1967) classification system
each communication according to the probable intent of the
person initiating it. It is embedded in Horney's (1945)
broad theoretical scheme of classifying interpersonal be-
havior as "going toward," "going against," or "going away
from" others. These three interpersonal styles of relating
to others are broken into primary and secondary mode cate-
gories.14 Both the initiator and the recipient of the inter-
personal message is recorded in each exchange. The cate-
gories are given below: I

I. Goes toward

1. Contributes
a. Offers information
b. Seeks information

c. Entertains
d. Miscellaneous

 

13This scheme has been revised by Borke (1969) for use
with video tape.

14Borke (1967) notes that in analyzing data on family
interaction that the secondary mode inferences were too
sparsely distributed for overall systematic comparisons
(p. 19).

42

2. Supports

a. Actively promotes cause
b. Shows concern

3. Petitions

a. Seeks support

b. Seeks attention

c. Seeks direct gratification
4. Directs

a. Organizes

b. Behaves strategically

c. Instructs

5. Accepts from others

a. Accepts support
b. Accepts other's point of View

II. Goes against other
1. Resists

a. Ignores
b. Opposes

2. Attacks

a. Behaves provocatively
b. Attacks directly

III. Goes way from other
1. Retreats

a. Evades
b. Withdraws physically

Borke's system provides both profile data and sequen-
tial data on communication acts. From this, a number of com-
parisons are possible by total unit and by each participant.
The most general variable derivable is an overall "going

toward, against or away" style of relating to other members.

43

At the primary and secondary mode level, the proportion of
communication in each category can be determined, the pro-
portion of communications initiated and received by each
member is available by total or by category; and the inter-
action sequence can be traced by speaker and/or category.

Soskin and John's (1963) analysis of talk behavior
included four kinds of approaches to the data: (1) ecologi-
cal, a description of the behavior setting, (2) structural,
a description of the amount, frequency and duration of talk-
ing behavior, (3) functional, a description of the major
classes of verbal acts in terms of their function, and (4)
dynamic, a description of the emotional state of the
speaker.15 Of particular concern to our interest here are
the structural and functional categories for characterizing
verbal behavior.

The three main variables under the structural analy-
sis are: (l) the subjects' absolute and relative amount of
talking, (2) the subjects' number and prOportion of utter-
ances exchanged, and (3) the distribution of subjects'
speech duration.

The basis of the functional analysis rests on a dis-

tinction made by Soskin and John between informational and

 

15Soskin and John note that, from the coder's point of
view, the structural analysis is practically inference free,
the functional analysis involves more inference, and the dy-
namic analysis is quite inferential.

44

relational functions of talk. The first type consists of
objective statements about one's self and one's world. "In-
formational messages are those which develop or report what
are thought to be facts; they identify, classify, analyze,
organize, etc., and are primarily information transfer state-
ments" (p. 253). Relational talk includes statements "by
which a speaker manages his interpersonal relations“ (p. 253)
by direct specification of preference or by indirectly pro-
viding information about his present state which can be
taken account of and adjusted to by the listener. Six types
of statements are given below which have been distinguished
by Soskin and John.

I. Informational messages

1. Structiones: Objective informational statements
II. Relational message

2. Signones: Subjective messages of physical or
psychological state of speaker

3. Metrones: Evaluate, interpretative statements

4. Regones: Regulative statements, both giving
restrictions and opportunities

III. Quasi-relational messages

5. Expressive: Utterances to discharge im-
mediately experienced tension

6. Excogitative: "Thinking out loud" statements
Using these categories the usual method of comparison
can be made of (l) speaker's distribution of messages by cate-

gory, (2) shifts of distribution of messages at different

time points, (3) sequential distribution of messages.

45

Mark's (1970) interpretation and extension of Sluzki
and Beavin's (1965) transactional coding system is the final
interaction analysis to be reviewed. It is based on the
theoretical orientation of Bateson (1936), and co-workers
at the Mental Research Institute at Palo Alto. It is an
attempt to emphasize the transactional aspect of the commun-
ication process and operationalize the symmetrical and com-
plementary dimensions of interpersonal interaction.

Rather than a sender-receiver model, this approach is
built upon a relational model. The smallest unit of analy-
sis is a paired exchange of two messages rather than a sin-
gle message. As Watzlawick and Beavin (1967) point out, if
a sequence of messages between A and B is broken down into
statements about A separately from B, an intrapersonal or in—
dividual explanation of communication behavior results. A
quasi-interactional explanation results from a comparison of
A with B. But a truly interactional explanation results
when the measurement is based on the sequentially ordered
interpretation of a series of two message units.

Symmetrical interaction is characterized by "equality
and the minimization of difference, while complementary in-
teraction is based on the maximization of difference"
(Watzlawick, et_§l., 1967, p. 69). Complementarity is fur-
ther broken down into "one-up" and "one-down" positions.
Neither communication symmetry nor complementarity are to

be considered as "good" or "bad." The basic assumption is

46

that complementary and symmetrical relationship patterns func-
tion homeostatically to stabilize the communication system.
Pathological forms of interaction are suggested to be the
nonmixing of different patterns, thus resulting in an over
use of style of relating.16 The predominant potentially
pathological forms outlined by Watzlawick, et_§l., are sym-
metrical escalation (p. 107) and rigid complementarity (p.
108).

Examples of symmetrical and complementary transactions
given by Sluzki and Beavin are:

giving/taking instruction=complementary (giving=
one-up, taking=one-down)

asking/answering=complementary (asking=one—down,
answering=one-up)

asserting/agreeing=complementary (asserting=one-
up, agreeing=one-down)

referential statement/referential statement:
symmetrical

agreeing/agreeing=symmetrica1

giving instructions/countering with instructions:
symmetrical (1965, p. 326).

In this system, the designation of symmetry and com-
plementary one-up and one-down is based on both the gramma-

tical form of the statement (e.g., question, assertion) and

 

16It is the suggestion of the present author that this
proposition should be limited by the definition of the role
relationship of the interactors, e.g., in a socially defined
complementary role relation setting, heavy use of a particu-
lar form of complementary communication pattern, would not
necessarily be pathological or dysfunctional.

47

the response style ( e.g., agreeing, disagreeing) . Each
speech is coded via a three-digit designation. The first
digit designates the speaker. The second digit refers to
the grammatical form of the speech and the third digit in-
dicates the meta-communication aspect of the speech relative
to the statement that came before it.

The code categories are given below.

lst digit code: 1. 1st speaker
2. 2nd speaker

question

assertion

instruction

orders

talking over

assertion and question
question and assertion
other

laughter

2nd digit code:

3rd digit code: agreement

disagreement

extension

answer

disconfirmation

topic change

agreement and extension
disagreement and extension
other

laughter

\DmflmUI-bDJNH \DmflmU'lubWNH

[—1
0

Code all silence over two seconds as 000; add

another 000 for every additional five seconds

of silence.

Specific coding rules are outlined by Mark (pp.47-48)
for the symmetry and complementarity relational designations

of paired messages. Each pair is coded as representing one

of the nine relational categories possible from the three by

48

three matrix, based on complementary one-up and one-down
symmetry.l7

By tape recording the dialogues, the usual time mea-
surements of amount of talking, frequency and distribution
are available for each participant and for the total discus-
sion. This coding system allows for frequency counts by in-
dividual categories, for a sequential analysis of code cate-
gories, and for a relational analysis based on successively

paired message exchanges.18

Overview of Observational Approach

As we have seen, the coding systems vary in a number
of ways, not only in the more specific categories, but in
their basic approach to the observation and codification of
ongoing communicative acts. With the exception of the sys-
tem developed by Carter, et;§lfl,which detailed acts large-
ly by their manifest content, most of the systems tend to
de-emphasize communication content. Chapple's procedure,
however, was the one example that was totally content free,
dealing only with the activity dimension of verbal behavior.

The coding perspective of the systems differed as to

the level of analysis. The methods of Steinzor and Borke

 

17The procedure is similar to the matrix analysis set
forth in Amidon and Hough (1967).

18Inone sense each form of analysis has a relational
aspect since the third coding digit refers to the metacom-
munication aspect of the interaction.

49

are examples of classifying communication acts on the basis
of the speaker's intent, while the methods of Bales and of
Soskin and John, offer examples of classifying messages on
the basis of the function of the act for the group. Most of
the systems have not attempted a sequential or a relational
analysis of communication acts. This aspect of message ex-
change is the prime consideration given by Sluzki and Beavin
in their analysis.

The coding system developed and utilized in the pre-
sent study is based on the work of Sluzki and Beavin, and
Mark. The conceptual development and the coding procedures
of this system are described in detail in Chapter III. The
present research is one of the few empirical studies so far,

to carry out a relational communication analysis.

Family Communication Research

 

This section will review two areas of studies deal-
ing with the family. First, a selected review of family
description variables and their relation to communication
that have particular relevance for the present study will
be presented. Secondly, an overview of selected research

findings in the area of family interaction will be given.

Family Studies

Length of Marriage

 

Marital communication was a major part of an inves-

tigation by Komarovsky (1962) of blue collar (working class)

50

marriages. Based on a case study of 58 married pairs,
Komarovsky found that the longer the marriage relation had
existed, the less the communication between the married
pair. Smardan (1957) found that the shorter the period of
marriage, the more the couples had to talk about.

Deitcher (1959) studied 120 families in different
stages of the family life cycle and discovered that the
estimated time spent talking together daily declined over
the stages. Using Duvall's (1957) definitions of family
stages, Deitcher reports that the time estimates for Stage
I couples in the "recently married no children" stage was
2-1/4 hours and for Stage VI couples in the ”launching of
children" stage was an hour. He also found a pattern of
change for topics discussed over stages. In Stage I the
topics tended to be predominately subjective-oriented,
dealing with inner feelings, sex and plans for the future.
In the childbearing and preschool stages, Stages II and III,
the topics were more family-task oriented, with children,
finances and care of the home being predominant topics. Es-
timated time spent talking together decreased the most
during these two periods. In Stages IV and V, the school
year stages, the tOpics most discussed shifted toward com-
munity participation, friends and acquaintances and local
current events. In Stage VI, launching stage, the topic of
community participation is still frequently discussed with

subjective concerns least discussed, but with a renewed

51

interest in cultural subjects and relatives. These findings
suggest that length of marriage is a factor in determining
how much a couple talk and what they talk about.

The relationship between length of marriage and sat-
isfaction with marital communication, however, was not a
linear one. Smardan (1957) found that older married couples
(defined as married ten years or more) tended to be more
satisfied with marital discussion than the younger married.
The couples in Deitcher's study indicated that the peak
level of communication satisfaction was at Stage I (childless,
recently married), the second higher level at Stage VI (the
launching of the children) and the lowest level of satis-
faction at Stage V (teenage children).

Kormarovsky found an interesting set of relationships
when she compared length of marriage and educational level
to measures of interspousal communication. She found that
high school graduates communicated more fully with their
mates about their experiences than did the less educated,19
but the longer the high school educated couples were married
the less content they became with their marital communication,
while the less educated couples became slightly more content.

In Deitcher's study, marital couples of lower management

 

19A number of studies substantiate the inverse rela-
tionship between social class and amount of interspousal
communication (Rainwater, et al., 1962; Hill, 1955;
Smardan, 1957; Straus, 1958).

52

(white-collar) occupations expressed higher communication
satisfaction than did couples of the professional group.
Komarovsky concludes from her data, that although
the higher educated couples "enjoy fuller communication,
their discontent may be attributed to their higher expecta-
tions . . . high aspirations carry with them the risk of
more discontent . . . with the duration of marriage the gap
between expectations and reality widens for the educated"

(p. 204).

Sex Differences

 

More wives than husbands in the Komarovsky study felt
dissatisfied with their marital communication. Once again
the higher educated wives felt more discontent than did the
less educated group. This difference by educational break-
down was true for the husbands, but at a lesser level than
for the wives. Smardan (1957) also found in his study that
wives expressed lower satisfaction than husbands with their
communication relationship.

This difference seems most likely to be due to the
role structure of the family. The typical husband and wife
situation is one in which more of the wife's total rewards
are tied to one social system -- the family -- with the
husband being the primary adult granter of approval and
emotional gratification. The husband usually interacts in

other external social systems (the work group being a

53

dominant one) and his psychosocial needs can be supplied by
others besides the wife. Thus, it is speculated that the
state of the marital relationship is more crucial for the
wife than for the husband20 and needs for communication with

spouse are higher for wives.

Role Perceptions

 

Two main aspects of role systems are (l) the way in
which system members perceive the performance of system
tasks being carried out behaviorally and (2) their expecta-
tions as to how the performance of these tasks should be
done. Role discrepancy as defined in the present research,
refers to the degree to which these perceptions differ.

Literature on the family contains many studies rela-
ting shared role expectations or self-other-images of spouses
and marital satisfaction (Dymond, 1954, Corsini, 1956,
Luckey, 1960, Mangus, 1957, Stuckert, 1963, Hurvitz, 1960,
Kolar, 1965). There are few studies on the perceived per-
formance-expectation agreement dimension. Several of the
fore-mentioned studies have used the MMPI or Leary's Inter-
personal Check List (ICL) to measure the amount of cognitive
congruency. In general, these studies have found that hus-

bands and wives with more favorable self-ratings and more

 

20For a discussion of various aspects of marital sat-
isfaction over the family life cycle for husbands and wives,
see Rollins and Feldman (1970).

54

congruent self-images had greater marital happiness than
married pairs with less favorable and less congruent images.

Other studies have measured role congruency by dif-
ferent combinations of spousal role expectations and per-
ceptions of other's expectations. As Stuckert (1963)
points out the relationship between the agreement of percep-
tions and satisfaction is not a simple one and the findings
of various studies have not been consistent. Of various
comparisons, Stuckert found the congruence between wives'
perceptions of their husband's expectations and the husband's
actual expectations concerning marital roles to be associated
with satisfaction, but for husbands, the actual agreement
between their expectations and their wives' expectations
was the dominant factor of association. A study by Luckey
(1961) supports these findings.

As mentioned, few studies in the family have focuses
on perceived behavioral and role expectation agreement, even
though the notion that conformity to role expectations is
associated with positive feelings, and vice versa, is a
common social-psychological generation (Gross, et al., 1958,
Homans, 1961, Thibaut and Kelley, 1959).

An early study by Ort (1950) compared the marital
role expectations and perceived role performances of 100
married respondents and found a high negative correlation
between deviations from expectations, and marital satisfac-

tion. Hawkins and Johnsen (1969) replicated Ort's study

55

with a sample of thirty married, psychiatric clinic out-
patients and found strong supporting evidence for Ort's
findings. Perceived role discrepancy, defined as the degree
to which a subject sees marital role performance deviating
from his role expectations, was again highly correlated with
marital satisfaction in a negative direction. A similar
study by Burr (1971) with 116 couples, also found a nega-
tive relationship between the two variables. Hawkins and
Johnsen concluded that "the empirical generalization the
conformity to role expectations produce positive emotional
responses seems to hold for the marriage relationship as
well as in numerous other types of relationships thus far
studied" (p. 510).21

The performance versus expectations type of con-
gruence, as used in this thesis, appears to have potential
as an important system variable for analyzing interaction,
particularly when it is viewed from the perspective of the
social exchange/interpersonal bargaining theories of be-
havior and the general systems approach to the study of
communication.

Normative definitions set up boundaries or permis-
sible ranges of variation that may occur among the variables

constituting a system, so that the system still retains its

 

21Boyd C. Rollins, Department of Child Development and
Family Relations, Brigham Young University is in the process
of developing a Marital Roles Inventory designed to measure
congruency of performance and expectations.

56

unity. These definitions concerning role behavior are
usually quite situational, with fairly high degress of
freedom. Nevertheless, these role expectations are seen

as a generalized constraining frameworks within which par-
ticipants improvise as they act out their roles. These
normative expectancies function as comparison levels in the
social cost-reward process, and as such, set limits for the
behavioral system. These subjective "rules of the game"
promote social homeostasis, or what Ackerman (1958) so aptly
calls "controlled instability," a process by which system
members maneuver and adapt to internal and external inputs
as they attempt to preserve the identity of the system.

The term homeostasis as utilized here involved the
principle of preserving the intactness and continuity of a
system, but not at a static, equilibrium level. Homeo-
statis is to be interpreted as an adaptive capacity to sta-
bilize, which is equivalent to Buckley's (1967), "morphogenic"
concept. Social homeostasis refers to a system's capacity
to resist and/or modify internal and external forces ef—
fecting the system so that a necessarily level of balance
and integration is maintained for sufficient preservation
of the system and for adaptive change and development of the
system.

Applying the concept of homeostasis to the family,
Jackson (1965) views the family as a rule-governed system

with built-in self-corrective processes that attempt to

57

maintain a relatively stable definition of the system. In

a similar manner Haley (1962) states that within the family
there are two sorts of governing processes, family members

not only attempt to set limits, but that they behave in error-

activated ways if member exceeds established limits.22

Family Interaction Studies

The family as a small group has been involved in remark-
ably' few studies. The small group area of research has its
beginnings in the early 1900's, but not until the 1950's did

the family come under study from this research perspective.23

 

22 Festinger's (1950) work on internal group processes and
communication frequency and direction is applicable to this
point. Festinger cites three forces that will determine when
the group will communicate about a given topic: (1) When the
perceived discrepancy in group opinion regarding the topic is
great, (2) when the topic is highly relevant to the functioning
of the group, and (3) when the attraction (cohesion) of the
group members is high. The three forces that are seen as deter-
mining who will receive the communication are: (l) The per-
ceived discrepancy of a member's opinion, (2) the likelihood
of successfully influencing the discrepant member, and (3) the
degree to which the person is desired as a group member. In
general, these hypotheses have been supported. Of particular
note, the evidence strongly supports the notion that communi-
cation is directed to desired deviant group members (Festinger
and Thibaut, 1951; Schachter, 1951), and that this communica-
tion is increased when group members are more highly interde-
pendent for the accomplishment of goals (Berkowitz and Howard,
1959).

23 The family as a unit of study differs significantly from
most of the "groups" studied with in the small group research
tradition. The family is a social group with a history (Frambo,
1965) and as importantly with a future, while most small group
studies have been done with ad hog groups. Small group research
is correlated to family studies but the difference of history
must be kept in mind. See Waxler and Mishler (1970) for a re-
cent review drawing together findings from both small group and
family research.

58

Bishop (1951) pioneered in the observational study of the
mother-child dyad and Strodtbeck (1951) in the study of the
husband-wife dyad.

Strodtbeck used a "revealed difference" technique to
engender discussion between family members. This technique
involves having members respond to situational items individ-
ually, then in joint sessions, coming to an agreement on
items in which there had been an initial disagreement. This
procedure has been used extensively in later family inter-
action studies.

Strodtbeck (1954) found in experimental decision mak-
ing situations involving three family members, husband, wife
and adolescent son, that the greater the amount of talking
done by a member, the greater the influence and dominance
of that family member on family decisions. In a study of
only husband-wife interaction, Strodtbeck (1951) found that
there was less differentiation in speaking time in the two-
member group, but nevertheless, "talking the most" and "de-
cision winning" went together. Most-talking spouses tended
more frequently to ask questions, carry out opinions and
analysis and make more rewarding comments. Least-talking
spouses tended to give simple agreements and disagreements,
and aggressive reactions. Kenkle (1963) also found that the
extent of talking and influence in decision making were re-
lated in a positive direction, but more strongly related for

the husbands than for the wives.

59

Both Strodtbeck's and Kenkel's studies were done with
"normal" families, i.e., they did not have a known record of
emotional disturbance in the family. The bulk of the family
interaction research, however, has been done in the family
therapy area. This research has mainly concentrated on
searching out differences between normal and abnormal fam-
ilies, particularly in their styles of interacting with one
another. Some of the more relevant findings from this area
will not be presented.

Farina (1960), using a procedure similar to Strodtbeck's
"revealed difference," compared indices of role dominance
(total speaking time, yielding to one's spouse, who spoke
first and last) and of conflict (interruptions, frequency of
simultaneous speeches, disagreements and agressions) of three
groups of parents; those of good premorbid patients, of poor
premorbid patients, and of normal children. Maternal domi-
nance and conflict characterized the interaction of parents
of poor premorbid patients the most, and of normal parents
the least. Caputo (1963) in a similar study found that
there was more sharing of power in normal families than in
abnormal families.

An interaction study of family discussions of parents
of neurotics and parents of schizophrenics, by Fisher, et al.,
(1959) found that parents of neurotics disagreed less, talked

more and with more clarity than parents of schizophrenics.

60

In a study comparing family triads with a schizo-
phrenic child and normal family triads, Cheek (1964) found,
using a modified Bales interaction system, that schizophrenic
triads had less verbal activity than normal triads.

Data gathered on interaction variability in therapy
sessions by Lennard and Bernstein (1969) tend to show schizo-
phrenic patients having less variability in interaction rate
from session to session than did neurotic patients. Further,
variability in terms of direction (who talks to whom) with-
in a mother-father-child triad was found to be much lower in
the "schizophrenic" families.

Lennard, et_al., (1965) recorded the rate and success
of interruptions of ongoing interaction and found that schizo-
phrenic sons and their mothers made fewer interruptions than
the fathers of schizophrenics or of normal mothers and their
sons.‘ And the interruptions made by the schizophrenic fam-
ily members were less successful in effect that in the nor-
mal families.

Ferreira (1963) and Ferreira and Winter (1965) inves-
tigated decision-making in normal and abnormal families.

They found that normal families had a higher degree of spon-
taneous agreement (agreeing on an initial individual choice),
had a lower rate of "inappropriate" decisions (choosing an
alternative that had not been selected by any of the family
members) and took less time to reach a decision. Bodin

(1966) confirmed the finding that higher spontaneous

61

agreement was more characteristic of normal than abnormal
families.

In a later study by Ferreira et_al., (1966) several
other interaction variables were investigated. The normal
and abnormal families did not differ significantly in terms
of who talked the most, number of simultaneous speeches or
equality in decision making, but did differ on amount of
silence and time needed to complete decisions. Abnormal
families had a higher percentage of silences and took long-
er to complete the task.

In studying the frequency and order with which family
members communicate to one another Haley (1964) found when
observing normal and abnormal three-member family groups,
that the mother-child interchange had the highest frequency
in the normal family with the mother-father interchange most
frequent in the abnormal families. When analyzing the order
of speech, Haley found that the speech sequences differed
from a random distribution. This indicated that communica-
tion organization existed in both types of families, but the
normal families tended to use more of the six possible order
sequences, than did the disturbed families. In a later study,
however, Haley (1967) did not find the speech sequence de-
viations from randomness to hold up between normal and ab-
normal families with two children present.

Mishler and Waxler (1969) studied speech sequence

but were more concerned with the degree to which the response

62

to a speech acknowledged the immediately preceeding speaker,
which they refer to as the predictability of responsive-
ness. They found predictability of responsiveness was
higher in abnormal families than normal families but not

at a significant level.

Subjective interpretations of therapy sessions have
been the stimulus of most of the family interaction re-
search. VA hoSt of "theories" and concepts have been
generated, but much less hard data. The findings of the
studies cited are somewhat inconsistent. They do not add
up to a large number of generalizations. Keeping in mind,
however, the methodological difficulties of this type of
research and the recentness of the interest in this area,
these studies begin to build an empirical base for the in-
terpretations of family dynamics. In general, these
studies support one of the most pervasive notions in the
psychiatric literature: That abnormal families are more
rigid in their interaction than normal families (Lidz,
1957, 1958; Wynne, et_al., 1958; Rychoff, 1959; Paul and
Grosser, 1964; Meissher, 1964). In discussing the self-
governing process of the family, Haley (1967) states "the
tightness and rigidity of family networks becomes particu-
larly evident to the therapist attempting to bring about
a change in whole families. As with individuals, family
studies indicate flexibility is synonymous with normality

and rigidity with pathology."

63

While the present study is not an investigation of the
differences between abnormal and normal families, the basic
transactional hypotheses of this study will be based on the

psychiatric oriented family interaction literature.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In the previous chapters a general view of the re-
search project has been described and put into perspective
with other relevant work. The task of this chapter is to
examine in detail the sampling and data collection proce-
dures, the resulting sample and the measures of the princi-

pal variables.

SamplingiProcedures

The present study is part of a larger communication
study sponsored by the Office of Civil Defense. The total
research project, titled, "Communication Processes in Civil
Defense Program" (OCD Contract No. DAHC-20-7l-C-0297), con-
sists of a Phase I in which the impact and effectiveness of
a Civil Defense Community Shelter Plan information campaign
are evaluated and a Phase II in which more extensive infor-
mation on family communication patterns is investigated.
Phase I is based on individual responses and Phase II on
paired husband and wife responses. The respondents for
Phase I were randomly selected from telephone lists of the
greater Dayton, Ohio area. This was the distribution area

of the OCD Community Shelter Plan information campaign

64

65

carried out in the summer of 1971. The data for Phase I
were gathered by telephone interviews in the fall of 1971.
Half of the interviews were carried out with the male head
of household and half with the female head of household. The
resulting 399 completed interviews of Phase I were the data
base for the Phase II sub-sample.

For respondents of Phase I to be potential subjects
for Phase II, two criteria were established: (1) That the
respondents be presently married and (2) that he/she have
children under 12 years of age. One hundred and forty one
respondents met these criteria. These respondents and/or
their spouse were contacted, or an attempt was made to con-
tact them, during the spring of 1972 for the purpose of
setting up a personal interview with each couple.

Of the 141 husband-wife pairs, 64 were interviewed,
33 were not at the residence where they were contacted in
the fall for Phase I or were not available during the three
week field interview period, and 44 refused to be in the
study. One additional interview was completed with a couple
who was living at the address of a Phase I respondent, but
who did not participate in Phase 1. Thus the total number
of completed husband and wife interviews meeting the se-

lection criteria for Phase II is 65.

66

Table 1. Number and percent of dyads by interview category.

 

 

Interview Category Number Percent
Completed 65 46%
Not available 33 23%
Refused 44 31%
Total 142 100%

 

Data Collection

 

Procedures

The data for this study were collected by personal
interviews. Arrangements for these interviews were made by
contacting the subjects at their home. After the interview-
er expressed appreciation for their (or their spouse's) pre-
vious participation in the communication project, they were
given an introductory letter explaining the purpose of the
second phase of the research. They were also told that they
would receive ten dollars for taking part in the study (See
Appendix I). Appointments were set up with the participat-
ing couples (at their convenience) for a personal interview
in their home. Each couple's interview took approximately
two hours-

Two types of information were obtained in the interview;
(1) self-report data from each husband and wife and (2) actual

discussion data for each husband and wife pair. The self-report

67

data were gathered by questionnaire (See Appendix II) and the
discussion data were secured by tape recording the couples
interaction as they discussed several family involved topics
(See Appendix III).

An interview began by asking the couple to fill out
the questionnaire separately without talking to one another.
When both husband and wife had completed the questionnaire
and returned them to the interviewer, they were presented
with four topics, one at a time, and requested to talk to
one another about the issues and in three cases to reach a
joint decision. (See Appendix IV for details on interviewer
instructions.)

Two of the topics dealt with family behavior in an
emergency situation and two topics dealt with family behavior
in a nonemergency situation. The first topic was concerned
with how the couple met and decided to marry. This topic was
purposefully utilized as an "ice breaker" and initiator of
reciprocal interaction between the husband and wife. The
second topic concerned a nuclear emergency and the sharing
of home basements for protection, the third topic dealt with
career interests versus family interests particularly for
the wife, and the final topic concerned a natural emergency,
a tornado, and family plans for protection.

As each topic was presented, the interviewer gave a
standardized set of noncontent stimuli that might be included

in their discussion; first impressions, expectations, feelings,

68

problems, and solutions. The couples were asked to discuss
each topic as fully as they could within a time limit of ten
minutes. The interviewer attempted to stay out of the conver-
sation as much as possible by (l) stressing that this was a
discussion between the couple themselves, by (2) not having
eye contact with the couple and by (3) not talking to the
couple unless asked a question or if a silence of over fif-
teen seconds occurred in the first five minutes of the inter-
action. In the event of being asked for direCtion or of a
fifteen second silence, the interviewer utilized standard-
ized probes to promote at least five minutes of discussion
per topic.

In the majority of the cases, the couples averaged
over five minutes per topic. See Appendix V for a listing
of the minimum, maximum and average discussion times across
dyads by topic. I

Data collection is rarely free of all problems, but
the procedures utilized in this study were enhanced by a
pretest of the instruments and research procedures on a
Lansing, Michigan sample. Fifty Lansing area residents
were selected at random from census tract data to provide
a sampling base for the pretest. Ten interviews were com-
pleted with husband-wife dyads that met the criterion of
having children under twelve years of age. Five other
couples were also contacted to fill out only the self-report

questions. The pretest resulted in several modifications

69

of the questionnaire, the topics discussed and data gather-

ing procedures.

Type of Data

As stated before, two types of data were gathered
during the interviews.

The self-report questionnaire data provides informa-
tion and indices of various aspects of husband and wife be-
havior. More specifically data wereobtained on: (1) The
time allocations of husbands and wives with one another,
with the family, with extra-family relationships (See Appen-
dix II, questions 1 and 4a); (2) the amount of time husbands
and wives talk to one another and their satisfactions with
that time (See Appendix II, questions 2, 3, 4b, 5, 6); (3)
the frequency of husband and wife communication on various
topics (See Appendix II, question 7); (4) control of dyadic
communication between husband and wife in terms of who talks
the most, who initiates and ends conversations and who do-
minates the subjects discussed (See Appendix II, question 8);
(5) husband and wife evaluation of their communication re-
lationship (See Appendix II, questions 9 and 10); (6) husband
and wife's processing of information (See Appendix II,
questions 11, 12 and 13; however, this data will not be analy—
zed in the present study.); (7) husband and wife perceptions
of who does certain family tasks, i.e., role performance,

and who should do these tasks, i.e., role expectations, which

70

form the basis of the role discrepancy measure (See Appendix
II, questions 14 and 15); (8) husband and wife scores on a
dominance scale (See Appendix II, question 16. This varia-
ble is analyzed in a separate study by Ericson, 1972); (9)
husband and wife demographic background information and their
satisfaction with their marriage (See Appendix II, questions
17 through 24).

The tape recorded discussion data of verbal inter-
action between spouses provides the basis for a relational
analysis of husband-wife communication patterns. This is a
relatively content-free analysis of the control or defining
aspects of dyadic interaction. A detailed explanation of the
relational level of analysis is given in a following section,
"Operationalization of Variables." The discussion data also
provides substantive information of husbands' and wives'
viewpoints and projected family behaviors on four topics.

A content analysis, however, of these discussions will not

be undertaken in this study.

Description of the Sample

As described in the previous section, the subjects for
this study are sixty-five husband and wife dyads living in
the greater Dayton, Ohio area who had children under twelve
years of age.

The average age of the wives was 32.6 years with a

range from twenty-one to forty-five years. The average age

71

of the husbands was 35.9 with a range from twenty-one to
fifty-four years. Three of the couples were Black and
the other 62 couples were White. The educational level of
the wives ranged from eighth grade to graduation from
college with the average level being 12.6 years of education.
The educational level ranged from eighth grade to six years
of graduate school for the husbands with the average years
of education being 14.0.
Annual family income ranged from less than $3,000
to more than $15,000. The average yearly income was ap-
proximately $11,000. The majority of the wives, 57 out of
65, classified themselves as full-time homemakers. Only
eight of the wives gave occupations other than housewife.
The length of years married ranged from one year to
twenty-six years, with the average years married being 11.6.
For almost all couples their present marriage is their first

marriage.

Operationalization of Variables

The task of this section is to describe the methodo—
logical procedures for measuring two major research variables
under study; role discrepancy, analyzed as an independent
or factor variable, and relational communication patterns,

considered as dependent variables.

72

Role Discrepancy

The role discrepancy measure is based on a comparison
of role performance and role expectation descriptions. Each
dyad member was presented (on the questionnaire) a list of
fifteen items concerning different family task areas: Child-
care; household jobs; family decisions, both financial and
social; and social-emotional. The subjects were asked to
describe their perception as to who performs these respon-
sibilities in their family by responding to the following
description alternatives: "husband almost always," "husband
more than wife," "both about the same," "wife more than
husband," "wife almost always," or "neither one.“ After
completing the description of who gees the various tasks,
they were asked to respond to the same items, with the same
response alternatives, with their preference descriptions
of who should do the tasks.

The response alternatives, given above were coded
from one to five. The "neither one" response was coded as
a three to remove its effect on the discrepancy score. The
largest number of "neither one" responses were given by
subjects without school age children to item.deealing
with helping children with school work. (See questions 14
and 15, item ja through item 0 in Appendix II.)

The role discrepancy score for each dyad was the

summation of each member's difference scores between item

73

responses to who should do the task and who does do the task,
across the fifteen items. A larger score represents a wider

level of discrepancy. On the basis of these scores,1

rang-
ing from three to twenty-seven and approximating a normal
curve, dyads were grouped by thirds into low, medium, and
high role discrepancy categories.2 Breaking the distribution
curve in this manner, 22 dyads fell into the low category,
twenty in the medium cell and 23 into the high discrepancy
category. These role discrepancy levels will be used as

the major factor variable in the analysis of the data.

Since the discrepancy scores are based on items as-
sumed to represent five different task areas of a husband-
wife interpersonal system, there was no reason to believe
the fifteen items would necessarily be internally consistent.
The design was that the items would sample enough different
tasks to allow detection of areas within the system where
expectation and performance consensus was lacking. Role
discrepancy is a composite measure of the degree to which
members perceive nonconsensus existing on the various system
dimensions sampled. It is assumed that the more dimensions
on which there is normative-behavioral discrepancy, the

higher the level of inequity existing in the system.

 

1The discrepancy scores had a mean of 13.12 and a
standard deviation of 4.9

2Acomparison was made between the above categorization

method and using individual husband and wife scores broken

at a median point to divide the dyads into discrepancy cate-
ories of hi h-high, a mixed group of high-low, low-high, and
ow-low. On y eight dyads out of the 65 did not fall into the
same category levels. Thus, both methods gave approximately
equivalent breakdowns.

74

A factor analysis, carried out on the discrepancy
scores, indicates that the items tend to load along the
task dimensions suggested. The major factor consisted of
the items sampling social and interpersonal concerns, except
for item 0, dealing with taking the 'other's point of view.
This latter item loaded with two of the household task items
for a second factor. Factor three, consisted of two child-
care items plus preparing meals and deciding the family bud-
get. A fourth factor consisted of two economic oriented
items and helping children with homework. These four factors
account for half of the variance.

The tendency for the items to cluster along the
specified family task areas, give some degree of evidence
of reliability. Validity claims for the discrepancy measure
are based on construct validation (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955),
i.e., the ability to order and predict social events. As
Peak states, "the ultimate test of validity of a construct
and of the measures which enter into its definition is found
in the utility of the construct in the process of reducing
the matrix of events to some meaningful order" (1953, p. 273).
Jahoda, Deutsch and Cook echo this argument with their
statement that, "the ultimate test of validity of any mea-
sure is the correctness of the predictions based on it"
(1955, p. 93).

This approach to validation is criterion-oriented,

but not of the traditional single correlation check variety;

75

rather it is a continuous process of checking predictions
against results, a process in which both theory and method
must be simultaneously validated. We find in the examina-
tion of the research results of this study adequate support
for construct validity of the discrepancy measure.

History, or length of marriage, will be utilized as
a factor control variable. In the research design, an attempt
was made to control somewhat on the stage of marriage by
limiting the study to couples who had children under twelve
years old. This means that the couples are in the childbear-
ing or childrearing stages. The range of years in these
stages can be quite extended. Therefore, length of marriage
is considered to be a further controlling factor in this
study.

The median point of years married was used to break
the dyads into two groups. Thirty three couples married from
one to eleven years constitute the shorter history group and

32 couples make up the longer history group.3

Relational Communication Patterns

In this section the relational communication concepts

will first be explored and then a system for indexing

 

3 A t-test between the two groups on the number of years
married was computed. The t-value was 12.18, significant at
the .001 level, indicating that the groups do indeed differ.

76

relational patterns of communication will be presented.

The study of the relational level of communicative

 

behavior, as opposed to the content level dealing with the
referents of symbols, is an emerging concern in the commun-
ication area. Relational communication refers to the as-
pects of message exchange by which individuals control and
thus define their relationships with other.4
All interaction involves some ongoing reciprocal de-
finition of the interactor's relationship. Awareness of the
relationship-defining aspects of communication has prompted
considerable conceptual progress in this area, but the

operational level is still relatively underdeveloped.

The present analysis will focus on message sequences,

 

rather than on individual message units; on indexing the

relational control aspects of communication rather than the

 

substantive content; and on indexing transactions over time.

 

More specifically, transactional message units are concep-
tualized in terms of their (1) control-defining nature, (2)
the type of control similarity or dissimilarity between con-
tiguous messages and (3) their sequential configurations.
The present coding scheme builds on the theoretical

orientation of Bateson (1958) and his co-workers, particularly

 

4An illustration of the relation-defining aspects of
communication is when one interactor (A) issues an imperative
and the other grants control by complying. Compliance con-
firms the asymmetrical definition designated by A. If B's
response is noncompliant, B is denying A's definition of be-

ing in eontrol. If B responds with a counter imperative, B
has defined the relationship at that moment in that given
exchange as symmetrical.

77

Watzlawick et_§1., (1967) Jackson (1965) and Haley (1962),
but more directly on Sluzki and Beavin's (1965) symmetrical-
complementary typology of dyadic interaction patterns and
Mark's (1970) interpretation and operational application of
their work. All of these efforts emphasize the transactional
aspects of the communication process and incorporate the con-
cepts of symmetry and complementary as two basic patterns of
interaction.

Symmetrical interaction has been characterized by
"equality and the minimization of difference, while comple-
mentary interaction is based on the maximization of difference"
(Watzlawick, et_al., 1967, p. 69). Complementarity has been
further categorized as "one-up," being in control and "one-
down" accepting control. In a symmetrical transaction or re-
lationship one interactor behaves toward the other, as the
other behaves toward him. There is a similarity of conduct
between the two individuals; there is a symmetry of relation-
al control. In a complementary transaction the interactor's
behaviors are fully differential. The control definition of
the relationship offered by one interactor is accepted by the
other.5

Sluzki and Beavin operationally define communication
symmetry and complementarity in terms of "the structural re-

semblance or lack of resemblance (respectively) of the

 

5See Erving Goffman, pp. 63-64 of "The Nature of De-
ference and Demeanor" in Interaction Ritual (1967).

 

78

reciprocal communication behaviors of the members of a dyadic
system" (1955: P-323)- Note that whether the transaction is
symmetrical or complementary, both interactors participate
in the definition of the relationship. Thus, the smallest
unit of a relational analysis is a paired exchange of two
messages.6

Examples of symmetrical and complementary transactions
given by Sluzki and Beavin were:

giving/taking instruction=complementary (giving=
one-up, taking=one-down)

asking/answering=complementary (asking=one-down,
answering=one-up)

asserting/agreeing=complementary (asserting=one-
up, agreeing=one-down)

referential statement/referential statement=
symmetrical

agreeing/agreeing=symmetrical

giving instructions/countering with instructions=
symmetrical (1965, p. 326)

Note that the transaction type is based on the con-
trol nature of both the grammatical form (e.g., question,
assertion) and the response style (e.g., agreeing, disagree-

ing) of each message. This approach is basic to the present

 

6Watzlawick and Beavin (1967) point out that if a se-
quence of messages between A and B is broken down into state-
ments about A separately from B, an interpersonal or individ-
ual explanation of communication behavior results. A quasi-
interactional explanation results from a comparison of A with
B. But a truly interactional explanation results when the
measurement is based on the sequentially ordered interpreta-
tion of a series of at least two message units.

79

coding scheme, but it allows only for the acceptance or re-
jection of control. In the exchange of messages, however,
relational definitions offered by one participant may not
only be accepted or rejected by the other, they may also be
modified. The concepts of symmetry and complementarity catch
the maximal differences of relational control, with acceptance
confirming the definition offered and rejection refuting the
definition. These polarities, as significant as they are,

do not provide a way for taking into account lees extreme
modifying responses to the role definitions offered. In the
development of the present scheme a neutralizing direction

of relational control has been incorporated to refer to commun-
icative behaviors that redefine the relationship, but in more
moderate terms than total acceptance or rejection. With the
addition of a third control direction, a third general trans-
actional type results by which to describe communication
systems. The three major transactional types refer to mes-
sage exchanges consisting of control behaviors that are (1)
similar in nature (symmetrical); (2) are of a mixed nature
with one message being neutralizing (transitional); or (3)
are maximally dissimilar (complementary).

The coding system to be presented has many similarities
to the work of Sluzki and Beavin (1965) and Mark (1970), but
has some differences as well. The main differences refer to
the additional neutralizing control direction and the trans-

itory transactionary category. Incorporation of these

 

80

modifications in the present scheme is prompted by a con-

tinuing effort for methodological refinement.

The Coding System

 

Using Sluzki and Beavin's definition, a message is
defined as each verbal intervention of each member in a
dialogue. A message may be a single utterance or a flow of
continuing utterances. Each message is viewed as being a
response to the preceding message and in this aspect is the
definer of that transaction, as well as a stimulus for the
following message. Thus in a series of two-message ex-
changes, it is the second of a pair of messages that defines
the nature of the transaction. See Figure 1, representing

an exchange of messages between persons A and B. \

——-\ ’-~

\

 

 

 

L \xp—q-—-—-- --\F---- K—A‘l V ‘
Message AI L Message B1 Mes_s_age A Message B2

 

Transaction 1 Transaction 2 Transaction 3
Figure 1. Message transactions.

In transaction 1, message Bl defines the relation-
ship while in transaction 2 it is the stimulus for which A2
provides the transactional definition. For example, if
message A1 is an instruction, e.g., "Come on, let's go,"
and message B1 is an acceptance of this instruction, e.g.,

"O.K., I'm coming," the transactional exchange is complementary

81

with A in the one-up or controlling position. If message B1
is an instruction in return, e.g., "No, we're going to stay
here," the transaction is symmetrical, with B matching and
thus rejecting A's attempt to be one-up.-

Taking Sluzki and Beavin's lead that the classification
of symmetry and complementarity is based both on the gramma-
tical form of the message and the response style or the meta-
communication of the message, a coding scheme was set up to
code each of these aspects for each message. Following Mark's
method, a three digit designation is used to code each utter-
ance. The first digit designates the speaker. The second
digit refers to the grammatical form of the message and the
third digit indicates the meta-communication response of the
message relative to the statement that came before it. Both
the grammatical and the more evaluative response form reflect
Bateson's distinction of the “command" or relational aspect
of a message rather than the "report" or content level.

The coding categories are presented below:

lst Digit 2nd Digit 3rd Digit
1. Speaker A l. Assertion 1. Support
2. Speaker B 2. Question 2. Nonsupport
3. Talk-over 3. Extension
4. Noncomplete 4. Answer
5. Other 5. Instruction
6. Order
7. Disconfirmation
8. Topic change
9. Initiation-
termination
.0. Other

82

A period of silence that occurs for three seconds is
coded as 000, as are each additional five second periods of
silence. Periods of laughter that occur for three second
durations are coded by speaker (using the first digit) and
99 in the second and third digit positions. If the laughter
is simultaneously produced by both interactors it is coded

as 999 for each three second period.

Code Categories

The code categories under the first digit refer to
the two speakers and allow the flow of messages to be
accounted for by speaker. The code categories under the
second digit refer to the format of the message. These
category decisions involve very little inference on the

part of the coder. An assertion is any completed referen-

 

tial statement. This category includes the declarative and
imperative forms. A question is any speech which takes an
interrogative grammatical form.

The remaining categories under the second digit are
not grammatical forms of speech per se., but are descrip-
tive of the format of a message. A talk-over refers to the
way in which a speaker comes into the dialogue, what Mark
calls a "mobilization" style.7 The normative communicative
procedure is to alternate speeches at the end of a completed
speech or at a pause in the exchange. This category refers

to an interruptive manner of coming into a conversation. Any

 

7See Mark (1970) p. 41.

83

distinguishable interruption (verbal intervention made while
other is talking) is defining as a talk-over. If the third
digit has a code number from one to nine, it is defined as

a successful talk-over since the speaker gained control enough
to express an intention, if the third digit has a code of 0,
it is considered an unsuccessful attempt to gain speaking
control.

The noncomplete category refers to any utterance that

 

is initiated but not expressed in a completed format. Some
examples of noncompletes would be, "well, ah . . .," " now
then, what I thought was . . .," etc. The category ether
refers to verbal utterances that are unclassifiable as to
their form.

The code categories under the third digit refer to
the response mode of the speech. These classifications in-
volve more inference than the previous categories. However,
careful delineation of the meaning of each of these cate-
gories will lower the subjectiveness of the coding.

I The support category refers to both the giving and
seeking of agreement, assistance, acceptance and approval.

The nonsupport code is used to denote disagreement, rejec-

 

tion, demands and challenges.

The extension code is used to classify a message that

 

continues the flow or theme of the preceding message. Included

under this category is a noncommittal response to a question.

84

The answer code is reserved for a response to a question
which has substance and/or commitment. A noncommittal re-
sponse to a question such as "I don't know," is coded as
an extension, while a definitive response such as "It was
July 6th," is coded as an answer since the two types of re-
sponses have different control defining natures.

The categories instruction and order both denote a
regulative response but of different intensities. An £27

struction is a suggestive and evaluative statement which is

 

often accompanied with qualification and clarification,

while an ggder is an unqualified command with little or no
explanation. For example, "I think it's time you went to bed
now because you have school tomorrow," is an instruction.

"Go to bed," is an order.

The distinction between disconfirmation and topic
change made by Mark is used in the present analysis. Both
categories refer to a response switch or noncontinuance but
a ". . . disconfirmation occurs after a statement has been
made which demands a response to it by the other individual
and he does not respond to the demand . . ." while a topic
change occurs with the ". . . introduction of a new idea
after discussion of (another topic) . . ." (Mark, 1970, p.

44). Thus, disconfirmation refers to a message exchange in

 

which one interactor requests a response and the other

interactor ignores the request. Topic change refers to a

 

message exchange in which the second message has no topic

85

or theme commonality with the first message but no response
commonality was requested.8

The initiation-termination code is used to denote a

 

message that begins or attempts to end an interaction. The
category ether is used if the response mode is unclear or
unclassifiable.

A list of examples for all second and third digit
codes are given in Appendix VI. For code decisions that are
difficult, i.e., do not readily fall into one category, use
the following set of priority considerations to facilitate
coding. These priorities are based on the predominant func-
tion of the message. Thus for second digit codes, consider
first if the message is a talk-over (#3). A talk-over may
take the form of other second digit categories, but indepen-
dent of form, an interruptive speech is coded as a talk-
over. If the speech is not ea talk-over, then consider in
order, if it is a question (#2), an assertion (#1) or a non-
complete (#4). If it is none of these, code it as "other"
(#5) .

For third digit codes, make code decisions in a simi-
lar manner using the following order: Consider first if the

message is an initiation or termination (#9). An initiation

 

8In this scheme the categories of support, nonsupport
and disconfirmation or topic change are similar to Horney's
(1945) broad interpersonal classification patterns of
"Going toward," "Going against," and "Going away from."

86

or termination may take the form of other third digit cate-
gories, but our first interest is if it initiates or terminates.
Secondly, consider if a message is an answer (#4). This is
the first priority on which to judge noninitiating and non-
terminating responses. Again regardless of form, a speech

is coded as an answer if that is its main response function.
For messages that are response switches, consider first if

it is a disconfirming switch (#7), if not, then if it is a
topic change (#8). For messages that have a regulative
function decide first if it is an order (#6). If not, it is
coded as an instruction (#5). If the message is none of the
above, then consider if it is a support (#1), nonsupport (2),
or extension (#3) and if it is none of these, code it as an
"other" (#0).

To summarize, each utterance is assigned a three digit
code. The first digit denotes the speaker. The second digit
describes the form of the speech. The third digit describes
the response mode of the speech. Second digit category de-
cisions are based only on the message being coded. Third
digit category decisions are based on consideration of the
preceding message, as well as the message being coded. In
this manner any two-person communication exchange can be re-
presented by a series of sequentially ordered three digit
codes. On the basis of these codes, descriptions of the
frequency and relative frequency of message form and response

mode can be made.

87

Control Direction

Based on the combined defining nature of the grammati-

cal form and response mode of a message, it is given one of
three control direction possibilities. These assignments are
made in terms of whether a message is (1) a movement toward
control of the exchange, which is designated asi-one up; (2)
a movement toward being controlled by seeking or accepting
control of other, which is designated al'one-down; or (3) a
movement toward neutralizing control, which has a leveling
effect and is designated as+-one-across.

Code categories representing message forms and response
modes that are viewed as control maneuvers toward one-up are:
Nonsupport responses including questions demanding an answer,
answers with substance, instructions, orders, disconfirmations,
topic changes, complete statements of initiation and termina-
tion and all successful talk-overs except supportive talk-
overs.

The one-down code categories are: All support responses
including questions that seek supportive responses, noncom-
plete phrases that seek others to take control, supportive
talk-overs, questions that continue the dialogue (extension)
or have uncodable responses (other), and unsuccessful talk-
overs.

Neutralizing, or control leveling categories are
viewed as carrying an interaction along with a minimized

effort at controlling the relationship. Code categories that

88

are seen as one-across maneuevers are assertions Of exten-

 

sion and those with uncodable response modes, noncomplete
phrases and "other" (unclassifiable message forms) that are
extensions. This includes statements of continuance, "filler"
phrases and noncommittal responses to questions (i.e., the
"empty" answer response). Also included in the one-across
category are noncompletes that initiate or terminate and
that have unclear response modes (i.e., have third digit
codes or "other"), and finally, utterances with both uncod-
able form and response modes (i.e., "other-other").

The control direction of message types can perhaps be
seen more clearly and more completely in the following ma-

trix of combined form and response modes.

 

c
o
'3 a) '
c m ow 8-
JJ 0-: "4 U '4" U 4.; .,4
H (L m :4 s c m
o :3 s m L: :4 o o W,E p
cm : +J m m 13 m o. "4“ a
:3 o >< c s :4 -H o u
a: 2 an s +4 0 :3 e #3 o
1. 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 0
Assertion 1 + -+ -+ + + + 4+ + + +
Question 2 + + + + i + + + + +
Talk-over 3 + ‘f f f + i ‘+ + i +
Noncomplete 4 + ‘f + ¢ ¢ 4. f 4 .1 +
Other 5 4. + + + 1~ + J} + 1. +

 

Figure 2. Message type and control direction.

89

The following set of rules give the direction of con-
trol for a second and third digit message code combination.
There are fifty combinations possible. The digit combina-

tions are coded as follows:

1. one—up + = 12, 14, 15, l6, 17, 18, 19
one-down + = 11
one-across + = 13, 10

2. one-up + = 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

one-down + = 21, 23, 20

3. one-up + = 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
one-down + = 31, 30

4. one-up + = 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48
one-down + = 41
one-across + = 43, 49, 40

5. one-up + = 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
one-down + = 51

one—across + 53, 50

To briefly illustrate the relational coding rules,
note the following description of message form and response
modes. If the message is an assertion which is an extension
of the dialogue, it is coded as a thirteen and represents
a one-across-rmovement. If the message is an assertion ex-
pressing support, it is coded as an eleven which is a one-

downwvmovement. A nonsupportive assertion is coded as a

twelve, and represents a one-up‘rmovement.

90

Earlier in the paper, it was stressed that a message
is both a response to what precedes it and a stimulus for
the message that follows. For most messages these two as-
pects will be the same and will not require separate codes.
Thus, most messages will have only one set of code numbers,
and one control direction code. However, with this coding
scheme each message has the possibility of having two sets
of code numbers to identify these two aspects and therefore,

the possibility of being identified by two control directions.

 

If the response interpretation is categorically different
from the stimulus interpretation, two sets of second and
third digit codes will be used to describe the message, and
two control directions will be identified in accordance
with the coding rules.

The following examples are given to illustrate situa-
tions in which a message has two sets of second and third
digit codes but the control directions are the same in
Example A and different in Example B.

Example A: Speaker 1 "I think we should
take this now." 115 +

Speaker 2 "OK, I guess so, but
what about the other
things?" 211-221 +-+

Speaker 1 "Well, we'll have to
get them later." 114 +

Example B: Speaker 1 "I think we should
take this now." 115 +

91

Speaker 2 "OK, I guess so, but
I don't like you al-
ways deciding things." 211-212 +-+

Speaker 1 "Well, that's tough!" 112 +

Transactional Codes

The preceding explanation of message codes allows us
to now move to the transactional coding procedure necessary
for a relational analysis. By combining the control direc-
tion of individual messages into pairs of sequential exchanges
it is possible to operationalize transactions by the symmetry
or nonsymmetry of control for each exchange as it "unfolds"
in a two person interaction. Each transaction code (like the
individual message code) contains three digits. The first
digit refers to the first speaker in the exchange, the second
digit refers to the first speaker's message control direction
and the third digit designates the second speaker's message
control direction. For illustration the transaction values
in Example A are a ++, following by a ++, in Example B, a
++is followed by a ++. When a single message, as with
Speaker two in Examples A and B has two control codes note
that both code directions are utilized in the producing the
transactional measure.

The transactional types that result from the combina-
tions of paired messages with three directional possibilities

are given in the following matrix:

92

 

one-up one-down one-across
one-up 1 ++ 4 ++ 7 ++
one—down 2 ++ 5 ++ 8 ++
one—across 3 ++ 6 ++ 9 ++

 

Figure 3. Matrix of transactional types.

The symmetrical transactions are represented.in cells
1, 5 and 9. An advantage of the present coding system is the
ability to identify by direction the different kinds of sym-
metry, rather than leave the type of symmetry unspecified as
in previous systems. We refer to ++(ce11 1) symmetry as
competitive, ++(ce11 5) symmetry as submissive and ++(ce11 9)
symmetry as neutralized symmetry. Cells 2 and 4 represent
the two forms of complementarity transactions, one-up and
one-down.

Previous investigators have conceptualized the control
defining nature of a message as having only two directions,
either one-up or one-down, and transactional units as being
either symmetrical or complementary. The addition of a third
direction, one-across, which is an attempt to sensitize the
control measure, produces an additional type of symmetry and
a third type of transactional exchange -- the transitory
category.

Cells 3, 6, 7 and 8 represent the four forms of trans-
actional types we call transitory. Cells 3 and 6 respective-

ly refer to movements from neutralized control toward one-up

93

and neutralized control toward one-down. Cells 7 and 8
respectively refer to movements from one-up to neutralized
control from one-down to neutralized control.

The three types of symmetry, the four types of transi—
tion and the two types of complementarity offer a more com-
plete set of relational patterns by which to describe on-

going interaction than have previously been available.

Analysis Levels

Several levels of analysis are possible based on the
coding procedure outlined. At the monadic level, it is pos-
sible to obtain -- by actor and overall -- absolute and re-
lative measures of length of talk, frequency of talk, type
of grammatical form, and type of message response. From
the marginal totals of the transactional code matrix given
in Figure three, tendencies toward one-up, one-down and
one-across message control can be accessed again by actor
and overall. A combination of Cells 1, 2, 3 and 1, 4, 7
will give the frequency of each actor's use of one-up control.
Summing across Cells 4, 5, 6 and 2, 5, 8 gives the frequency
of each actor's use of one-down control. And Cells 3, 6, 9
and 7, 8, 9 give measures of each actor's movement towards
neutralization of control.

The overriding goal of this coding scheme, however,

is to obtain a methodology for describing interactor patterns

 

of communication exchange. This is accomplished by using a

94

two-message unit of analysis, combining the message control
directions for the transactional code, and describing the
transactional types that occur in an interaction.

Moving to the dyadic level, a relatively simple inter-
actor measure is available in the nonsequential tabulation of
symmetry, complementarity, transitory transactional types and
their subcategories, by actor and overall, for phases of the
interaction or the total interaction. This gives an impor-
tant description of the relational communication patterns of
a two-person system, but a fairly static one.

A more complex measure of the relational aspects of
interaction is one that accounts for sequential patterning
of transactional types over time. This method of describing
interactor patterns moves the analysis further toward a pro-
cess level, with an attempt to describe a series of trans-
actions in terms of a configuration patterns. Series of
interactions cumulate into ongoing relationships and to the
extent that the data sample interaction typical of a dyad,
generalizations about the total interpersonal relationship,
can be suggested.

The shift from individual message units to paired-
message units is a significant change in analysis level.

But the movement from paired messages to transaction series
is even more of an analytical jump. It is a movement from
indexing patterned regularities of the system, which is no

small task, to indexing changing patterns of a system over time.

95

The conceptual tool bag of the social scientist is
notably lacking in process terminology and methodology. For
the most part, it has not gotten past the concepts of conflict,
competition and cooperation. Symmetry and complementarity
refine and expand the concepts available for describing and
predicting interactional processes. The development of these
concepts comes predominantly from the work of the family-
oriented psycho-socioanalysts. But, because they deal most-
ly with "sick" interaction, their point of view is somewhat
tinted by stressing potential or actual communication patho-
logies. For example, symmetry, as defined by this group,
almost always refers to competitive (one-up, one-up) symme-
try, which in our view is only one kind of symmetry.9 Other
types of symmetrical interaction are rarely mentioned. Sym:

metrical escalation referred to as "one-upmanship" which is

 

a series of competitive symmetrical transactions, and rigid

complementarity in which one interactor typically takes a

 

"one-up" position and the other a "one-down" position, have
been pointed out as the main pathological forms of inter-
action. A mix of these patterns, however, is hypothesized

to be a "healthy" interaction style.lo

 

9Watzlawick, et al., (1967), mention in one interpre-
tation of an interaction sequence "that symmetry can be based
on one-downness as well as other forms of competition" (p.
116), but these dimensions are not developed.

lOWatzlawick, et al., (1967) p. 115.

96

The transactional types that can be formulated on the
basis of the present relational coding scheme, continue to
expand the range of concepts for describing interaction.
These concepts can be used to describe transactional con-
figurations, referring to a series of homogeneous transactions,
or the overall interactional patterns based on the total
sequential set of transactional configurations. For illustra-
tion, a hypothetical interaction consisting of a series of
ten transactional configurations is given in Figure 4.

Most likely an interaction would consist of a mixture
of several different types of configurations, but it might
consist of a single configuration. The pure typological
graphings of the three kinds of transactional configurations
and their sub-types are given below in Figure 5. A total
of nine transactional types are possible.

These nine ideal transactional types include the two
relational patterns (symmetry and complementarity) discussed
by Watzlawick, et_§1., and although the terminology is dif-
ferent, the six patterns outlined by Sluzki and Beavin
(stable symmetry, stable complementarity, symmetrical com-
petition towards one-up, symmetrical competition towards one-
down, assymmetrical competition towards one-up and symmetry,
assymmetrical competition towards one-down and symmetry)
which are based on dyadic agreement-disagreement as to the
control value of a message. Watzlawick, et_al., and Sluzki

and Beavin suggest interactions be classified in terms of

0H m

97
h

.mGOAumusmfiwcoo HMGOApUMmcmuu sou mo mamfimxm as

  

.v musmflm
m w

A.
3 News. Em. .flmwn we......m.-flflm

 

 

 

:-'i' -l

. 1:11:31
+ not».
nséwmvfia sm 3 bmw. re mrm as $1.3 .m .4 mm

”AW... mm Nam Hm Hfl

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

Symmetry:
+ -++=
1+ :+—>_
+ r -++=
Complementarity:
+ -- / 1+:
“* VVVVVV
+ ++=
Transitory:

+-+-+
_).
+
II

 

+—+-+
.(_
4'
ll

 

competitive symmetry

— neutralized symmetry

submissive symmetry

complementarity one-up

complementarity one-down

one-up leveling

leveling one-up

one-down leveling

leveling one-down

Figure 5. Transactional configuration typology.

99

the predominance of one type of pattern. They also suggest
a "fluid" category referring to the mixing of different
types of pattern within the interaction.

Certainly the identification of the predominant
transaction form is a major way of labeling interations,
but interactions can be described in a number of ways, de-
pending on the guide of the research question. Using the
transactional configuration typology, presented in Figure 5,
interactions can be identified as suggested above, by the
prevailing transactional type(s) utilized, either in terms
of the longest occurring sequence(s) or the most often oc-
curring type(s); by their rigidity or flexibility in terms
of the number of configuration patterns used and the fluc-
tuations or turn-over rate of these patterns; by the sequen-
tial orderings of configuration patterns in terms of which
patterns tend to follow or precede which other patterns.

For illustration, the interaction given in Figure 4

is graphically presented below:

A

v 1111‘ *1/11---” 71/
11 W

 

 

This sample interaction utilized two forms of sym—
metry, both forms of complementarity and two types of trans-
itory transactions. There was a fairly equal mixing of com-

petitive symmetry and complementarity followed by a run of

100

neutralized symmetry prefaced and closed with short transi-
tory insertions. The symmetrical forms of interaction are
separated by complementary forms. The interaction began
with a run of competitive symmetry while it concluded in a
rapid succession of short exchanges representing each of the
transitory transactional types and terminated with a com-
plementary exchange. In more general terms this interaction
is characterized by a flexible mix of complementarity and
symmetry oriented towards one-up.

The analysis procedures are still quite unrefined,
yet with the approach outlined an interaction can now be
described in several important ways: (1) The number of con-
figuration types observed in an interaction; (2) the rate
of change or fluctuation from one type to another, during
an interaction; the most persistant configuration pattern
in terms of, (3) the longest consecutive run and (4) the
type occurring most frequently; and (5) how likely it is
that one pattern will occur in sequence with other patterns.

These transactional descriptions allow a variety of
interactive questions to be answered. Is there a "phrase"
effect on transactional patterns? Do different configuration
patterns emerge at different stages of the interaction? Do
different patterns tend to occur with low or frequent fluc-
tuation of transactional type, or with rapid versus lower
rates of interchange? What sub-patterns are associated with

different predominant configuration types? And importantly

101

these descriptions permit comparative analyses of interaction
patterns across theoretically differentiated categories of
dyads.

In assessing the coding system, its limitations must
also be noted. It utilizes a two-message unit of analysis
which is limited to the verbal band of two-person interaction
situations. It allows a sequential interpretation of mes-
sages, that is, person A's first message with person B's first
message, B's first message to A's second message, and A’s
second message to 3'5 second message and so on, but it does
not allow out-of—sequence interpretations of messages, for
example A's third message with B's first message. In ad-
dition, the present analysis rests on the assumptions that
interpersonal messages do have a relational-defining char-
acter, that this character can be conceptualized along a
control dimension and that this control dimension can be
operationalized. Further, it is assumed that relational
patterns can be inferred from sampled, and in a sense, public

interchanges between interactors.

Summary

The development of a transactional coding scheme com-
bines several current, mutually reinforcing, lines of theo-
retical concern. First, it focuses on the ongoing aspects
of interpersonal interaction more than consequences, that

is, it permits a fuller explication of the communication

102

aspects of relationships which are associated with various
consequences. Second, it is concerned with the form, or
structure, of interaction as distinct from a concern for
referent. And third, it stresses the inter-relational as-
pects of communication rather than individual behavior. A
relational analysis of communication patterns involves at
least a dyadic level of analysis and necessitates an emphas-
is on process.

The relational analysis presented in this paper is a
continuation of Sluzki and Beavin's and Mark's efforts to
develop a set of transactional concepts for describing basic
communication patterns. The methodology set forth not only
explicates, but expands the control-defining conception of
message-exchange, and provides procedure for operationalizing
this promising approach to communication.

Coding Procedures and Reliability
for the Discussion Data

The first step in processing the tape recorded dis-
cussion data was to transcribe it on to special coding forms.
For all discussions, each message, which was defined as
everything a speaker says until the next person speaks, was
designated by speaker and typed out sequentially. This was
done separately for each of the four topics.

The typists were instructed to pay particular atten-

tion to inflection patterns and to indicate interrogative

103

message forms. Also "talk-over" messages were to be indicated
by the typists and silence that intially lasted for three
seconds and any additional five second periods of silence.

See Appendix VI for transcribing procedures.

The principal investigators of the study checked all
transcriptions with the recorded discussion for accuracy of
content, successful and nonsuccessful talk-overs and silence.
The interaction time for each discussion was also determined.

Using the transcribed coding forms, three raters who
were independent of the research project, coded each message
according to the three digit coding system described in the
previous section. Lengthy training sessions were held with
the coders to explain the general outline of the research
process, but the emphasis was upon the specific coding rules
to be applied for the message codes. See Appendix VII for
coding instructions. I

After the first training session, the raters were
given two topic discussions of one of the dyads interviewed
for the study but not included because they did not have
children under twelve years of age. The next training ses-
sion consisted of comparing the message codes of the raters
with the principal investigators and clarifying question
and points of confusion. The raters were given another two
discussion topics to code. At the next training session,
the agreement resulting from code comparisons merited the

beginning of the actual research coding. Three transcripts

104

were given to each coder which were the same across coders.
These were used for a first stage coding evaluation.

After coding was completed on the first set of trans-
cripts, a check across coders was made.' Seven errors were
detected on the coding of speaker (first digit code) out of
the 1980 messages across all twelve topics. Some errors in
coding talk-overs, which had previously been identified on
the transcripts by parentheses or brackets, were also found
and code disagreement between assertion and noncomplete mes-
sages was evident. A final training session was held where
these inconsistencies were discussed and recommendations were
made for further minimizing error. The large number of hours
involved in coding the thousands of messages of the dyad dis-
cussions merited the extensive training procedures.

The three transcripts involved in the first checking
step were randomly reassigned to one of the three coders for
recoding. The remaining transcripts were divided among the
coders, including six which were randomly selected were
common to each coder. These six transcripts were the base
for the final coder reliability check.

Using percentage of agreement, reliability figures
were determined for three digit codes for 24 discussion
topics across the six dyads. These figures are presented
in Table 2. The pair comparison percentages range from .68
to 1.00. The average reliability across all 72 pair com-

parisons is .86.

105

Comparisons were also made for the second and third
digit codes, to determine the possible source of disagree-
ment between coders. For the second digit codes, the average
reliability across the 72 comparisons was .93; for the third
digit codes, the average reliability .91. Most of the dis-
agreement on the second digit code appeared to be whether a
message was an assertion or a noncomplete. On the third
digit code, the major disagreement was on whether a message
was an extension or not.

As pointed out previously, the message codes will be
transformed into control codes. On second digit codes the
control code for assertions and noncompletes where the coder
disagreement was most frequent, only differ in one instance,
on the initiate-terminate code. Thus when the third digit
codes are the same, the reliability at the control level is
higher than at the message level.

Considering, however, just the three digit message
level code, the inter-rater agreement is satisfactorily
reliable. The message codes will form the base for the
message control codes which will be sequentially combined to

form the transactional codes.

 

106

. sea
on noafl
. mom
om uvoH
. «ma
an umma
. can
«a 1mmH
uxm

mumoou

. wed

ms 1moa
ms
FF.EMm
. am

am 1mm
mm
ONIIIOAIN
o\m

mHmQOU

 

. mes
as "was
. mom
as noma
. ema
ms nova
. mam
ms uoom
U\¢
mumpoo
mma mayo
. mva
mo 1ooa
ma
mm.uwm
omH
Nfio'mm
mm
om.umm
U\¢
muopou
mum aaua

mm.
. mes
mm noma
. was
Hm noes
. «ma
m» "ems
. mom
as 1mma
m\<
muopou
. as
mm 1mm
ms
mm.umm
mm. HNH
100H
. mm
mm 1cm
m\a
mumvoo

OHH

vmo'Nm

. mm
mm “Nm

mNH
INHH

oma
Immd

mm.

 

vm.

U\m
muovou

m
w
H
Ot\

N v-w

b
m
H

m C1m

P~ N

mm.

H
H m
h 0
H

1

mm.l

N
V
H

U\«
muopou

Ohm echo

NHH

mm le

. mm
0m "Vm

omH
I¢HH

mmH
Iowa

mm.

mm.

U\¢
muwooo

000 deo

mv
8,104.1
MN
FmoHON
wh
hm.flvb
.1bhH
om 1voa
m\¢
mumwou
. OHH
vm "MNI
HO
mm.flwm
om.INWH
IvHH
hm. mmH
I¢OH
m\<
WHQGOU

mamswm mommoa vm mmouom >usaaQMMHom momuo><

. mad
em "mod
. pom
mm noes
. mos
mm "was
. mma
mm 1¢oa
U\m
muowou
m. mm
m 1cm
me
oo.Humw
om
mm.1ms
mm. mud
1qHH
U\m
muwvoo

oo.HuM1
o

m

m

0

H
m
H 0L”
N Hrfi

mm.

H
m «in Q
0‘ m
H F4

F N

am.

w m
H H

U\¢
mumvou

 

mvo D<MQ

mm
Nm.ll

tom
«v
v
w
lmb

mNH
IvHH

U\<
mucooo

 

mm.

mm.

NmH QdNQ

oo.Hulw
m

oo.HI

m\<
mumooo

m

oo.Hu|||

0
mm
NV

 

N
om
mNH
INNH

 

mm.

m\¢
mumooo

 

 

.mowoo mommmmfi uflmfiw omunu so muopoo cmozumn mucmfiomhmm mmmucmunmm

.m menus

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS PLAN AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The research aims of this study are threefold. The
first is descriptive in nature. The object is to expand the
general descriptive knowledge of dyadic husband-wife communi-
cation. The descriptive approach is particularly applicable
to several aspects of the self-report data.

The second aspect is hypothesis testing in nature.

This approach will be applied to both the self-report and the
discussion data where there is a sufficient theoretical or
empirical base on which to formulate directional propositions.
The purpose is to determine whether dyads differentiated by
role discrepancy level have different communication patterns
and to determine what these differences are.

A final aspect of the study is exploratory in nature.
The aim is to pose questions that continue to explore the
data for interaction relationships, but in a less formalized
way than hypothesis testing. These exploratory questions
will be directed at the discussion data.

Descriptive and inferential statistics will be utilized
in the analysis of the data. The descriptive statistics will

be predominantly typical values. The inferential statistical

107

108

techniques proposed for testing the hypotheses include both
parametric and nonparametric tests, in most instances, a

2x3 analysis of variance design with unequal cell frequency
and a multiple-cell chi square design. .All statistical tests

will be two-tailed.

Self-Report Data

 

p"

Several areas of the self-report questionnaire data
were gathered simply for descriptive purposes in order to
learn more about dyadic interaction. They are areas in which
no hypotheses were formulated involving the major factor
variables of this study, because there either is not suf-
ficient accumulation of empirical data on which to base pre-
dictions or there is no clear theoretical guide. These
areas include the data on time allocations, amount of talk-
time, topic distribution and descriptions of cemmunication
control. This data will be described by low, medium, and
high role discrepancy levels, short and long history (length)
of marriage, by husband and wife and over all categories,
but no predictions will preface the descriptions. Hypotheses
will be formulated for different factor variable effects on
the self-report data concerning talk-time desired, dyadic
communication satisfaction and marriage satisfaction.

Time allocations: The data gathered allows estimates
to be made about how husbands and wives allocate their time

on a weekday among different social relationships. Time

109

allocations will be described for: (1) time spent within
the husband-wife dyad alone and (2) total time spent with
spouse, (3) time spent with children alone and (4) time
spent within the family unit (defined as total spouse time
plus time with at least one of the children), and (5) time
spent outside the family unit with other people. Descrip-
tions of time spent with spouse on a Sunday will also be
given.

Talk-time: Estimates of time spent talking with
spouse will be described for a weekday and a Sunday.

Topic distribution: Descriptions of the number of
topics talked about with spouse and the frequency of these
discussions will be determined.

Communication control descriptions: Dyadic responses
will be described concerning who initiates and terminates
interspousal communication, whose interests are talked about
and who talks the most.

Talk-time desired: After respondents estimated how
much time they talked with their spouse, they were asked to
indicate how much time they would have liked to have spent
talking with their spouse. The hypotheses concerning de-
sired talk-time are:

H1: Wives will desire more talk-time than husbands.

H2: Short history dyads will desire more talk-time
than long history dyads.

H3: Higher role discrepant dyads will desire more
talk-time than lower role discrepant dyads.

110

The rationale for the above hypotheses is based

on the concept of relative deprivation. Relative depriva-
tion refers to the degree to which one's perception of actual
amount of interdyadic communication is discrepant from one's
preferred or desired level of interdyadic communication.
The larger the discrepancy between one's "wants" and "gets"
will promote a desire for more talk-time regardless of the
actual level. Those categories of respondents who feel the
most relative deprivation will desire the most talk-time.

The husband-wife dyad is an intimate social system
in which the expectation of high amounts of talk-time are
generally present. Yet it is a system with many time de-
mands put upon its members by forces external to the dyad.
Therefore, a general prediction is that both dyad members
will desire more talk-time than less and this will be more
evident on a work day than on a nonwork day. However, wives
will desire more talk-time than husbands because of their
role position in the family. In most cases, wives must
rely more on the husband-wife system for social interaction,
especially in the childrearing family stages, than husbands.
Therefore, wives will be more prime to experience communica-
tion deprivation and will desire more dyadic talk—time.

Short history dyads are expected to be more intense
in their relationship and also in a more time-demanding
family stage (i.e., childbearing) than long history dyads.

This will promote more relative deprivation in the interspousal

111

talk-time of short history dyads and they will desire more
talk-time than long history dyads.

High discrepant dyads, perceiving higher inequity in
the dyadic relationship than low discrepant dyads, will de-
sire more talk-time because of a need to modify the system
and reduce the inequity. It is further predicted that this
desire will not be realized in actual talk-time, which will
further heighten the feelings of relative deprivation.

Communication satisfaction: Data dealing with dyadic
communication satisfaction was obtained from responses to a
general evaluation item and combined responses to a composite
of more specific items. For both types of measures, the pre-
diction is the same, that role discrepancy will be related
inversely to communication satisfaction. The rationale is
that in systems where the rule of distributive justice
(equity) is more closely met, the members of that system
will be more satisfied with the dyadic communication.

Hu: Lower discrepant dyads will be more satisfied
with their intercommunication than higher dis-
crepant dyads. -

Marital satisfaction: Husbands and wives were asked
to rate their satisfaction with their marriage. It is pre-
dicted that role discrepancy again, will be related in an
inverse direction to marital satisfaction, due to the same
rationah as given above.

H 5: Lower discrepant dyads will be more satisfied

with their marriage than higher discrepant
dyads.

112

Discussion Data

 

The topic discussions provide the base for an analy-
sis of relational communication patterns manifested within
the dyadic system. The theoretical frame for this analysis
has been discussed in the previous chapters. In brief, the
dyad is viewed as a rule-governed, self-correcting system
oriented toward adaptive steady states. The "negotiated order"
underlying dyadic interaction is seen as an ongoing process
that is homeostatically monitored and manifested in the con-
tinuous flow of communicative acts. This view stresses that
order and integration are not automatically nor indefinitely
achieved, but are continually evolving. Dyadic systems with
a history, however, will develOp certain repetitive, relative-
ly enduring patterns of communication which characterize the
system's style of maintaining itself. It is this character-
istic style that is attempted to be measured in this part
of the study.

The relational analysis will compare the interaction-
al and transactional behavior of dyads of different role
discrepancy levels. Within the general systems frame and
the findings of family interaction studies reviewed earlier,
two basic interrelated propositions concerning control mechan-
isms and rigidity of interaction underly the specific set
of hypotheses to be tested. One of these basic research

relationships under investigation is the proposition that

113

in dyads with lower role discrepancy, members will be more
likely to accept and grant the control defining communica—
tion of one another than in dyads with higher role discre-
pancy. In higher discrepant dyads, the partners will be
more likely, than in lower discrepant dyads, to negate one
another's control attempts as both seek control or struggle
over the definition of the relationship. The other major
proposition is that the communication patterns of dyads with
higher role discrepancy levels will be less Open, less flex-
ible with fewer variations than the communication patterns
of lower role discrepancy dyads. The following set of hypo-
theses are aimed at testing these ideas in a number of dif-
ferent ways.

At the activity level of analysis the following three

propositions are made.

H6: Dyads with lower role discrepancy will talk
longer (have longer discussion times) than
higher role discrepant dyads.

H7: Dyads with lower role discrepancy will have
less silence during the discussion period
than higher role discrepant dyads.

H8: Dyads with lower role discrepancy will have
more total number of transactions than high-
er role discrepant dyads.

At the message-type level of analysis the following

hypotheses are suggested.

H9: Dyads with lower role discrepancy will express

more support statements than higher role dis-
crepant dyads.

10'

H11:

114

Dyads with lower role discrepancy will have
more talk-overs than higher role discrepant
dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy will have
more successful talk-overs than higher role
discrepant dyads.

At the transaction level of analysis the following

hypotheses are formulated.

H12:

17'

Dyads with lower role discrepancy will ex-
hibit more random usage of transaction pat-
terns than higher role discrepancy dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy will ex-
hibit fewer long—run homogeneous transac-

tional sequences (configuration patterns)

than higher role discrepancy dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy will have
more complementary transactions than higher
role discrepancy dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy will have
less competitive symmetry than higher role
discrepant dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy will ex-
hibit less neutralization toward one-up

and one-up toward neutralization transitory
transactions than higher role discrepancy
dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy will ex-
hibit more neutralization toward one-down
and one-down toward neutralization transi-
tory transactions than higher role dis-
crepancy dyads.

In the testing of the above hypotheses, short and

long dyadic history levels will be used as a controlling

factor. These hypotheses do not exhaust the number of re-

lational analyses possible, but they are the predominant

focus of this study.

115

Exploratory Questions

In addition to making the above predictions, the pre-
sent study will make further comparisons exploring the com-
munication patterns of dyadic systems. The following com-
parative questions guide this exploration.

01: What type of message control is most fre-
quently used by lower versus higher role
discrepant dyad members?

02: What transactional types are most fre-
quently expressed by lower versus higher
role discrepant dyads?

03: What types of configuration patterns

are most characteristic of lower versus
higher discrepant dyads?

CHAPTER V

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The findings of the study will be discussed accord-
ing to the order of the analysis plan as outlined in the
previous chapter. These results will be presented within
the major cross-classifications of this study: 1) low,
medium and high role discrepancy and 2) short and long

history.

Self—Report Data

 

For this part of the study, both members of the
dyad responded separately to the self-report questions. It
was strongly felt by the author that it was important to
.have both members perceptions and descriptions of the dyadic
system. On some questions no commonality of response
between the members is expected, e.g., Question ld, "How
much of your time yesterday did you spend with people other
than your spouse and children?" On other questions response
similarity is expected, e.g., Question la, "How much of the
time yesterday did you spend with your spouse?" In the
findings that follow, substantial agreement is found between

husband and wife responses on this type of questions;

116

117

however, the view taken is similar to the position stated
by Safilios—Rothchild. Commenting on the discrepancies
found in reported decision—making patterns by husbands and
wives, she states that instead of attributing the disagree-
ments to inaccuracy, or inadequate research design, there

may be alternative interpretations of the differences.

An alternative explanation of discrepancies between

the responses of husbands' and wives' may be the possi-
bility of two 'realities,‘ the husband's subjective
reality and the wife's subjective reality--two perspec-
tives which do not always coincide. Each spouse per-
ceives 'facts' and situations differently according to
his own needs, values, attitudes, and beliefs. . . .
The existence of disagreements, disturbing as it may
be, will have to be interpreted, and its implications
for the type of husband~wife relationship will have to
be examined. This process may lead family sociologists
to a more refined assessment of the dynamics of family
interaction and towards a better understanding of
family behavior. (JMF, May, 1969, pp. 291-292.)

Time Allocations

There is little information available concerning
the amount of time that is spent in the husband-wife dyad
and other interpersonal relationships. The following data
are reported estimates of time spent in different relation-
ships during a day. These estimates will be presented by
wife responses, husband responses, and when appropriate, a

combined estimate of both dyad member responses.

Total Time Spent with Spouse

General estimates were given by husbands and wives

of the total time they spent together on a weekday and on

118

a Sunday. (See Questions la and 4a of the questionnaire

in Appendix II.) The mean time scores for a weekday are
given in Table 3 and for a Sunday in Table 4. A larger
mean score indicated a higher time allocation estimate.

The values in the tables correspond to the code categories
used in the questionnaire, but in the text the time alloca-
tions will be presented according to the actual time
represented by the code.

Looking first at Table 3, it is observed that wives
tend to give slightly higher time estimates than husbands,
but the overall mean indicates that the average time hus-
bands and wives spend together on a weekday is about four
hours.

The mean differences of total weekday time spent
with spouse show the medium discrepancy dyads reporting the
lowest amount of time (approximately three hours) and the
high discrepancy dyads reporting slightly higher amounts
than the four hours reported by low discrepant dyads. The
range of differences across discrepant levels, however, is
quite minimal and analysis of variance tests of the data
summarized in Table 3 reveal no significant differences
by role discrepancy, or by history.

Two tendencies, however, are noted in Table 3 that
are more pronounced in Table 5 dealing with time spent
along with spouse. First there is a tendency for short

history dyads (married from one to eleven years) to spend

119

.GOADMOOHHM mEHu Hwnmfis m mmumoflwsw muoom umcmflmo

.omosommon mm mo mHmEmm Hmuou may no mo>H3 Had .mo mamovm meEMm UMMC onu
msnu can osmnmsn on» .sowpmmsv mflsu ou psommmH-www1mww1mwsmnmss osen

.manmu o>onm may mo esopxmmun sEsHoo wmw3 on» on umafleflm on Haas m.s
Hamo on» can mm ma c Hmuou on“ soaaom pan» mmanmu osu mo muwuonms on» cH .mHQMB
was» as so>wm on Mano Haas Hamo comm How musopsommmn mo Hones: ones

 

No.m vm.m mo.m om.m mm.m NN.© mm.m om.m on.m mo.m mm.m mm.w

 

 

 

Hmuoe
mmuz mmnz monz mmnz mmuz mmnz manz manz omnz mmnz mmnz mmuz
mm.m «m.m mb.m mm.m 5H.o om.m vu.m mn.m om.m mo.m om.m om.m
msoq
Hmuz Hmnz mmuz manz manz mauz on an oauz oauz oanz oan
HH.m «m.m mm.o mm.m ww.m 000.5 mm.m mm.m om.m oo.m mw.m na.m
. unocm
Nmuz Nmuz mmuz HHuz Hauz Hanz muz Qmuz oauz Nauz NHuz omauz
coho .msm muag coma .msm wwwz mama .msm OMHS puma .msm OMHB
Hmuoa swam EsHUmz 30A muoumflm

 

mosmmmnomflm maom

 

 

.wmpxmmz o co omsomm spas oEHu Hmuou mo moumfiflumo msoom coo: .m magma

120

 

 

 

 

mm.mve mo Hmuoe

mo.s mmdmmw mm gasps:

.m.a em.s mm.ms mm.m~ m cosnomumucH

.m.c em. om.a om.a H snoumflm
.m.c ms.a H~.m me.oa m scammmuomfla maom ammo

ms.msa mm Hmuoe

mm.a mm.voa Mm canvas

.m.: ms. mm.H mo.~ N nosuomnmucH

.m.: oo. oo. oo. a whoumwm
.m.s ~m.m m~.v om.m m hosmmmnomfla oaom pcmnmsm

ma.mms so sauce

mo.m mmqmmm mm gasps:

.m.c sm.s ma.¢ o~.m m cofluomnmch

.m.c em.s mm.q ma.v H snoumflm
.m.c mm. mm.a ms.m m socmamuomfia msom muss
mmwmq mgsm> m .MMMMm mwmmmwM an mo.....> so mouse. .mwwmwmm

 

121

 

 

 

Table 4. Mean score estimates of total time with spouse on a Sunday.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High Total

 

Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short 7.67 7.92 7.79 7.20 7.30 7.25 7.45 7.45 7.46 7.45 7.58 7.52
Long 7.70 7.30 7.50 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.33 5.58 5.96 6.94 6.53 6.74
Total 7.68 7.64 7.66 7.05 7.10 7.08 6.87 6.48 6.68 7.20 7.06 7.13
Note: Higher score indicates higher time allocations.
Response Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Ratio 819'
Unit Squares Square Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 8.07 4.04 2.23 n.s.
History 1 4.35 4.35 2.40 n.s.
Interaction 2 3.31 1.66 .92 n.s.
Within 52_ 106.67 1.81
Total 64 122.40
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 15.12 7.56 3.50 .05
History 1 17.72 17.72 8.20 .01
Interaction 2 5.24 2.62 1.21 n.s.
Within 52_ 127.67 2.16
Total 64 165.75
Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 44.01 22.01 3.41 .05
History 1 39.62 39.62 6.41 .05
Interaction 2 16.08 8.04 1.25 n.s.
Within 52_ 380.84 6.45
Total 64 480.55

 

122

more time together than long history dyads (married from
twelve to 26 years) and second, there is a tendency for
§h2£E_history—high discrepancy dyads to give the highest
time-together estimates while 123g_history—high discrepant
dyads spend notably less time together. These tendencies
will be discussed in the next section when Table 5 is
presented.

Table 4 presents the mean estimates of total time
spent with spouse on a Sunday. As expected, the time
allocations for Sunday, a nonwork day, are higher than
those given for a weekday. Overall, couples report spend-
ing about six hours together on a Sunday-~two hours more
than on a weekday.

In Table 4 the history differences mentioned above
become pronounced. Short history dyads report spending
significantly more time together on a Sunday than long
history dyads. The overall difference is about an hour
and a half.

Also, there is a distinct pattern of time estimates
by discrepancy categories. The low discrepant (low system
strain) dyads report spending the most time together and
the high discrepant (high strain) dayds the least time
together. This relationship is more prominent for the
dyads with a longer length of marriage (long history).

The history and discrepancy effects approach

significance for wife responses and are significant at the

123

.05 level (or above) for husband and dyad responses. The
short history—low discrepancy dyads estimate the highest
amount of time together on Sunday, a day when time alloca-
tions are less affected by work demands and assumed to be
more a personal choice, and the long history-high discrep-
ant dyads estimate the least amount of time together.

It appears that on a weekday, with heavier demands
on available time, role discrepancy levels within dyads do
not affect time allocations, but on a Sunday, those dyads
who perceive the system operating more in accord with
their expectations (low discrepant dyads) spend more time
in the dyad than those who perceive inequities in the

system (high discrepant dyads).

Time Spent with Spouse Alone

Estimates of time spent alone with spouse are pre-
sented in Table 5. The overall mean scores of husbands
and wives are very similar, both indicating an average of
one hour spent alone with spouse on a weekday.

For wife, husband and dyad responses the history
effect is statistically significant. (This tendency was
observed in Table 3, but not at a significant level.) In
each case, the dyad members with a shorter history (length
of marriage) spend more time alone with their spouse than
dyad members with a longer history. This is most pronounced

for high discrepant dyads. On the average (across all

124

Table 5. Mean estimates of time spent with spouse alone on a weekday.

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

History Low Medium High Total

Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad
Short 4.55 4.25 4.41 4.30 4.33 4.39 5.13 5.09 5.13 4.85 4.56 4.65
Long 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.89 3.56 3.17 3.08 3.12 3.22 3.45 3.37
Total 4.09 3.91 4.00 3.90 4.11 3.97 4.13 4.04 4.08 4.05 4.02 4.03
Note: Higher score indicates more time.

 

 

 

 

Regfiizse Source of Variance DF :gzagzs 8:3:26 F Ratio ingi

Wife Role Discrepancy 2 ".63 .32 .11 n.s.
History 1 43.15 43.15 14.63 .001
Interaction 2 2.76 1.38 .47 n.s.
Within 52_ 174.32 2.95
Total 64 220.86

Husband Role Discrepancy 2 .43 .22 .09 n.s.
History 1 19.43 19.43 8.30 .01
Interaction 2 7.66 3.83 1.64 n.s.
Within §1_ 133.46 2.34
Total 62 160.98

Dyad Role Diecrepancy 2 .61 .30 .04 n.s.
Hietory 1 104.05 104.05 13.71 .001
Interaction 2 19.65 9.83 1.30 n.e.
Within §Z_ 432.55 7.59
Total 62 556.86

 

 

125

categories), couples married a shorter period of time spend
around an hour and a half alone, while couples married
longer spend less than an hour (about 40 minutes) alone
with one another.

There are no significant role discrepancy differ—
ences or interaction effects. However, one of the more
intriguing aspects of the interspousal time estimates is
observed when length of marriage is taken into account.
This tendency noted in Table 3, is more clearly observed
here in Table 5. The short history-high discrepant dyads
gave the highest estimate of time spent alone together,
while the long history-high discrepant dyads gave the
lowest estimates of time alone.

Husband and wife pairs who have high role discrep-
ancy but a shorter length of marriage report that they
spend approximately two hours in the dyadic relationship,
while couples at the same discrepancy level with a longer
history report they spend about 30 minutes together by
themselves.

One of the major reasons for controlling on history
in this study, was the notion that the effects of inequity,
as measured by perceived role discrepancy, might operate
differently depending on the length of history of the.
dyad. It was felt that when higher levels of inequity
were present in more recently formed dyads (in relative

terms), the members would be more likely to "confront" one

126

another in attempts to modify the system and redress the
perceived inequities, while in dyads with high inequity
that had existed for a much longer period of time, the
members would be more likely to "withdraw" and avoid con—
tinued failure attempts to modify the system. The above
data do not give support of this explanation, but they do

give suggestive evidence for this interpretation.

Time Spent with Children Alone

 

The respondents were asked to estimate the amount
of time they spent just with one or more of their children
on a weekday. These data, presented in Table 6, were
obtained to further our descriptive knowledge of family
time allocations. As expected, wives uniformly report
that they spend large amounts of time alone with their
children during a weekday. The typical estimate is about
five hours. Note that total time with children (with
others present) would be more. Wives who have been married
fewer years (short history) report spending slightly more
time alone with children than wives who have been married
longer. All the dyads in the study are in the childbear—
ing and childrearing family life stage, but the couples
married for a shorter period, having younger children, are
probably in the higher time-demand period of child care,

as suggested in the data.

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Mean estimates of time spent with children alone on a weekday.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium 7 High Total
Wife Hus. Wife Hus. Wife Hus. Wife Hus.
Short 6.58 3.73 7.10 2.89 6.36 3.91 6.67 3.55
Long 6.20 3.80 5.50 5.33 6.50 3.42 6.09 4.10
Total 6.41 3.76 6.30 4.11 6.43 3.65 6.38 3.82

 

Note: Higher score indicates more time.

 

 

 

Regfiitse Source of Variance DF :Sfla::s szizges F Ratio ::351

Wife Role Discrepancy 2 .21 .ll .02 n.s.
History 1 5.33 5.33 1.12 n.s.
Interaction 2 8.38 4.19 .88 I n.s.
Within 52_ 279.46
Total 64 293.38

Husband Role Discrepancy 2 2.24 1.12 .40 n.s.
History 1 4.66 4.66 1.67 n.s.
Interaction 2 23.65 11.83 4.24 .05
Within 56. 156.50 2.79

Total 61 187.05

 

128

The husbands report considerably less time spent
alone with their children than wives. The average esti-
mate was about an hour. Once again, recall that this is
time spent with children only, so that the total time
with children is higher.

An interesting pattern is observed in the medium
discrepancy-—short and long history cells of Table 6. In
the medium discrepancy-short history cell, wife responses
are the highest estimates given of time with children
(over six hours) and the husband responses are the lowest
(about 30 minutes). In the medium discrepancy-lgnq_his-
tory category, the highest husband response (slightly
less than three hours) and the lowest wife response (three
hours) are given. It appears that there is a fairly
inflexible amount of time that is needed to be spent with
children1 and when one partner spends less time, the other
spends more time.

The similarity of times spent alone with children
reported in the long history-medium discrepancy by wives
and husbands is probably affected by the fact that four of
the eight working wives in the sample fell in that cell.
The other four working wives are distributed among three

other categories.

 

1The combined responses of husband and wife time
spent with children alone is practically the same amount
of time (six hours) across all cells.

129

For additional descriptive purposes, a "family"
time allocation estimate is available by combining the
overall average of total time spent with spouse, given
in Table 3, with the overall average time spent with at
least one of one's children, given in Table 6. The mean
estimated time that wives spend in this combination is
approximately nine hours per weekday and the average for

husbands is about five hours per weekday.

Time Spent Outside the Family

 

The reported times that husbands and wives spend
with people other than spouse and children are given in
Table 7. The most obvious and nonsurprising result is
that husbands spend more time with nonfamily members than
do wives. Wives reported spending on the average about an
hour per weekday with people other than the immediate
family; husbands spend approximately three hours with
other people.

Length of marriage (history) was found to be a
significant factor affecting the amount of time wives
spent with others but not for husbands. Wives of short
history dyads spent less time with nonfamily members than
wives of long history dyads. This again is probably due
to the higher time demand of having younger children.
Wives of short history-medium discrepant dyads were found

to report the lowest amount of time with people outside

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Mean estimates of time spent outside the family on a weekday.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High Total
Wife Hus. Wife Hus. Wife Hus. Wife Hus.
Short 3.58 5.25 2.40 6.44 4.30 5.82 3.44 5.78
Long 5.30 4.90 4.90 5.11 4.08 6.25 4.72 5.48
Total 4.36 5.09 3.65 5.781 4.18 6.04 4.08 5.63
Note: Higher score indicates more time.
Response Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Ratio 819'
Unit Squares Square Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 5.70 2.85 .68 n.s.
History 1 26.27 26.27 6.25 .05
Interaction 2 21.31 10.66 2.54 n.s.
Within 58_ 243.33 4.20
Total 63 296.61
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 10.72 5.36 .78 n.s.
History 1 1.39 1.39 .20 n.s.
Interaction 2 8.35 4.18 .60 n.s.
Within 51_ 394.14 6.91
Total 62 414.60

 

131

the family. They estimate less than 30 minutes. This
corresponds to their responses being the highest (over six
hours) for time spent just with children, given in Table 6.
It is interesting to note the trend in the husbands'
estimates of time spent outside the family. There are no
significant difference by discrepancy levels, but husbands
of low discrepancy dyads report the least amount of time
spent outside the family unit while husbands of high dis-
crepancy report the largest amount of time spent outside
the family. This is particularly true of long history
dyads. This lends slight, but further evidence to the
suggested avoidance technique of dealing with higher
inequity, in longer established dayds. This trend is not
observed in the wife responses, since spending time out-
side the family unit is a more probable alternative for

husbands than for wives.

Talk-Time with Spouse

Along with time allocations, dyadic talkftime
allocations were also obtained. Via the self-report
instrument, dyad members estimated how much of the total
time they were together with their spouse, was spent in
conversation. Estimates were given for both a weekday
and a Sunday (see Question 2a and 4b of the questionnaire
in Appendix II). The mean values of these time estimates

are reported in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively.

132

Table 8. Mean estimates of talkwtime with spouse on a weekday.

 

 

Role Discrepancy

 

History Low Medium High Total

 

 

 

Y'v

Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad

 

 

Short 4.58 4.33 4.46 4.44 4.10 4.28 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.34 4.15 4.25
Long 3.70 3.60 3.65 4.10 4.10 4.10 3.17 3.42 3.29 3.63 3.69 3.65
Total 4.18 4.00 4.09 4.26 4.10 4.18 3.57 3.70 3.43 3.98 3.92 3.95
Note: Higher score indicates more time.

 

 

 

 

Regiizse Source of Variance DF 2333::8 823226 F Ratio iigél

Wife Role Discrepancy 2 6.38 3.19 2.38 n.s.
History 1 8.27 8.27 6.17 .05
Interaction 2 .53 .27 .20 n.s.
Within §§_ 77.80 1.34
Total 63 92.98

Husband Role Discrepancy 2 1.95 .97 .50 n.s.
History 1 3.50 3.50 1.81 n.s.
Interaction 2 1.38 .69 .36 n.s.
Within 52_ 113.79 1.93
Total 64 120.62

Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 15.31 7.65 1.67 n.s.
History 1 22.56 22.56 4.93 .05
Interaction 2 3.81 1.91 .42 n.s.
Within §§_ 265.76
Total 63

 

133

 

 

Table 9. Mean estimates of talk-time with spouse on a Sunday.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High Total

 

 

Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short 5.58 5.92 5.75 5.50 5.30 5.40 4.91 5.55 5.22 5.33 5.61 5.47
Long 5.30 5.00 5.15 5.70 5.10 5.40 4.00 4.75 4.37 4.94 4.94 4.94
Total 5.45 5.50 5.47 5.60 5.20 5.40 4.43 5.13 4.78 5.14 5.28 5.21
Note: Higher score indicates more time.
Response Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Ratio 319'
Unit Squares Square Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 17.85 8.92 4.17 .05
History 1 2.55 2.55 1.19 n.s.
Interaction 2 2.83 1.42 .66 n.s.
Within 52_ 126.52 2.14
Total 64 149.75
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 1.71 .85 .28 n.s.
History 1 7.26 7.26 2.42 n.s.
Interaction 2 1.15 .58 .19 n.s.
Within 52_ 176.90 3.00
Total 64 187.02
Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 25 . 98 12 . 99 1 . 77 n . s .
History 1 18.41 18.41 2.51 n.s.
Interaction 2 6.12 3.06 .42 n.s
Within 52_ 433.27 7.34
Total 64 483.78

134

Although the time estimate categories are fairly
general, it is again reassuring, as it was with the inter-
dyadic time allocations, to find the average talk-time
estimates given by husbands and wives to be quite similar.
The overall mean for talk—time on a weekday indicates
approximately one hour of the average four hours (see
Table 3) of total time couples spend together, is spent
talking to one another. For a Sunday, the average esti—
mated talk-time is approximately two hours out of the
total average of six hours (see Table 4).

In accordance with previous time allocation esti-
mates, Table 8 and 9 both show that short history dyads
spend more time in conversation than long history dyads.
The history effect is statistically significant for wife
and dyad responses for a weekday, and show strong, but
not statistically significant tendencies for husband
responses and for estimates of talk-time on a Sunday.

Analyzing talk—time in terms of discrepancy levels,
it is seen that the data in both Table 8 and 9 show a
tendency for low discrepant dyads to spend more time talk-
ing than high discrepant dyads. This is particularly true
for wife responses, which are significant at the .05 level
for Sunday and approach significance for weekday responses.

Analysis of variance of the talk-time data show
no significant interaction effects, but once again, the

previously mentioned pattern concerning the mix of history

135

and discrepancy levels is readily observable. The short
history-low discrepancy dyad members with one exception
(wife responses for Sunday give the second highest
(instead of the highest talk-time mean) report the highest
amount of talk—time of all cell combinations and the long
history-high discrepant dyad members report the lowest
amount of talk-time. An emerging, although not signifi—
cant, tendency is for this polar history and discrepancy
combination to effect both the time dyad members spent

together and the time spent talking together.
Topic Discussion Frequency

Husband and wife respondents were asked to check
how frequently they talked about ten different topics.
Almost all respondents said they talked about each of the
topics, which varied from interpersonal, to financial, to
national events, but with different levels of frequency.
Mean scores representing the frequency of discussion
across the ten topics are presented in Table 10. On each
topic a socre from 1 to 4 was possible, with 1 represent—
ing a frequency of once a day or more and 4 indicating a
frequency of less than once a month (see Question 7 of the
questionnaire in Appendix II for more detail). The total
score had a possible range from 10 to 40. A lower score

indicates more frequent discussions.

136

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.o0flmwsomwo usoswoum ones moumoflosw onoom uozoq "ouoz
mm.mH vm.mH mm.ma mm.om mm.ma mo.am hv.ma mm.ma sh.ma mh.oH om.oH mm.oH Hmuoe
oa.ma mo.ma ~¢.ma om.om mo.am mv.am mm.ma mv.om oo.om oo.na ov.ha oo.ma mcoq
mo.>a 0H.SH hm.mH mo.oa om.ma om.om mm.ha on.na mm.ha om.oa m>.ma mm.ba uHOSm

coho .msm ova: coma .msm. -VMAS. coma. .msm muss moan .msm mmaS
Hmuoa swam Eswooz 30a Snowman
. mosmmouomflo oaom
.mofimou so» mmonom wososvoum scammsomflo sow: .oa magma

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.mHv~ mm Hmuoa

oo.mm ms.~msH .mm aHauHs

.m.c mo. Hm.H H6.~ m aoHuomuoucH

.m.a .ms.m sm.mMH so.mmH H snoumHm
Ho. Ho.s so.omm mH.oom m scammoHomHo mHom ammo

>F.Hmm om Hmuoa

Hm . NH % Mm :2qu

.m.: 00. oo. co. m coHuomumuaH

Ho. em.a oo.mm oo.mm H snoumHm
mo. om.v om.mo mm.omH m scammmuomHo 0H0m ocmnmsm

hm.mmHH om H0909

mm.sH 06.nom .mm :HauHs

.m.c om. am.m ms.mH N :oHuomumuaH

.m.q mH.H m~.o~ e~.o~ H snoumHm
Ho. Ho.m vo.mm mo.osH m scammmuomHo 0Hom 0HH3
«MMMH ofiumm m ommwmm mMMMHWM mo oosmHHm> mo oousom omwwmmom

 

 

138

An examination of Table 10 shows that the frequency
of discussion is significantly different by role discrep-
ancy categories. For both husband and wife, and dyad
responses there is a continuous decrease in the frequency
of discussion from low to medium to high role discrepancy
dyads. Role discrepancy is seen to have a negative effect
on these indicants of dyadic communication frequency.

History is a significant factor variable only for
husband responses although the direction and differences
of wife and dyad scores are consistent with the husband
response pattern. Short history dyads are shown to talk
more frequently about the ten topics, than long history
dyads. Again, it is interesting to observe that it is the
long history—high discrepancy dyads that report the least
frequent discussions.

Mean frequency score breakdowns were also made on
wife, husband and dyad responses by role discrepancy and
history for each of the ten topics. A summary of the
results of analysis of variance tests on this data is
presented in Table 11.

In all cases of significant role discrepancy dif-
ferences in Table 11, the mean frequency scores indicate
that the low discrepant dyads had the most frequent dis-
cussions and the high discrepant dyads had the least

frequent discussions. With all significant differences

139

.uGMOHMHsmHm ouo3

mosHm>1m coauomnousfl onu mo osozm

 

111 mo.
H0. 111
mo. 111
111 mo.
111 H0.
111 Ho.

11. mo.
mo. 111
mo. 111
111 mo.
Ho. Ho.

Ho.

mo.

muco>o Hmsofiumsnousfilamcoflumz .OH
muso>m Hmooq .m

mo>wumamm .m

mosoflnm .n

moosmsfim .m

meow .m

08H» onsmfloq .v

soHoHHnO .m

Honuosm oco oumzou msflaoom .m

non .H

 

huoumwm >osmmouomwo muoumwm hosomouomflo known“: monomouomwo

 

omso

census:

L

Omaz

canoe

 

 

M

.oflmou ma mouoom hososwonm GOHmmsomwp some mo mHo>oH oosmoflmasmflm .HH magma

140

by history, the short history dyads reported more frequent
discussions than long history dyads.

The topics that particularly distinguish the low
discrepant from the high discrepant dyads are talk about
job and talk about feelings toward one another. With both
topics, low discrepant dyads report high frequency of dis-
cussions, while high discrepant dyads report much less
frequent discussions of these topics. The discrepancy
differences on these two topics, particularly the less
frequent talk of high discrepant couples about their feel—
ings, is an important finding. It underscores a predominant
theme of family therapy that those couples most in need of
talking about their interpersonal relationship seem to be
least able, or least likely, to talk about their feelings
toward one another.

The frequency of discussing financial matters was
the most notable difference between short and long history
dyads. Short history dyads report a high frequency of
taling about finances while the long history dyads report
significantly less talk about this topic.

Of the ten topics, the subject of children was
discussed with the highest frequency across all respondents.
National and international events were discussed with the

least frequency across all categories.

141
Communication Control

The respondents were asked four questions concern-
ing control aspects of conversation; who initiates and ends
conversations between spouses, whose interests are talked
about and who does more of the talking (see Question 8,
item a through item d, in Appendix II). In all four cases
the overriding response was one indicating an approximately
equal sharing of "control." See Table 12 for the item
response frequencies and total frequency percentages.

The responses were tabulated by role discrepancy
categories to see if there were any differences between
the low, medium and high discrepancy groups. A chi square
value was calculated for each item. These figures are also
given in Table 12.

None of the chi square values are above the .05
level of significance. Only in item c, concerning whose
interests are talked about, is there a trend for the dis-
crepancy categories to differ from the expected frequencies.
The chi square value, 8.38, is significant at the .10
level. The respondents of high role discrepant dyads said
that they talked about what their spouse wanted to talk
about, or what they themselves wanted to talk about more
frequently than the medium or low discrepant dyad members.
The respondents of low discrepant dyads reported most fre-
quently that they talked about both of their interests

equally.

142

Table 12. Response frequencies and total frequency percentages for
self-report communication control by item.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Role Discrepancy Frzofizit
Item Total Pergent-
Low Medium High
ages
3;. Who starts conversation?
1. My spouse more 6 3 10 19 15
2. I do more 7 8 12 27 22
3. Each of us about same 39_ 22_ 39_ 79 63
43 40 42 125 100
x2 = 6.46 n.s.
b. How much do you talk in
comparison to spouse?
1. Much more 2 l 5 8 O6
2. Somewhat more 9 9 7 25 19
3. About the same 25 25 26 76 58
4. Somewhat less _8_ _§_ _§_ 21 16
44 4O 46 130 100
x2 = 4.10 n.s.
c. Whose interests talk about?
1. Mainly my spouse's 2 4 7 13 10
2. Mainly mine 1 2 6 9 07
3. Each about evenly 41_ 34. 33. 107 83
44 4O 45 129 100
x2 = 8.38 n.s.
d. Who ends conversation?
1. My spouse 1 2 l 4 03
2. I do 3 2 5 10 07
3. Each about same 28 26 30 84 65
4. Outside interruptions 12_ 19_ 19_ 32 25
44 4O 46 130 100

x = 2.12 n.s.

 

143
Desired Talk-Time

After dyad members estimated how much time they
spent talking to one another they were asked to indicate
on a five-point scale how much time they would have liked
to have spent talking. A score of 1 indicates "much more"
and a score of 5 indicates "much less" (see Questions 2b
and 6 of the questionnaire in Appendix II for more detail).
Tables 13 and 14 present the mean scores of desired talk-
time on a weekday and a Sunday, respectively. A lower
score represents a higher level of desire for talk-time.

A general prediction made earlier2 was that both
dyad members would prefer more rather than less talk-time.
Looking at Tables 13 and 14 we see that all mean values
are above a score of three, which is the neutral point
between wanting more and wanting less talk—time.. Also, as
suggested before, the mean values do indicate a higher
desire for talk—time on a weekday, with assumed higher
external time demands on the dyad members, than on a Sun-
day. A t-test between the mean weekday and Sunday scores,
however, is not significant (t-value = 1.09 with 129 degrees
of freedom).

The first formally stated hypothesis of this study,

Hypothesis 1, predicted that wives would have significantly

 

 

2See Chapter IV, p.110, for hypotheses concerning
desired talk-time and their rationale.

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Mean scores of desired talkvtime on a weekday.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High Total
Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad
Short 1.58 2.00 1.79 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.64 2.18 1.91 1.70 2.03 1.86
Long 2.10 2.20 2.15 2.40 2.00 2.20 1.75 1.67 1.71 2.06 1.94 2.00
Total 1.82 2.09 1.95 2.15 1.95 2.05 1.70 1.91 1.81 1.88 1.98 1.93
Note: Lower score indicates more time desired.
Response . Sum of Mean . Sig.
Unit Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Ratio Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 2.32 1.16 1.81 n.s.
History 1 2.17 2.17 3.39 n.s.
Interaction 2 .61 .30 .47 n.s.
Within 52_ 37.92 .64
Total 64 43.02
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 .39 .20 .36 n.s.
History 1 .14 .14 .25 n.s.
Interaction 2 1.65 .83 1.48 n.s.
Within 52_ 32.80
Total 64 34.98
Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 2.66 1.33 .92 n.s.
History 1 1.21 1.21 .83 n.s.
Interaction 2 4.31 2.16 1.49 n.s.
Within 52_ 85.57 1.45
Total 64 93.75

 

145

 

 

 

Table 14. Mean scores of desired talk-time on a Sunday.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High Total

 

 

Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short 2.50 2.75 2.62 1.90 2.30 2.10 2.18 2.36 2.27 2.21 2.48 2.35
Long 2.60 2.70 2.65 2.70 2.60 2.65 1.83 2.25 2.04 2.34 2.50 2.42
Total 2.55 2.73 2.64 2.30 2.45 2.38 2.00 2.30 2.15 2.28 2.49 2.38
Note: Lower score indicates more time desired.
Response Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Ratio 319'
Unit Squares Square Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 3.36 1.68 2.63 n.s.
History 1 .28 .28 .44 n.s.
Interaction 2 3.67 1.84 2.88 n.s.
Within 52_ 37.71 .64
Total 64 45.02
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 2.06 1.03 1.81 n.s.
History 1 .00 .00 .00 n.s.
Interaction 2 .54 .27 .47 n.s.
Within 52_ 33.65 .57
Total 64 36.25
Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 10.56 5.28 3.14 .05
History 1 .35 .35 .20 n.s.
Interaction 2 6.93 3.47 2.05 n.s.
Within 52_ 99.70 1.68
Total 64 117.54

 

146

higher talk-time desired scores than husbands because of
higher communication deprivation. The mean scores are in
the predicted direction for both weekday and Sunday
responses, but the differences are not significant (see
Table 15).

Hypothesis 2 stated that short history dyads would

 

desire more talk-time than long history dyads. Once again,
the mean differences are in the predicted direction, but
are not statistically significant (see Tables 13 and 14).

The third hypothesis concerning desired talk-time

 

stated that higher role discrepant dyad members would
desire more talk-time than lower role discrepant dyads.
This prediction does not hold for weekday responses, but
does receive statistically significant support on dyad
responses for Sunday, a nonwork day. Again, see Tables 13
and 14. For Sunday, low discrepant dyads expressed the
lowest need to talk-more (mean score = 2.64), the medium
discrepant group express the next higher level of need to
talk (mean = 2.38) and the high discrepant dyads indicated
the highest desire to talk more (mean = 2.15). This cor-
responds with the previously noted differences (see Tables
8 and 9) that lower discrepant dyads report the higher
levels of interdyadic talking and high discrepant dyads
the least amount of actual talk—time. It appears that the
strains of higher role discrepancy operate to increase the

desired talk-time, but to inhibit the actual talk-time.

147

Table 15. Mean desired talk—time for a weekday and a
Sunday by wife-husband.

 

 

 

Weekday Sunday
gig: 1.88 2.28
Egzgand E;3§_ 3;:3
32:33 1.93 2.38
t = .79 n.s. t = 1.54 n.s.

 

Communication Satisfaction

Two measures of dyadic communication satisfaction
scores were obtained; one is a single item global evalua-
tion, the other is a composite index of fifteen fairly
specific interpersonal communication items. In both cases
a lower score is indicative of higher levels of communica-
tion satisfaction (see Questions 9 and 10, respectively,
of the questionnaire in Appendix II).

Table 16 presents the more general mean evaluation
scores. An examination of this table reveals that there
is little expression of dissatisfaction. How much of this
is a "halo" effect is not known, but it is assumed some is
present. In-depth family studies frequently conclude that
there is a tendency to present to others a "public" front

of system unity and satisfaction. Even when assuming that

 

148

 

Table 16. Mean scores on general communication satisfaction measure.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High Total

 

Wife Hus. Dyad

Wife Hus. Dyad

Wife Hus. Dyad

Wife Hus. Dyad

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short 1.42 1.58 1.50 1.90 1.40 1.65 2.45 1.64 2.04 1.91 1.55 1.72
Long 1.80 1.60 1.70 1.50 2.60 2.05 2.42 1.75 2.08 1.94 1.97 1.95
Total 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.70 2.00 1.85 2.43 1.70 2.06 1.92 1.75 1.84
Note: Lower score indicates higher satisfaction.
Response Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Ratio 819'
Unit Squares Square Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 9.45 4.72 4.25 .05
History 1 .01 .01 .01 n.s.
Interaction 2 1.59 .80 .72 n.s.
Within 52_ 65.57 1.11
Total 64 76.62
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 1.87 .94 1.49 n.s.
History 1 2.91 2.91 4.62 .05
Interaction 2 4.37 2.19 3.48 .05
Within 52_ 36.91 .63
Total 64 46.06
Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 10.13 5.07 2.17 n.s.
History 1 3.31 3.31 1.41 n.s.
Interaction 2 .80 .40 .17 n.s.
Within 52_ 137.98 2.34
Total 64 152.22

 

149

such an effect is present, the communication satisfaction
Amean scores, nevertheless, do differ across discrepancy
categories.

Hypothesis 4 states that lower discrepant dyad

 

members will express more satisfaction with their inter-
communication than higher discrepant dyad members. This
is supported at the .05 level of significance for the wife
responses (see Table 16). For husband responses, we dis—
cover that there is a significant (.05 level) history and
interaction effect. Husbands married a shorter time
express more satisfaction than husbands married a longer
period of time. The combination of medium discrepancy
with short history results in the highest satisfaction
score across all categories and medium discrepancy with
long history results in the lowest satisfaction score.

The eXplanation of this is not clear, however, remembering
that four of the ten wives of long history-medium discrep—
ancy category work outside the home may have some bearing
on those husbands having lower satisfaction scores. The
same category of husbands express the lowest mean satisfac-
tion score on the composite scale also.

Turning to the composite communication satisfaction
mean scores given in Table 17, we find that Hypothesis 4 is
strongly supported. The mean differences for wife, husband
and dyad responses across discrepancy categories are all

significant at the .05 level or above, and all but the

.sofluommmaumm Hosmws moumowosw whoom Hw3oq “ouoz

 

150

 

 

 

 

 

no.mm mm.mm ov.m~ om.Hm om.om mm.mm on.om oo.mm ov.m~ mo.>m mm.nm om.mm Hmuoa
no.0m .oo.Hm cm.om Hh.mm Nv.am oo.vm om.Hm ov.mm om.mm om.nm 0H.mm 0H.hm mcoq
mw.mm mh.mN H®.mN 5h.mm oo.mm mm.om OH.0m om.om oo.mN vm.mm mo.hm oo.©N uuonm
pawn .msm muss ooze .msm oma3 coho .msm emaz coma .msm oma3

Hmuoa swam 1 abacus 30H muoumflm

 

 

 

homomonomflo mHom

 

11
1
1

.oamom cowuommmHUMm coaumowssssoo ouwmogsooHsvmoHoom new: .nH mHQme

151

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.~m~m we Hmuos

Hm.6m an.Hmom .mm :Haqu

.m.c _ oo. oo. co. m :oHuomumuaH

.m.c em.m o¢.mm~ ov.mmm H snoumHm
Ho. om.m mo.msv «n.svm N scammmuomHa mHom ammo

mo.H~mH 66 Hence

mm.om mm.m-H .mm aHaqu

.m.a oo. oo. co. m coHuomumuaH

.m.c mm.m om.ma om.ma H suoumHm
Ho. NH.m om.60H MH.mH~ m socmmmuumHo mHom wamnmsm

ma.momm co Hmuos

mm.sv Ne.aomm .mm cHaqu

.m.c mm. ~¢.MH mm.om m aoHuomumuaH

.m.: mo.H oo.me oo.me H anoumHm
mo. «0.4 mm.~mH 46.4mm m scammmuomHo 0Hom 00H;
MMMMA OHUMM rm OHM—Mm wwwwmwm .mQ OUGMHHM> m0 WOHHHOW wmwwmmwm

 

152

medium discrepancy husband scores are in the predicted
direction. Low discrepant dyad members are found to be
significantly more satisfied with their communication
relationship than high discrepant dyad members.3

In Table 17, we again observe the tendency for the
polar combinations of short history—low discrepancy to
have the higher communication satisfaction level across
all cells and the long history-high discrepancy combina-
tion to have the lower level of communication satisfaction,
with the one exception mentioned above, the long history-
medium discrepancy husband score.

A factor analysis was carried out on the fifteen
item communication scale. The major factor resulting
from this analysis includes items b, g, h, m, n, o of
Question 10. These items deal in general, with the ability
to express feelings to one another and account for 27 per-
cent of the variance. An analysis of variance on this
sub-set of scores by discrepancy and history levels, pro-

duce results similar to that of the total set of communica-

tion satisfaction items, but at a lower level of significance.

 

3 . . .

A comparison of Wife and husband mean communica-
tion satisfaction scores on both the general and composite
index were not found to be significantly different. T-
values were .98 and .40, respectively, with 129 degrees
of freedom.

153

Marital Satisfaction

It was predicted in Hypothesis 5 that lower dis-

 

crepant dyads would be more satisfied with their marriage
relationship than higher discrepant dyadS. On a six—

point scale, dyad members reported their marriage satis—
faction level with a score of 1 indicating high satisfaction,
while a score of 6 indicated high dissatisfaction. Thus, a
lower score indicates greater satisfaction (see Question 23
of the questionnaire in Appendix II).

Once again, the "halo" effect mentioned in the
previous section, is no doubt present in this type of
evaluation. But assuming this effect is operating for all
respondents, the important question is whether there are
significant predicted differences between the discrepancy
groups. The answer is in the affirmative. Looking at the
mean marital satisfaction scores given in Table 18, we
find that mean wife and dyad response differences support
Hypothesis 5 at the .01 and the .05 level of significance,
and husband responses approach the .05 level.

As with communication (Tables 16 and 17), we find
for husband responses that the low discrepancy husbands
express the highest satisfaction, but the medium discrep-
ancy husbands indicate lower levels of satisfaction than
the high discrepancy husbands. Nevertheless, a general

relationship between lower levels of discrepancy and

154

higher levels of satisfaction is clearly present. This
relation seems particularly important in that it offers
strong evidence of construct validity that the discrepancy
measure is in fact an index of system strain. The other
self-report findings, being generally supportive of the
hypotheses put forward so far, are additional supports of
construct validity, but the relationship of role discrep-
ancy with marital satisfaction seems to be a key indicant.

We note in Table 18 that the history factor is not
significant. Mean satisfaction scores for short history
dyads indicate only slightly more satisfaction with their
marriages than long history dyads. A t-test of the mean
satisfaction scores of husbands and wives indicate no
significant role difference (t-value = .41 with 129 degrees
of freedom).

An outline of the major self-report findings con—
cerning the dyadic system4 is given in Table 19. The
direction and significance of differences by history and
discrepancy levels are based on dyad responses. No inter-
action effects between history and discrepancy were
significant. For more detail concerning the differences
summarized in Table 19, the reader is referred back to the

previous text discussion.

 

4Separate time allocations of dyad members with
children and nonfamily members are not included in Table
17, since they are not concerned with the dyadic system
itself.

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18. Mean marital satisfaction scores.
Role Discrepancy

History Low Medium High Total

Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad
Short 1.17 1.25 1.21 1.20 1.60 1.40 1.82 1.36 1.59 1.39 1.39 1.39
Long 1.10 1.20 1.15 1.20 1.70 1.45 1.83 1.45 1.71 1.41 1.50 1.45
Total 1.14 1.23 1.18 1.20 1.65 1.42 1.83 1.48 1.65 1.40 1.45 1.42
Note: Lower score indicates higher satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

Regiigse Source of Variance DF Sgfla::s Sgizie F Ratio ingi

Wife Role Discrepance 2 6.50 3.25 7.74 .01
History 1 .00 .00 .00 n.s.
Interaction 2 .03 .01 .02 n.s.
Within 52_ EELQZ. .42
Total 64 31.60

Husband Role Discrepancy 2 1.91 .96 2.91 n.s.
History 1 .18 .18 .55 n.s.
Interaction 2 .16 .08 .24 n.s.
Within 52. 12;§1_ .33
Total 64 22.06

Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 7.47 3.74 3.14 .05
History 1 .01 .01 .01 n.s.
Interaction 2 .12 .06 .05 n.s.
Within 52_ 12;§g 1.19
Total 64 78.40

 

156

Total 19. Summary of major self-report dyadic findings.a

 

 

Direction Significance

 

History Discrepancy

+=short > long +=lo > med > hi History Discrepancy

 

Descriptions

1. Total—time, spouse
weekday —n- -__ --_ ---
Sunday + + .05 .05

N
e

Time-alone, spouse + -—— .001 ___

w
e

Talk-time, spouse
weekday + --- .05 -—-
Sunday + + -—- ---

A

Topic discussion
frequency + + --- .01

U!

Communication
control ——— —-- --_ ___

 

Direction Significance

Hypotheses

O)

Desired talk-time:

H1 wife > husband + ---
H2 short history >

Long history

H high discrepancy >
low discrepancy

\)
e

Communication satisfaction:

H low discrepancy >
4 . .
high discrepancy

(I)

Marital satisfaction:

H5 low discrepancy >
high discrepancy

 

aDirection and significance of differences based on dyad
responses.
"---" indicates no significant pattern of differences.

157

With this descriptive information and confirming
evidence of the main factor variable's measurement power,
we now turn to the discussion data and the relational

communication analysis of dyadic systems.

Discussion Data

 

Discussion data were gathered on all dyads. How-
ever, to increase the potential of more accurately sampling
interaction style, a criterion established for inclusion
of a dyad in the relational analysis was that the discus-
sions across the four topics contain at least fifty trans—
actions. Eleven of the total 65 dyads did not meet this
requirement.

A relational analysis of dyadic communication
behavior is the main focus of this part of the study.
However, the coding system used allows for message descrip-
tions and comparisons to be made at several levels. The
data in the first three sections are offered as general
descriptions of message-types, control directions and
transactional types utilized in the dyadic discussions.
After looking at this descriptive information, the results
of the transactional analyses will be presented within
the framework of the hypotheses stated in Chapter IV. All
analyses, descriptive and hypothesis-testing, are based on

all four topic discussions.

158

Message and Transactional Descriptions

Me ssage Types

 

The description of message types is based on the
total messages given by the members of dyads meeting the
relational analysis criterion stated above. Total messages
include both alternate messages of speakers, and as well,
messages that follow one another by the same speaker.
Transactional messages“ which are utilized in all but this
first section, refer _o_n_l_y to alternate speaker messages.
Transactional messages refer to those messages which serve
as a stimulus or response to the other speaker. They do
not include any individual series of messages by one
Slpeaker. Total messages are individual in nature; trans-
actional messages are dyadic in nature. The total message
base is 13,788 and the transactional message baSe is some-
what smaller, 11,489.

Messages were coded according to speaker, format
and response mode. Each of these three aspects of a mes-
3age were respectively represented in a three digit code.
Using this coding system, message types may be described
bY a combination of digital codes, or by each code
Separately. Messages will be described by all three
methods with the combined description given first.

Table 20 presents the frequencies and percentages

of message types based on both second and third digital

159

 

 

0.0 v 0.0 m 0.0 H mm Hawmuooosm
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 mm Hawmmoooomss
:oHuosHumcHl
0.0 mm m.0 0H m.0 0H vm HammmoUOSm
H.0 h H.0 m 0.0 m vm Hammmooosmss
H03msol
m n.m NVmH m.0 vmo 0.0H 000 mm Hammmooosm
0 h.v 0mm m.v «Hm 0.v mmm mm Hammmooosmss
sonsouxol
0.0 mm v.0 0m m.0 mm mm HammmoUOSm
«.0 mm m.0 0H «.0 vH mm Hammmooosmss
uuommsmlsosl
0H 0.N 00m >.H 0NH m.m 00H Hm Hsmmmooosm
n 0.0 vHo 0.v 0H0 m.w 00m Hm HammmoOUSmss
uuommsm1uo>01meu
. . . soHumcHsumu
0 0 H0 0 0 m0 0 0 mm mm coHuMHuHcHu
0.0 H 0.0 H 0.0 0 mm mmcmno onouu
m.v 0.5 HmoH 0.0 vmv m.0 hmo mm soncouxwl
0.0 H 0.0 o 0.0 H mm unadmsm1aoa1
H.0 0H H.0 v H.0 0 Hm uuommsmscoHumosw
. . . GOHumsHEHou
m m m 00v 0 0 wow m m 0mm 0H sOHuMHuHsHI
H.0 HH H.0 0 H.0 m 0H omsmno 0Hmou1
H.0 m H.0 0 0.0 m 5H coHumsunsoomel
H.0 NH H.0 0 H.0 0 0H H00H01
N.0 0N m.0 mm 0.0 m mH :oHuosuumsHl
m m.m on v.m 00H ~.m 00H vH Ho3ms01
H m.sm thm 0.0m bHom H.5m mmmm mH consouxol
HH o.H mHm o.H mHH 0.H 00H, NH uuommsmucoc1
N m.mH 0HOH m.vH 000 «.mH VHO HH uuommsm1s0Huuommm
omens 11
usoouom aososwonm unmoumm mucosvonm usooumm accoswonm
wH o>on¢ 0000 soHumHuomoo
000mmoz 000mmoz ommmmoz ommmmoz ommmmoz 000mmoz
mommucoouom
case no
soono xcmm moan csmnmsm oMH3 momma ommmmoz

 

 

.ucooumm H o>onm omens ommusooumm
mo Hopuo Hams new comp use .Usonmss .oMH3 an momwu 000mmoe mo mommusoonom 0cm moHososwoum .om oHQma

.Homv nonuo 0cm Hmmv sOHumsHsuoulsoHumHUHsH .Hmmv son

Isouxo so no mHso poms mos poshom omommos oHQMHMHmmmHoss as .Hmvv moosono 0Hmou no .Hhvv msoHumEhHmsoomHo

.Hmev mHmUHo .Hmvv mGOHuosuumsH mm now: no: muo3 .omHzoxHH .mouonEoolsoz .Hva msoHumsuHmsoomHo Ho .HmNV

muoouo .HmNV mGOHuosuumsH .HwNv muozmsm mm wows no: ohms msoHumosv .Hmsuusm .H0N .OHV 0000 uncommon uHme

UHHnu uHosu on no oHanMHmmMHoss ouo3 000mmoa a mo poshom soHumosv no: soHuHommm map HonuHoz .0m .0m .mm

.mm .em .Nm .Hm .06 .ee .00 .me .om .sm .mm .mm .vm .OH ”mcoHumaHnsoo c000c0>0m mcHsoHHom 0:» mmosHocH mHae
.msonmsomHU 0H0m>0 on» sH UQNHHHus no: mno3 oHnmu 0:» CH umommm nos 00 was» mommulomMmmozm

 

 

 

 

 

160

0.00H wmhmH 0.00H 0000 0.00H N000 Hmuoe
b.0 mm 0.0 Nm 0.0 vm 0m Hosuou
. . . GOHumsHEMou
0 0 0 H 0 v 0 0 N mm soHHMHuHsHI
0.0 o H.0 m 0.0 H mm consouxol
Hosuo
N.0 0N N.0 NH N.0 mH 00 MonuOI
soHumsHEHou
m 0 H0 0 0 vN m 0 5H 0v soHumHuHsHl
N 0 HN N 0 mH H 0 0 cw Hozmsos
m b hmOH H w mmm b h Nmm mv consouon
H 0 m 0 0 m H 0 0 N0 uuommsmlsosl
N.o em N.o NH N.o 0H He uuommsm1
ouonsoolsos
0.0 H 0.0 0 0.0 H on Hammmooosm
0.0 N0 0.0 mm 0.0 00 0m stmmooosmss
HoAHOI
0.0 0 0.0 m 0.0 0 mm Hsmmmmoosm
0.0 0 0.0 N H.0 0 mm Hammmooosmss
soHumsHEHou
GOHuMHuHsHI
0.0 m 0.0 0 H.0 m mm Hammmooosm
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 mm Howmmmoosmss
omsmso UHQOHI
0.0 H 0.0 H 0.0 0 hm Hammmooosm
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 mm Hommwooosmss
coHumsHHmsoochu
0.0 m H.0 v 0.0 H mm Hsmmmooosm
0.0 v 0.0 H 0.0 m 0m Hsmmmooosmss

Hausa:

161

code descriptions. Of the total individual message base
acorss all four topics (13,788), 6,902 of these messages
were made by wives and 6,886 were made by husbands. We
note a fairly similar style of message type utilization
by the two sexes. The only noticeable difference is in
the 9.2 percent usage of questions as extension by wives
versus 6.6 percent usage of this message type by husbands.

Message types that had more than a 1 percent usage
by the dyad were rank ordered. We see that assertions as
extensions were by far the most frequent (37.5 percent)
type of message used in the discussions, assertions as
supports were the next most frequent occurring message
type (13.9 percent) followed by successful talk—overs as
extensions (9.7 percent), noncompletes as extensions (7.9
percent) and questions as extensions (7.9 percent). (See
Table 20 for further descending rank order of message
type usage.)

Table 21 shows the usage of message types based on
the second digit code. Assertions were the predominant
format used (59.3 percent) followed by talk-overs (22.5
percent). Consistent with Table 20, we find slightly more
frequent use of questions by wives and that they had
slightly more successful talk-overs than husbands.

Message types based on the third digit code are
summarized in Table 22. Extension is by far the most

frequent response mode (67.8 percent) followed by support

162

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H 000.MH 0.00H 000.0 0.00H H0009
m 0.0 00 0.0 H0 0.0 00:00 .m
m 0.0 mH~.H H.0 sum 0.0 mumesoo 0oz .0
1 H0.NH mm0.H 0.HH 0mm H.mH H9000000900
1 HH.0H Hmm.H 0.0H 000 H.0H H500000050000
m m.- 00H.m 0.0m mHm.H m.mm mum>01mee .m
0 0.0 00H.H m.s mom 0.0 maoHummso .N
H H.0m 00H.0 0.H0 00H.0 0.50 maoHuHmmm0 .H
0MMMMGMMH00 0000000000 00:0500H0 000us0on00 >000s00u0 0000000000 000050000 0000910000002
00000 H000 0000 0cmnmsm uHmHo 000000
.00000000000 0000 no H00H0 xs0u
000 0000 000 000000: .0MH3 an 0000» 0000005 0H0H0 000000 00 00000000000 000 00Hos0s0000 .HN 0Hn0a

163

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H 00>.mH 0.00H 000.0 0.00H «00.0 H0000

0 0.H 00H ~.H m0 0.H 0HH 00000 .0
00Hu00HEH0B

m 0.0 000 0.0 000 «.0 000 10000000000 .0

0.0 H.0 0H H.0 e «.0 0H 000000 00000 .0

0.0 H.0 0 H.0 a 0.0 m 0000000H0000000 .0

0.0 «.0 H0 «.0 HH 0.0 0H 00000 .0

0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00 H.0 0 00H0000000H .m

0 0.0 00m 0.m 000 0.0 00H 003000 .0

H 0.00 Hmm.0 0.00 000.0 0.00 000.0 000000000 .m

m 0.0 0H0 0.0 00H 0.0 00H 0000000002 .0

m 0.00 H00.~ H.H~ 000.H 0.0m 00m.H 0000000 .H

00WMMM0MH00 0000000000 000000000 0000000000 000000000 0000000000 000000000 0000910000002

00000 0000 0000 0000000 00000 00000

 

 

.00000000000 0000 Mo 00000
#000 000 0000 000 0000000 .0MH3 00 00000 0000000 0H0H0 00Hnu mo 00000000000 000 00H00000000 .NN 0HO0B

164

(20.6 percent). Support messages heavily outweigh the use
of nonsupport (2.3 percent) messages. This is much higher
than Bales' (1955) two to one ratio of positive to negative
reactions, although Bales notes that dyadic systems avoid
disagreement more than larger sized groups (Bales, 1955;

Bales and Borgatta, 1955).

Message Control

 

As discussed earlier, the data for all following
descriptions and comparisons are based on the transactional
messages manifested by the 54 dyads who meet the relational
analysis criterion of having at least 50 transactions in
their topic discussions.

A summary of the control directions used in those
discussions is given in Table 23. Remember that each
three digit descriptive code was defined as a movement
toward control (one-up), a movement toward accepting or
seeking other to control (one—down), or a movement toward
neutralizing control (one-across). Almost half of the
messages (48.2 percent) are one—across movements indicat-
ing a leveling or deemphasis of control. The remaining
messages are split about evenly between being one-up and
one-down control statements. Husbands manifested slightly
more one-up movements than wives and slightly less one-

down movements.

165

Table 23. Percentages of control direction by wife, hus-
band and dyad.

Control

 

Direction Wife Husband Dyad
+ 23.9 24.6 24.2
+ 27.8 25.9 26.9
+ 48.2 49.4 48.8
Total 99.9 99.9 99.9

 

Transactional Types

 

A combination of the control directions of sequen—
cially occurring two—message units results in nine possible
transactional types. Table 24 shows the percentage of
occurrence of these nine types in the dyadic discussions.
(The marginal percentages of Table 24 are, of course, the
same percentages as presented in Table 23 for husband and
wife.)

Neutralized symmetry and the transitory transac-
tional types make-up the larger proportions of transaction
type utilization. Neutralized symmetry accounts for the
largest proportion, while submissive symmetry accounts for
the smallest proportion of transactions and competitive
symmetry second to the smallest. Transitory transactions
with a one-down movement are more frequent occurring than

those with a one-up movement.

166

Table 24. Percentages of transaction types.

 

 

 

 

Husband
Total
+ + +
+ 5.5 5.7 12.7 23.9
Wife + 6.5 4.3 17.0 27.8
+ 12.6 15.9 19.7 48.2
Total 24.6 25.9 49.4 99.9

 

Combining the sub—categories of the three major
types of transactions together gives the percentage break-
downs shown in Table 25. The transitory type is most
frequently utilized, followed by symmetry, with complimen-
tarity exhibited least frequently. (This is so even when
one takes into account that the general classifications
are based on different numbers of cell combinations.)

Individual husband-wife pairs differ on the use
of these types, but as a group, they produce seemingly
low levels of complementarity, the maximally contrasting
control directions. It would be interesting to have a
data base for comparison of transactional patterns of
generically different dyads. The level of complementarity
exhibited in the dyad under study would be more meaningful
compared to the amount exhibited, for example, in a func-

tionally specific, high time allocation, low history dyad.

167

Table 25. Percentages of the three general transaction

 

 

 

types.
Transaction Type Percentage
Symmetry 29.5
Complimentarity 12.2
Transitory 58.2
One-up (25.3)
One-down (32.9)
Total 99.9

 

Comparison data of this type hopefully will be accumulated

in future studies.

§ummary of Message and
Transactional Descriptions

 

 

It was found that assertions and extensions were
by far the most frequent format and response message types
exchanged during the dyadic discussions. Talk-overs and
support statements were the next most frequently used
message types. It was interesting to note the relatively
high proportion of support statements, 20.6 percent, com—
pared to the 2.3 percent of nonsupport messages. Agreeing
and approving seems to be a much more likely verbal response

than challenging and disagreeing. Disconfirmation and

168

topic change, instructions and orders, all one-up responses,
were found to be rare occurrences.

It follows from the above that the most frequent
occurring control direction is one—across. One—across
control accounts for about half of all messages. Slightly
more than one fourth of the messages were one-down, and
slightly less than a fourth were one-sup. Across dyads,
message type usage and control direction are of a very
similar pattern for husbands and wives.

Of the three major transactional types, transitory
transactions accounted for almost 60 percent of the
exchanges. One-down transitory transactions occurred
more frequently than one—up transitory types. Symmetrical
exchanges made up about 30 percent of all transactions,
with neutralized symmetry accounting for the largest pro—
portion (19.7 percent) and submissive symmetry accounting
for the least (4.3 percent). Complementary transactions
made up the smallest proportion, a little more than 10
percent, of the messages exchanged by husband and wife

dyads.
Message and Transactional Hypotheses

Based on previously discussed theoretical reasons
and research results, several interaction hypotheses were
put forward at three different levels. The activity level

hypotheses dealing with discussion time, silences and

169

number of transactions will be presented first, message
level hypotheses concerning support statements and talk—
overs second, and the transactional level hypotheses third.
In the presentation of the hypotheses—testing data
the direction of predicted differences, as well as notice-
able significance levels, even though below the traditional
.05 level, will be pointed out. Several aspects of this
study make it important to look for trends in the data, as
well as clear statistically evidenced differences. First,
research that involves groups, rather than individuals, as
the basic unit of data, increases the difficulty of obtain-
ing large samples where statistical differences are detected
more readily. Secondly, the research guiding this study
has been based on extreme group comparison of families
with a severely disturbed member and those with no notice-
able emotional problems. The present research probes more
in the middle ranges of family imbalance. It asks if
behavior pattern predictions based on general systems
theory can be detected in normal families of different,
but still moderate levels of role discrepancy strain.
Thirdly, the exploratory nature of the present research
and the operational initiation of the major transactional
measuring instrument are factors that also foster a close

look at the data for suggestive trends.

170

Activity Level Hypotheses

 

It was theorized that the members of dyads with
lower levels of role discrepancy strain, would have longer
discussion periods, would talk more freely with fewer
hesitations and more frequent changes of speaker than
those with higher discrepancy strain.

Hypothesis 6: Dyads with lower role discrepancy

 

will talk longer than higher role
discrepant dyads.
The length of discussion time ranged from seven to
46 minutes, even though the discussions were monitored by
the interviewer (see Interviewer Instructions, Appendix
IV) and somewhat affected by the transaction criterion
necessary for inclusion in the discussion data analysis.
However, as seen in Table 26, the different discrepancy
level means differ very slightly from the overall mean of
28.3 minutes. Hypothesis 6 is not supported. Further,
the dyads that were dropped from the relational analysis
were from each of the three levels, and a comparison of
the number of interviewer probes made during the discus-
sions, showed no noticeable difference by discrepancy
level.
A positive note can be argued from the rejection
of Hypothesis 6. In terms of testing the following hypothe-
ses, it is methodologically more shound to have the discrep—

ancy categories with such similar lengths of discussion time.

171

Table 26. Mean discussion time.

 

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

History Total
Low Medium High
N=10a N=10 =9 N=29
Sh°rt 28.40b 29.40 26.67 28.21
N=6 N=9 N=10 N=25
L°ng 27.67 28.22 29.00 28.40
N=l6 N=l9 N=19 N=54
Total 28.13 28.84 27.89 28.30

 

aThe number of dyads in each category are given in
this table and are the same for all the following analyses.

b o o o 0
Time is expressed in minutes.

 

 

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Squares F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 9.95 4.98 .08 n.s.
History 1 .26 .26 .00 n.s.
Interaction 2 33.82 16.91 .28 n.s.
Within 48 2927.23 60.98

Total 53 2971.26

 

172

Hypothesis 7: Dyads with lower role discrepancy

 

will have less silence during the

discussion period than higher role

discrepancy dyads.

Table 27 presents the data concerning Hypothesis

7. The number of silences were tabulated for each initial
three seconds of nontalking and each additional five
second period. This number was then divided by the number
of minutes talked to give an index of silence per minute
for each dyad. The data do not support Hypothesis 7, but
there is a small mean difference in the predicted direction
and this is particularly so for the short history dyads.

Hypothesis 8: Dyads with lower role discrepancy

 

will have more total number of

transactions than higher role dis-

crepant dyads. r

The number of transactions that take place in a

discussion is a direct measure of the turn-over rate of
"floor" control. The number of times speakers change
during a discussion was postualted to be one indicant of
the flexibility, or openness of a dyad's interaction style.
The range of transactions that occurred in the dyadic dis-
cussions was from 55 to 528. It was predicted that those
dyads with less discrepancy strain would exhibit more
flexibility. The data concerning this hypothesis is given

in Table 28. The discrepancy factor approaches

Table 27. Mean silences per minute.

173

 

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium (High
Short .15 .39 .54 .36
Long .54 .64 .37 .51
Total .30 .51 .45 .43
. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .24 .12 .32 n.s.
History 1 .30 .30 .81 n.s.
Interaction 2 .76 .38 1.03 n.s.
Within 48 18.02 .37
Total 53 19.32

 

significance (.20), with the mean differences in the pre—

dicted direction

the short history dyads.

. Again, this is especially evident for

This offers limited support for

the notion that lower discrepant dyads have a more flexible

interaction style than high discrepant dyads.

Summary

Dyads of different discrepancy levels did not

differ significantly on discussion length, silences, or

174

Table 28. Mean number of transactions.

\

M
Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium High
Short 248.70 210.00 153.33 205.76
Long 266.83 184.78 225.80 220.88
Total 255.50 198.05 191.47 212.76
Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Value 819'
Squares Square Level

 

Role Discrepancy 2 44,994.65 22,497.33 1.61 (.20)

 

History 1 6,204.56 6,204.56 .44 n.s.
Interaction 2 22,683.06 11,341.53 .81 n.s.
Within 48 669,929.60 13,956.87

Total 53 743,811.87

 

number of transactions. However, mean discrepancy differ-
ences showed a particular tendency in the predicted
direction for number of transactions. It is interesting
to note that the short history dyads manifested clear and
linear mean differences as predicted on each of the
activity dimensions, but long history dyads were not con-

sistent.

175

Message Level Hypotheses

 

The following analyses are based on the transac-
tional messages exchanged between dyad members. The
results show whether different discrepanCy level dyads
differ as to the number of support statements they inter-
change or by number and type of talk—overs manifested in
their discussions.

In order to have comparable measures across dyads,
the message characteristics under study are expressed as
proportions of the total number of transactional messages
for each dyad. This is true for all following message and
transaction type analyses. For the analysis of variance
computations used to test the hypotheses, these proportions
were transformed to arcsins. This procedure is recommended
for more appropriate application of the F-distribution
(see Winer, 1962, p. 221). The mean values that are given
in the tables, however, are expressed in proportions.

Hypothesis 9: Dyads with lower role discrepancy

 

will express more support statements
than higher role discrepant dyads.
It was theorized that support statements, being
expressions of acceptance or giving of control, would be
more characteristic of dyads with less role discrepancy
strain. As shown in Table 29, there is strong evidence
for this hypothesis. The discrepancy level does effect

in an inverse manner the proportions of transactional

176

Table 29. Mean proportions of support messages.

 

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium High
Short .23 .22 .17 .21
Long .21 .19 .19 .19
Total .22 .20 .18 .20
. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .102 .051 2.83 .06
History 1 .008 .008 .44 n.s.
Interaction 2 .042 .021 1.17 n.s.
Within 48 .874 .018
Total 53 1.026

 

statements that are support messages.

nounced for the short history dyads.

Hypothesis 10:

Hypothesis 11:

This is more pro-

Dyads with lower role discrepancy

will have more talk-overs than

higher role discrepant dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy

will have more successful talk-

overs than higher role discrepant

dyads.

177

It is suggested that more frequent talk—overs—-
coming into the discussion without waiting for the other
to finish talking——is another indication of flexibility of
floor control, and this will be more characteristic of the
lower discrepant dyads.

It was further felt that when talk—overs occurred,
the lower discrepant dyads would yield the floor (giving a
successful talk—over) more often than high discrepant
dyads.

Neither of these hypotheses are supported (see
Tables 30 and 31). But notice again that the predicted
difference on talk-overs is displayed by short history
dyads, but not for long history dyads.

The same type of analysis for successful talk—
overs was carried out on unsuccessful talk-overs. The
results of this analysis are a significant (.05) difference
by discrepancy level. As seen in Table 32, high discrep-
ancy dyads have a lower mean proportion of unsuccessful
talk—overs than low discrepant dyads. It appears that
instead of the speaker of a low discrepant dyad yielding
the floor when a talk—over occurs, as suggested in Hypothe-
sis 11, it is more likely for the interruptor to yield and
not press for floor control. In reverse, when a talk-over
occurs in a high discrepant dyad, it is more likely that

the interruptor will persist in talking until he/she has

178

Table 30. Mean proportions of talk—over messages.

 

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium _ High
Short .23 .22 .18 .21
Long .21 .20 .23 .21
Total .23 .21 .21 .21
. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square P Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .027 .014 .40 n.s.
History 1 .000 .000 .00 n.s.
Interaction 2 .131 .066 1.89 (.15)
Within 48 1.678 .035
Total 53 1.84

 

gained floor control.5 This again is more pronounced for
short history dyads.
Summary

Low discrepant dyads interchange significantly

higher proportions of support statements and manifest

 

5Referring back to Table 20 we find that almost all
talk-overs were extensions or support responses. It is
suggested that for future research, a time measure of the
verbal over-lap of speakers (length of talk-over) would give
interesting information on the length of struggle for gain-
ing or conceeding floor control by response mode and dis-
crepancy level.

179

Table 31. Mean proportions of successful talk—over messages.

 

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium . High
Short .12 .11 .11 .12
Long .10 .12 .14 .12
Total .11 .12 .13 .12
. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square P Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .015 .008 .32 n.s.
History 1 .007 .007 .28 n.s.
Interaction 2 .052 .026 1.04 n.s.
Within 48 1.211
Total 53 1.285

 

higher proportions of unsuccessful talk-overs than higher
discrepant dyadic systems. Dyads differentiated by dis-
crepancy do not show difference in the proportion of total
talk-overs or successful talk-overs.

On the dimensions of support, total talk-overs and
unsuccessful talk-overs, short history dyads exhibit more
pronounced, predicted message exchange behavior than do
long history dyads. The accumulating number of variables

for which this history difference occurs, leads one to

5

Table 32. Mean proportions of unsuccessful talk-over

messages.

180

 

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium High
Short .12 .ll .06 .10
Long .10 .08 .08 .09
Total .11 .10 .07 .09
. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .152 .076 3.45 .04
History 1 .000 .000 .00 n.s.
Interaction 2 .117 .059 2.68 .08
Within 48 1.072 .022
Total. 53 1.341

 

suggest that system strain may operate differently for
systems of different lengths of history. It appears that
the distributive justice postulates examined in this
section have more predictive power for shorter history
dyads than those with longer history.

Transactional Level
Hypotheses

 

 

The first two transactional level hypotheses deal

with the flexibility of dyadic transaction patterns, the

181

second two with complementarity and symmetrical transac-
tion usage, and the final two hypotheses deal with transi-
tory transaction patterns.

Hypothesis 12: Dyads with lower role discrepancy

 

will exhibit more random usage of
transaction types than higher role
discrepancy dyads.

As previously stated, it was hypothesized that
system discrepancy would be related inversely to system
flexibility. The measure utilized to test this notion,
as expressed in Hypothesis 12, is a difference score from
totally random usage of the transactional types. Since
there are nine possible types, an eleven percent usage of
each type would represent maximum randomness (equality) of
transactional usage. For each transactional type, the
proportion usage was subtracted from eleven percent for
each dyad and these values were summed across the nine
categories to produce an absolute value representing a
dyad's deviation from total randomness. These difference
scores range from 24 to 87. The theoretical range is from
one to 177. A lower score indicates more random usage of
the nine transactional types.

Table 33 shows that there is no consistent pattern
of difference scores from randomness among the discrepancy
and history level categories. Hypothesis 12, relating

higher flexibility with low discrepancy, is rejected.

182

Table 33. Mean difference scores from random usage of
each transactional type.

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

History _ Total
Low Medium High

Short 51.00 56.10 51.44 52.90

Long 59.67 52.67 52.60 54.32

Total 54.25 54.47 52.05 53.91

 

Note: A lower score indicates more random usage.

 

 

 

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 101.59 50.79 .22 n.s.
History 1 59.25 59.25 .26 n.s.
Interaction 2 308.18 154.09 .68 n.s.
Within 48 10,848.31 226.01
Total 53 11,317.33

 

Hypothesis 13: Dyads with lower role discrepancy

 

will exhibit fewer long-run homoger
neous transactional sequences (con-
figuration patterns) than higher
role discrepancy dyads.

This hypothesis is also based on the lower

discrepancy-higher flexibility notion. Here flexibility

183

is measured in terms of long-run sequences of the same
transaction type. These homogeneous sequences are
referred to as configurations. Empirically a configura-
tion was defined as a series of five transactions or more
involving identical transactional types of exchange. For
each dyad, the number of transactions that constitute the
configurations produced in the discussions were tabulated,
divided by the total number of transactions occurring in
the discussions and expressed as proportions.

Table 34 expresses the mean proportion of configura-
tion transactions. The range of proportions was from .00
to .22, but as the overall mean indicates, only six percent
of all transactions occurred in homogeneous series.
Across all dyads there were similar low proportions of
configuration transactions. A simple counting of con-
figuration occurance gives a 1.5 mean across dyads.
Thirteen dyads had no configuration patterns in their
interactions. Only six dyads had more than five configura-
tions. A 2X3 analysis of variance by discrepancy and
history of the frequency of configurations shows no
discernable patterns (F-value for discrepancy = .61, for
history .00, for interaction 1.57).

Hypothesis 13, as Hypothesis 12, is rejected.
Both types of transaction flexibility measures used, show
little difference in transaction patterns across all

dyads.

Table 34.

184

Mean proportions of configuration transactions.

M
Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium High
Short .06 .07 .04 .06
Long .05 .07 .06 .06
Total .05 .07 .05 .06
. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Squares F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .110 .055 1.04 n.s.
History 1 .033 .033 .62 n.s.
Interaction 2 .067 .033 .62 n.s.
Within 48 2.527 .053
Total 53 2.737

 

Hypothesis l4:

 

Hypothesis 15:

Dyads with lower role discrepancy

will have more complementary trans-

actions than higher role discrep-

ancy dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy

will have less competitive symmetry

than higher role discrepant dyads.

185

A basic notion underlying this research was that
dyads who expressed the least role discrepancy strain would
not struggle to modify or negate interaction control
definitions as much as dyads who expressed high discrep-
ancy strain. It was felt that low discrepant couples
would not necessarily display high proportions of comple-
mentarity, but that they would manifest more of this type
of transaction (+~+ and 4'+) than high discrepant
couples.

Using the above rationale, it is suggested in
Hypothesis 15 that competitive symmetry (++) would be a
more characteristic type of transaction for high discrepant
dyads than low discrepant dyads. Again, it is not suggested
that this transaction type, involving nonacceptance would
occur frequently, but that it would occur more frequently
for high, than for low discrepant dyads.

The data presented in Tables 35 and 36 concerning
complementary transactions offer no support of Hypothesis
14. Table 35 gives the mean proportions of complementary
transactions where the husband is one-up and the wife is
one-down; Table 36 gives the reverse, where the husband is

one-down and the wife is one-up.6

 

6These transaction types do not give sequential
information, i.e., information concerning the order of
the control messages. This is a suggestion to be made
for later research.

186

Table 35. Mean proportions of H+ W+ Complementary trans-

 

 

 

 

actions.
Role Discrepancy
History . Total
Low Medium High
Short .08 .07 .06 .07
Long .05 .06 .07 .06
Total .06 .06 .06 .06

 

Note: Husband control direction is always given first.

 

 

 

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .004 .002 .08 n.s.
History 1 .004 .004 .15 n.s.
Interaction 2 .027 .014 .54 n.s.
Within 48 1.230 .026
Total 53 1.265

 

Looking at the two tables, we see that one-up
messages are matched with one—down messages, and one-down
messages with one-up messages, as often in high discrepant
dyads as in low discrepant dyads. There is little differ-

ence in the mean proportions of the two tables.7

 

7An analysis of variance of the combined complement-
ary transaction cells by discrepancy and history levels, is
given in a later section (see Table 49), with similar non-
significant results.

187

Table 36. Mean proportions of H4 W+ complementary trans-

 

 

 

 

 

actions.
Role Discrepancy
History , Total
Low Medium High

Short .06 .05 .07 .06
Long .05 .06 .05 .06
Total .06 .05 .06 .06

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .022 .011 .58 n.s.
History 1 .008 .008 .42 n.s.
Interaction 2 .023 .011 .58 n.s.
Within 48 .910 .019
Total 53 .963

 

Table 37 gives the mean proportions of competitive
symmetry by discrepancy and history levels. Hypothesis 15
is also rejected, but the discrepancy differences are in
the predicted direction. Competitive symmetry (one—up,
one-up transactions) occur slightly more often, as suggested,
for higher discrepant dyads than lower discrepant pairs.
Inconsistent with previous results, long history dyads

displayed this pattern more than short history dyads.

Table 37

188

. Mean proportions of competitive symmetry (++)

transactions.

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium High
Short .05 .05 .06 .06
Long .03 .05 .07 .05
Total .04 .05 .06 .05
. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .051 .026 1.24 n.s.
History 1 .014 .014 .67 n.s.
Interaction 2 .045 .023 1.10 n.s.
Within 48 1.026 .021
Total 53 1.136

 

Hypothesis 16:

 

Hypothesis 17:

 

Dyads with lower role discrepancy

will exhibit less neutralization

toward one-up and one—up toward

neutralization transitory trans-

actions than higher role discrep-

ancy dyads.

Dyads with lower role discrepancy

will exhibit more neutralization

toward one-down and one-down

189

toward neutralization transitory
transactions than higher role dis—
crepancy dyads.

In accordance with earlier predictions and rationale,
it was hypothesized that transitory transactions with move-
ments toward control (one—up) would occur more frequently
in higher, rather than lower, discrepancy dyads. Likewise,
it was predicted that transitory transactions with one-
down movements, accepting or seeking other to control,
would be more characteristic of lower, rather than higher,
discrepancy dyads.

Each of these hypotheses were tested under the two
possible situations: (1) where the husbands' messages
were one-across and the wives' messages were one-up as in
Table 39, or the wives' messages were one-down as in Table
41; and (2) where the wives‘messages were one-across and
the husbands' messages were one-up in the case of Table 38,
or the husbands' messages were one-down in the case of
Table 40.

The mean proportions of the two possible combina-
tions for transitory transactions involving a one-up move—
ment are given in Tables 38 and 39. Comparing the two
tables, we notice quite similar mean proportions (around
.12 or .13) across categories whether the husband is one-
across or the wife is one—across. In Table 38, where the

wife is one-up, there is more variance in the mean

190

Table 38. Mean proportions of H7 W+ transitory trans-

 

 

 

 

actions.
Role Discrepancy
History . Total
Low Medium High

Short .13 .12 .13 .13
Long .13 .12 .12 .12
Total .13 .12 .12 .12

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .004 .002 .10 n.s.
History 1 .003 .003 .15 n.s.
Interaction 2 .003 .001 .05 n.s.
Within 48 .953 .020
Total 53 .963

 

proportions. There are, however, no significant discrep-
ancy level differences, thus Hypothesis 16 is not supported,
but the history level approaches significance (.20) with
long history dyads having a higher proportion of transitory
transactions with wife one—up.

Tables 40 and 41 present the transaction data
involving neutralization (one—across) and a one-down direc-

tion. In Table 40 both a significant discrepancy (.03)

191

Table 39. Mean proportions of H+ W+ transitory trans—

 

 

 

 

 

 

actions.
Role Discrepancy
History , Total
Low Medium High

Short .11 .11 .13 .12
Long .12 .14 .15 .14
Total .11 .12 .14 .13

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .053 .026 .84 n.s.
History 1 .048 .048 1.55 (.20)
Interaction 2 .025 .012 .39 n.s.
Within 48 1.480 .031
Total 53 1.606

 

and history (.05) difference are found in the use of
transitory transactions where the husband is in a one-
down position. This is not the case where the wife is
one-down, as shown in Table 41; however, the interaction
F-value is significant at the .10 level.

The discrepancy differences indicate that transi-
tory transactions with the husband in the one-down posi-

tion are significantly more characteristic of lower level

192

Table 40. Mean proportions of H+ W+ transitory trans-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

actions.
Role Discrepancy
History ~ . Total
Low Medium High

Short .21 .18 .14 .18
Long .17 .14 .13 .14
Total .19 .16 .13 .16

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .199 .100 3.70 .03
History 1 .106 .106 3.93 .05
Interaction 2 .021 .010 .37 n.s.
Within 48 1.288 .027
Total 53 1.614

 

discrepancy dyads. This transitory pattern is more descrip-
tive of shorter history dyads. When the wife is one-down,
there is a tendency for the predicted differences to hold
for short history pairs, but for high history dyads, the
mean differences are of a curvilinear nature. Thus,
Hypothesis 17 is supported by the husband one-down, wife
one-across transitory transaction data, but not by the

husband one-across, wife-one—down transitory data.

193

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 41. Mean proportions of H+ W+ transitory trans-
actions.
Role Discrepancy
History Total
Low Medium High

Short .17 .19 .14 .17
Long .18 .15 .19 .17
Total .17 .18 .16 .17

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level
Role Discrepancy 2 .016 .008 .24 n.s.
History 1 .009 .009 .27 n.s.
Interaction 2 .160 .080 2.43 .10
Within 48 1.575 .033
-Tota1k 53 1.760

 

To restate the main findings concerning Hypothesis

17, it appears that with low discrepant couples, a one-

across message given by a wife is more likely, than with

high discrepant couples, to be followed by a one—down

message by a husband, or if a husband is in a one-down

position for a wife to go one-across.

As mentioned before, the transactional categories

do not contain sequential information.

From this data,

it is not known which of the above pattern was the more

194

frequent occurrence. The classification of transaction
types by ggdgr of speaker, rather than by individual
speaker (husband, wife) is a major suggestion of this
writer for expanding the amount and value of information
that can be acquired from the transactional coding scheme

presented in this study.

Summary

The analyses of transactional flexibility found
no differences by discrepancy level (or history) in the
randomness of either transactional type usage or configura-
tion occurrence. Dyads of different discrepancy levels
do not differ in their use of complementary transactions,
but they do differ somewhat in the expression of competitive
symmetry. There was a tendency for higher discrepant
couples to manifest slightly more symmetry of a one-up, one-
up type than lower discrepant couples, but not signifi-
cantly.

No relationship was found between discrepancy level
and one-up transitory transactions. However, a significant
relationship was found between discrepancy and husband
one-down type of transitory transactions, but not with

wife one-down transitory type.

195

Summary of Message and
Transactional Hypotheses

A summary of the three levels of hypotheses test-
ing results is presented in outline form in Table 42. A
plus sign in the first column indicates that the mean
differences by discrepancy level were in the predicted
direction. The significance level of the F—values is

given in the second column.
Exploratory Questions

To expand the information that may be gained from
this study, a number of exploratory questions were posed.

No a priori predictions are involved. The three groups

 

of dyads, categorized by discrepancy level, will be com-
pared further on the dimensions of message control,
transactional and configuration patterns.

Question 1: What type of message control is more

 

frequently used by lower versus higher role discrepant
dyad members?

In a previous description of the message charac-
teristics, based on the total sample, we found that
almost half of all messages exchanged were one-across,
and that the rest were fairly equally divided among one—
up and one-down messages. In testing the discussion
hypotheses, we found low discrepant dyads differing from

high discrepant pairs on the use of support messages,

196

Table 42. Summary of discussion data hypothesis

testing.

 

Predicted Significance

 

 

 

 

Direction Level
1. Activity level
H6 low discrep=>discuss time —-— —-—
H7 low discrep<isilence --- -—-
H8 low discrep=>transactions + (.20)
2. Message level:
H9 low discrep=>support + .06
Hlo low discrepi>talk-overs -—- ---
H11 low discrep=>suc. talk-overs --- ---
(found low discrep:>unsuc.
talk-overs sig. at .
level)a
3. Transactional level:
H12 low discrep>>random use of ___ ___
' transaction types
H13 low discrep<<configuration ___ ___
transactions
H14 low discrep>>complementarity —-- ---
H15 low discrep<tcompetitive + ___
symmetry
H16 low discrep<<one-up transi—
tory transactions
(a) husband one-up --- ---
(b) wife one-up + ___
H17 low discrep2>one—down
transitory transactions
(a) husband one-down +

(b) wife one—down ___

 

aThis relationship was not predicted, but
be significant.

found to

197

unsuccessful talk-overs and transitory transactions. All
of these differences were ones in which the low discrepant
dyads had more one-down movements. Thus, we have some
clues about the use of message control, but we did not,

as a separate concern test control directions by discrep-
ancy level. Recall that message control may be tabulated
separately by dyad member, or for the dyadic system as a
whole. Both individual and dyad classifications of
message control were obtained and compared for discrepancy
level differences. The mean proportions of one—up, one-
down and one-across control direction of transactional
messages are given in Tables 43, 44, and 45, respectively,
with the accompanying F-ratio results.

We find that there are differences in the use of
control directions. In Table 43 it is found that high
discrepant wives send the most one-up messages and it is
clear they send more one-up messages than low discrepant
wives (F-value = 2.45, significant at the .10 level).
Husbands of different discrepancy levels do not differ
significantly in their use of one-up control.

Complementing this finding, we see in Table 44
that husbands of low discrepant dyads give proportionately
more one-down messages than high discrepant husbands. The
F-value, 1.44, however, is not statistically significant.
By comparing Tables 43 and 44 at the dyad level, we see

that low discrepant dyads have a higher proportion of

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 43. Mean proportions of one—up messages.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High. Total
Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad
Short .23 .26 .25 .21 .25 .26 .25 .25 .23 .25 .24
Long .20 .22 21 .25 24 27 .26 .27 2.5 .24 .24
Total .22 .25 .23 .23 .24 .27 .25 .26 .24 .25 .24
Response Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Ratio 519'
Unit Squares Square Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 .142 .071 2.45 .10
History 1 .004 .004 .14 n.s.
Interaction 2 .041 .020 .69 n.s.
Within 48_ 1.412 .029
Total 53 1.599
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 .066 .003 '.O9 n.s.
History 1 .016 .016 .47 n.s.
Interaction 2 .037 .019 .56 n.s.
Within 4§_ 1.634 034
Total 53 1.693
Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 .047 .023 1.35 n.s.
History 1 .001 .001 .06 n.s.
Interaction 2 .034 .017 1.00 n.s.
Within 4§_ .805 .017
Total 53 .887

 

199

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 44. Mean proportions of one—down messages.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High‘ Total
Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad
Short .29 .31 .30 .30 .26 .24 .25 .24 .28 .27 .28
Long .29 .27 .28 .27 .24 .30 .22 .26 .29 .24 .26
Total .29 .29 .29 .28 .25 .27 .24 .25 .28 .26 .27
Response Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Ratio 519'
Unit Squares Square Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 .021 .010 .21 n.s.
History 1 .011 .011 .23 n.s.
Interaction 2 .124 .061 1.27 n.s.
Within 48 2.312 .048
Total 53 2.468
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 .105 .052 1.44 n.s.
History 1 .080 .080 2.22 (.14)
Interaction 2 .007 .003 .08 n.s.
Within 48 1.754 .036
Total 53 1.946
Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 .052 .026 1.37 n.s.
History 1 .008 .008 .42 n.s.
Interaction 2 .035 .017 .89 n.s.
Within 48 .912 .019
Total 53 1.007

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 45. Mean proportions of one—across messages.
Role Discrepancy
History Low Medium High. Total
Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad Wife Hus Dyad Wife Hus. Dyad
Short .48 .43 .46 .49 .49 .50 .51 .50 .49 .47 .48
Long .52 .52 .52 .49 .53 .43 .52 .47 .47 .52 .50
Total .50 .46 .48 .49 .51 .46 .51 .49 .48 .49 .49
Response Source of Variance DF Sum Of Mean F Ratio 819'
Unit Squares Square Level
Wife Role Discrepancy 2 .044 .022 .65 n.s.
History 1 .014 .014 .41 n.s.
Interaction 2 .112 .056 1.65 (.20)
Within 48 1.615 .034
Total 53 1.785
Husband Role Discrepancy 2 .056 .028 .68 n.s.
History 1 .117 .117 2.85 .10
Interaction 2 .054 .027 .66 n.s.
Within 48 1.974 .041
Total 53 2.201
Dyad Role Discrepancy 2 .006 .003 .14 n.s.
History 1 .014 .014 .64 n.s.
Interaction 2 .075 .037 1.68 (.20)
Within 48 1.036 .022
Total 53 1.131

 

201

one-down messages than one-up, .29 versus .23, for medium
level discrepancy dyads the ratio is .27 to .24, and for
high discrepant dyads the relation has changed to a
slightly higher ratio of one—up to one—down messages, .26
to .25.

In Table 45 we find the variations in the propor- ”fl
tions of one-across usage are related to the husband-wife E 1
discrepancy one-up anui one-down control patterns. Husbands
of higher discrepant dyadic systems express more one-across

message control than those of lower discrepancy, while the

 

reverse is true for wives. Higher discrepant wives express
less one-across control than lower discrepant wives. But
none of these variations are significant.

To summarize, we find that strain of inequity in
the dyadic systems is particularly associated with differ-
ent proportions of one-up to one-down messages. More
specifically, we find that role discrepancy is directly
related to wife one—up control communication, and at a
lesser level, inversely related to husband one—down con-
trol.

Question 2: What transactional types are more

 

frequently expressed by lower versus higher role discrepant
dyads?

In the previous hypothesis-testing section several
transactional types were compared by discrepancy level.

It was found that dyads differentiated by discrepancy:

202

(1) did not differ in the proportion of complementary
transactions, (2) differed some in the use of competitive
symmetry with high discrepant dyads manifesting slightly
higher proportions of oneuup, one-up transactions than low
discrepant dyads, and (3) did not differ on one-up transi-
tory types but did differ on one—down type of transitory
exchange, with lower discrepancy associated with a higher

proportion of husband one—down transitory transactions.

 

The two remaining transaction types, submissive
and neutralized symmetry were compared by discrepancy
level (controlling on history). The results are given in
Tables 46 and 47.

Submissive symmetry was the least displayed type of
transaction by all dyads, with one exception, high history-
1ow discrepancy dyads had a one percent lower usage of
competitive symmetry. In Table 46 we find very similar
proportions of submissive symmetry across categories.

With reference to Table 47, we find neutralized
symmetry varying by discrepancy level, but this variation
is due principally to the short history differences. An
interaction effect (significant at the .03 level) between
history and discrepancy shows the mean proportions of
neutralized symmetry being directly associated with dis-
crepancy for EEQEE history dyads, while the association
is the reverse, though less pronounced for long history

dyads. Thus, in addition to discrepancy differences on

203

Table 46. Mean proportions of submissive symmetry (++)
transactions.

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

History . Total
Low Medium High

Short .05 .03 .04 .04
IP45

Long .05 .04 .04 .05 : g

Total .05 .04 .04 .04

. Sum of Mean Sig.

Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level 5
-

Role Discrepancy 2 .007 .004 .17 n.s.

History 1 .013 .013 .57 n.s.

Interaction 2 .006 .003 .13 n.s.

Within 48 1.098 .023

Total 53 1.124

 

husband one-down transitory and slight competitive symmetry
transaction differences found previously, we find differ-
ences on use of neutralized symmetry for short history
dyads.

A final set of analyses of variance were run on
the three general transaction types; symmetry, complemen-
‘tarity, and transitory. The following three tables
;present these data. First, in Table 48, the mean propor-

'tions of the combined symmetrical transactions are given.

204

Table 47. Mean proportions of neutralized symmetry (++)
transactions.

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

History . Total
Low Medium High
Short .15 .19 .24 .19
5“”-

Long .22 .22 .18 .21 i I
Total .17 .20 .21 .20

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level . ,
Role Discrepancy 2 .041 .020 .65 n.s.
History 1 .023 .023 .74 n.s.
Interaction 2 .234 .117 3.77 .03
Within 48 1.482 .031
Total 53 1.780

 

The mean proportions show differences by discrepancy level,
but this association (significant at the .10 level) is
mainly the result of EEEEE history dyad differences, the
interaction effect is significant at the .03 level. For
short history dyads, symmetrical exchanges are proportion-

ately more frequent occurring transactions for high, rather

205

Table 48. Mean proportions of symmetrical transactions.

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

History r— Total
Low Medium High
Short .25 .27 .34 .29
Long .30 .32 .30 .30 F"
1
Total .27 .29 .32 .29 ‘
. Sum of Mean Sig. ,
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level 5
Role Discrepancy 2 .073 .037 2.31 .10
History 1 .019 .019 1.19 n.s.
Interaction 2 .119 .059 3.69 .03
‘Within 48 .754 .016
Total 53 .965

 

 

'than low, discrepancy pairs.

From the above comparisons,

1N6 know that this is particularly true on the sub-type,

neutralized symmetry.

Table 49 gives the mean proportions of complemen-

‘tary transactions.

We find no differences, as noted before,

lxy discrepancy level on the combined types of complemen-

-tarity.

206

Table 49. Mean proportions of complementary transactions.

 

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium . High

Short .14 .12 .13 .13
Long .11 .12 .12 .12 H
Total .13 .12 .12 .12

. Sum of Mean Sig.
Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level

.LW

Role Discrepancy 2 .005 .002 .09 n.s.
History 1 .022 .022 .96 n.s.
Interaction 2 .023 .011 .48 n.s.
Within 48 1.126 .023
Total 53 1.176

 

The mean proportions of combined transitory trans—
action types are given in Table 50. There is a tendency
for discrepancy to be inversely related to transitory
type transactions. This again is predominately due to
short history differences; the interaction effect is sig-

nificant at the .10 level.

207

Table 50. Mean proportions of transitory transactions.

Role Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

History Total
Low Medium High

Short .61 .61 .53 .59

Long .59 .56 .58 .58 f“!
i'.

Total .61 .59 .56 .58 E
l

. Sum of Mean Sig.

Source of Variance DF Squares Square F Value Level r

Role Discrepancy 2 .075 .038 2.00 (.15)

History 1 .003 .003 .16 n.s.

Interaction 2 .091 .045 2.37 .10

Within 48 .931 .019

Total 53 1.100

 

 

 

To explore Question 2 in a less formalized style

than analysis of variance, information about transactional

usage will also be described by most frequent occurring

types. A comparison of the most frequently expressed

transaction type (in terms of proportions) was tabulated

for each dyad by discrepancy level.

frequencies and percentages.

Table 51 gives these

Comparing discrepancy levels,

208

Table 51. Most frequently expressed transactional pattern
by discrepancy level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transaction Low Medium High
Type Frequency % . Frequency ' % . Frequency %
++, ++ 10 63 7 37 7 37 r}
++ 4 25 10 53 6 32 ‘
++. ++ 2 12 2 10 5 26 '
++, H 0 00 0 00 1 05 . ,
Total 16 100 19 100 19 100

 

Note: A chi-square test on the first three transaction
types given agove did not show any significant
difference (X = 5.54, d.f. = 4).

‘we see that low discrepant dyads were most characterized
Iby one-down transitory transactions and medium discrepancy
(dyads by neutralized symmetry, while high discrepancy dyads
were characterized by a fairly equal first order usage of
'three types of transactions: one-down transitory, neutral—
sized symmetry and one-up transitory. These differences,
however, were not significant.

A combination of the second most frequently expressed
izransaction type with the first, give similar discrepancy

patterns as above, but when the third most frequently used

209

transaction types were combined with the first and second,
most of the differences across categories disappear because
of the high usage of neutralized symmetry and transitory
types by all dyads.

Question 3: What types of configuration patterns

 

are more characteristic of lower versus higher discrepant “
dyads? A1

In the previous hypothesis—testing section, we found 1
no differences between discrepancy levels and frequency of

configurations, that is, of long-run homogeneous transac-

 

la- G‘"_d 37.04.".i- 3~ #1 l

tions, and further, that configurational message exchange
was a fairly infrequent occurrence. There was an average
of 1.5 configurations per dyad across all topics. There
is no data base by which to compare frequency of configura-
tion of different social systems, but it appears that long-
run sequences of the same transactional type is not typical
dyadic interaction behavior. This verbal behavior is some-
what analogous to Arglye's (1967) studies concerning
eye-contact. He found various eye movements related to
verbal behavior, but simultaneous eye contact of two inter-
actors, was limited. Likewise, with the flow of messages,
there are a variety of control movements utilized, but
sequentially identical control responses are limited.

The previous analyses concerning configurations
dealt only with the frequency of occurrence regardless of

'type. Table 52 gives the frequency of type of configuration

210

r

M19111: ifil’qu-fli ill-Ill.-lu.l i la L

.coHpooHHo Houucoo panama: moumcmHmoo mmmsz 3ouum umHHm "ouoz

 

 

 

 

ow . mm nH mH HH NH 5 m w mH m NH v Hmuoa
ooH om am 3 v o m m NH m H m Hm m m o m ,1on
00H mm mm on n v m o no N H H vm h o o H ESHUTE
00H mm om on o m o m mo m H H NH m o N H 30H
ucmo mocoaw ucoo Hmuoe ammo Hmuoe ucoo Hmuoa
Iuom loam luwm loam ++ ++ ++ ++ snow loom ++ ++ Iuom loom .?+ 4+. ++
, wocmmmuomHQ
Hmuoa mHOUHmsmuB auHumucmEonEoo muuoEEwm

 

 

.Ho>oH xoqmmmuomHo wo mcumuumm coHumusmHmcoo mo mommucwonom HmuothSm can moHocmswmnm .Nm oHnme

211

occurrence for the three discrepancy levels. We see that
the frequency of configuration types is very similar to
transaction type occurrence. TransitOry configurations
are the most common type of long-run exChange sequences,
and submissive symmetry the least common configuration
pattern.

Looking at Table 52 for configuration variations
by discrepancy, we note two differences: (1) the lower
usage of neutralized symmetry by the low discrepant pairs

and (2) the less frequent use of transitory configurations

 

by the high discrepant couples. In order to have large
enough cell n's to test any difference in type of con-
figuration pattern by discrepancy level it was necessary
to combine the cell frequencies of each general type of
transaction. A chi-square test was run on the symmetrical,
complementary and transitory sub-totals. No significant

differences were found (x2 = 3.26, d.f. = 4).

Summary of Exploratopy_
Questions

Dyads with different levels of discrepancy were
found to differ significantly in the prOportion of one-up
messages given by wife; the higher the discrepancy, the
higher the prOportion of wife one-up movements. There
was a tendency for an inverse relation between discrepancy
and husband one-down messages. No relationship was found

between discrepancy and expressions of one-across control.

_ ' . It":
..’:.,_ . "

our:

212

In addition to the previous discrepancy and trans-
actional findings, several associations were found to
exist for §h2£2_history dyads. First, neutralized sym-
metry was found to be associated significantly with
higher discrepancy. Secondly, when the sub—types of
symmetry, complementarity and transitory transactions
were combined into these three general categories,
symmetry was found to be associated with higher discrep- g
ancy, while transitory transactions tended to be related 3-
to lower discrepancy. No discrepancy relationship
existed for complementary transactions. Describing dis-
crepancy levels by the transactional type most frequently

expressed, different patterns were found, but they were

 

not statistically significant. First order use of one-
down transitory transactions characterized the low dis-
crepancy pairs, while high discrepancy couples had no
single first order pattern.

Concerning configuration patterns, about an equal
number of long-run configuration sequences occurred by
discrepancy level. For higher discrepancy dyads, symmetri-
cal configurations were a bit more prevalent and transitory
configurations a bit less prevalent, but so significant
difference by discrepancy were found.

Table 53 gives an outline of these exploratory

question findings.

213

Table 53. Summary of exploratory question findings.

Difference

Significance

 

l. Message-Control
(a) one-up for wife:

(b) one-down
(c) one-across

2. Transaction Types

(a) submissive
symmetry

(b) neutralized sym-
.metry for short
history:

3. General Transaction
Types

(a) complementarity

(b) Symmetry

(c) transitory

4. Configuration
Patterns

(a) type

high discrep. >
low discrep.

high discrep. >

_._&¢u%discrep.

high discrep. >
low discrep.

particularly for
short history

high discrep. <
low discrep.

particularly for
short history

.10

___ 0' ‘
1 .
I

 

interaction=.03

.10

interaction=.03

(.15)

interaction=.10

 

214

Transactional Examples

To illustrate the relational communication pat-
terns manifested by dyadic systems of different discrep—
ancy levels, several discussion examples expressed by
transactional control sequences are presented below. All
the examples deal with the discussion of emergency I
preparedness. ‘1

The first set of graphs given in Figure 6, show

the transactional patterns of a high, medium, and low

 

discrepant level dyad. Looking first at the overall 1
sequencing pattern, we see that the general flow of con-

trol in the high discrepant dyad's interaction (#356) is

one-across towards one—up, in the medium discrepant dyad

(#152) it is one-across towards one-down, and in the low

discrepant dyad (#132) there is more fluid mix of control

movements with considerably less one-across symmetry

(26 percent neutralized symmetry compared to 52 percent

for the high dyad and 41 percent for the medium dyad).

In the high discrepancy dyad, both members "move"
upward, but there is no escalation; in the medium discrep-
ancy dyad it is the wife that moves downward. Typical of
the patterns found for the low discrepant dyads, it is
the husband of dyad #132 that moves one-down, particularly
in transitory transactions. A comparison of transitory
types shows one-up transitory transactions outnumbering

one-down transitory exchanges in the high discrepant dyad

 

 

 

.momao wocommnomHo 30H can EdHomE .omHn mo monouumm HmcoHuommcmuB .m musmHm

AMHOpmHm unosmv mocmmouomHo 30H NMH¢ coho

‘4‘44 ‘ _.

 

 

 

 

AhuoumHm mcoqv mocmmouomHo ESHUmS mmH# town

. C“. .

 

215

 

 

panama:

mMHz n O HmuoumHm uncomv wocmmmuomHo anm mmmw pawn

 

216

(eight to three), while one—down transitory movements
cunnmber one—up movements for both the medium (nine to
six) and low (fifteen to ten) discrepant dyads.

The second set of graphs presented in Figure 7,
show several patterns that were found to be characteristic
differences between short and long history high discrepant
dyads and high versus low discrepant systems.

The high discrepant dyadic transactional examples
in Figure 7 (dyads #336 and #172), show more variation in
control movements than the previous high discrepant dyad
example in Figure 6, but there are still noticeable

series of symmetrical transactions, much more than in the

low discrepant dyad (#282). Further comparisons show not

only sequences of symmetrical transactions being more

 

characteristic of the two high discrepant dyads, but also

symmetry of response in general. Symmetrical transac-

tions, occurring singularly or in a series, account for

29 percent of all transactions in dyad #336, 35 percent

in dyad.#172 versus 21 percent in dyad #283, the low

<iiscrepant dyad. The discrepancy difference is particu-

larly noticeable for competitive (M) symmetry.
Comparing the types of symmetrical exchanges in
the short history versus the long history high discrepancy

another of the patterns found to differentiate
Short

dyads,

dyads in the previous analyses is illustrated.

history-high discrepant dyads were found to have

 

. i .' f
\ +
r .
r.

 

‘L-r:

 

217

 

 

.pmho HammouomHU
30H m can mommo mQOH paw puonmlmocmmoHomHo gmHn mo mcuouumm HMCOHgommGMHB .5 mHDmHm

AhuoumHm uHOSmV mocmmoyomHo 30H mmm¢ town

 

 

AwnoumHm msoqv hocmmouomHQ omHm NbH¢ town
1|I||J fillllllH ,
H_ ___.
QMH3 n o +

panama: n -

+
mGOHumnsmHmcoo n _ ‘

AmuoumHm uuoomv wochoHOmHQ omHm mmm* town
fiIIIIIIIH

1 _ ii

_>

218

significantly more one-across, one-across symmetrical
transactions than other dyads, while there was a tendency

shown for long history-high discrepant dyads to manifest

one-up symmetry. The short history-high

more one-up,
discrepant dyad, #336, has 14 percent more neutralized
(++) symmetry than competitive (M) symmetry, while the
long history-high discrepant dyad, #172, has a reverse
ratio of 16 percent more competitive symmetry than neu-

tralized symmetry.
Additional patterns found to be characteristic

of high versus low discrepancy dyads are also manifested

in the examples given. Both the high discrepant dyads

have more wife one-up movements than in the low discrep-
ant dyad. Further, in the two high dyads the one-up
messages of the husband are less than the wife's, while
in the low discrepant dyad this ratio is reversed with
the husband giving more one-up messages than the wife.
Also, we find one-up transitory transactions occurring
more frequently than one-down transitory exchanges in
the two high discrepant dyads, and again, this pattern

is reversed for the low discrepant dyad with one-down

transitory exchanges occurring more frequently than

one-up transitory transactions.

 

7One of the configuration patterns shown in
Figure 7 is of a competitive symmetrical nature for

dyad #172.

 

 

 

219

The above examples were presented as illustrations
of the major differences found in the relational communi-
cation patterns of intimate dyadic systems of different

discrepancy and history levels.

U.-
I

'i-?¢I‘s.s-‘. ’-..I

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

This study was designed to investigate the rela-

tionship between system inequity and communication behavior

in a dyadic setting. Discrepancy between role expectations

and perceived role behavior was the major independent
variable which was related to self—report descriptions

of communication behavior and a relational communication

analysis of dyadic discussions. Under these two types

of communication measures the major research results of

this study are given. This general summary is followed

by a discussion of the implications of the study and

suggestions for future research.

Self-Report Description Summary
Time and Talk Allocations

.An overall estimate of the time that husbands

and wives spent together on a typical Sunday was six

hours, for a typical weekday it was four hours. Of the

time couples are together on a weeday, they report an

average of one hour spent alone with one another.

220

 

 

 

 

221

Husband and wife pairs married a shorter length
cm'time (one to eleven years) spend more time together
both alone and with others present than couples married
longer (twelve to 26 years). Dyads with low role discrep-
ancy were found to spend significantly larger portions of
time together on a Sunday (a nonwork day) than higher
discrepant dyads. For both weekday and Sunday time
allocations, an emergent pattern was for members of long
history-high discrepant dayds to report less time spent
together than other dyad types.

In relationships outside the husband-wife system,
wives report spending approximately five hours a day
with at least one, or more of their children; husbands
report spending about an hour. Wives spent on the
average about one hour with people other than family mem-
bers; husbands spend about three hours outside the family
system.

Of the estimated six hours that couples were
together on a Sunday, they reported on the average, that
two hours were spent in conversation with one another.
Of the four hours together on a weekday they reported
(Hue hour was spent talking and listening to one another.
Usixn; these estimates, the "average" couple spends a

tuytal of eight to nine hours a week talking to one

another.

.‘I'. a’vTir-Ll— $7157” JF immfZaFfrai 1

.._J

 

 

 

222

Dyadic history and discrepancy analyses of talk-
time allocations found (consistent with time allocations)
that short history dyads spend more time talking to one
another than long history dyads and low discrepancy
dyads spend more time in conversation than do high dis-

crepancy dyads. Members of long history-high discrepancy

dyads reported the least amount of talk—time; the polar

opposite, short history—low discrepancy dyad members

reported the higher amounts of talk-time.

Discussion Frequency and Communication
Control

Lower discrepant dyads were found to talk signi-
ficantly more often about a variety of topics than higher
discrepant dyads. The frequency of discussing work
activities and feelings toward one another were particu-
larly distinctive differences between the lower and
higher discrepant couples. Short history dyads were
also found to talk more often about various topics than
long history dyads, particularly about financial matters.
.Again, it was observed that members of dyads characterized
by short history and low discrepancy had the more frequent

topic discussions and those characterized by long history

and high discrepancy had the least frequent topic discus-

sions.

 

 

 

 

223

An analysis of communication control by discrepancy
lewfls did not reveal differences among dyads, except for
‘Uuatendency of lower discrepant dyads to report more
equalldiscussion of poth_members' interests, while high
discrepant dyads reported more discussion of either their

own or their spouse's interests rather than both of their

interests.

Desired Talk-Time, Communication and
Marital Satisfaction

All dyad members desired more talk—time than less
talk-time. As predicted, wives desired more talk-time
than husbands and members of short history, more than
long history dyads, reported a desire for more talk-time,
but in both cases the differences were not significant.
It was hypothesized and found that higher discrepancy
dyads desired significantly more talk-time (on a Sunday)
than lower discrepancy dyads.

Further predictions found to be significant were
that lower discrepant dyads were more satisfied with

'their communication and marital relationship, than higher

.role discrepancy dyads.

 

 

224

Relational Communication Analysis Summary

 

Message Type and Control Direction

Assertions and extensions, singularly or together
were clearly the most frequently used type of message
format and response. The second most frequently used
message type was assertion—support statements, while
successful talk-overs as extensions were the third most
frequent message types utilized. Other forms of exten-
sion made up the next three most frequent types of
messages.

It was predicted that support messages and talk-
overs would differ by discrepancy level. Lower discrep-
ant dyads were found to exchange significantly higher
proportions of support messages than higher discrepant
dyads. With talk—overs, it was discovered that dis-
crepancy was related to unsuccessful talk-overs. Lower
discrepant dyads had significantly more unsuccessful
talk-overs than higher discrepant pairs.

For total talk-overs and unsuccessful talk-overs
an interaction effect between dyadic history and dis-
crepancy differences were more pronounced for ghogt
history than long history dyads.

Remembering the control directions of different
message types, it is consistent with the above statements

to find that the largest proportion (about half) of the

225

total messages were of a one—across neutralizing control
nature. For the remaining messages a little more than
one-fourth were one—down messages and slightly less than
one-fourth were one-up control messages. Across dyads,
husbands expressed slightly more one-up messages than
wives, and wives gave slightly higher proportions of one-
down messages than husbands. However, when we look at
message control by discrepancy level, we find different
patterns of one-up and one—down directional differences.
There was a tendency for discrepancy to vary
directly with one-up control and inversely with one-down
message control. Thus, while higher versus lower dis-
crepant dyadic systems tended to have higher proportions
of one-up messages, it was found that this was particu-
larly so for wives. Higher discrepant wives sent a
higher proportion of one-up messages than any other cate-
gory, and significantly higher proportions than lower
discrepant wives. Further, there was a tendency for
lower discrepant husbands to express higher proportions
of one-down messages than higher discrepant husbands.
One-across messages were not found to be related to dis-

crepancy.
Transactional Activity and Flexibility

Lower levels of discrepancy were hypothesized to

be related to higher levels of interaction activity, as

226

measured by length of discussion period, amount of silence
during the discussions and the total number of transac-
tions. Only limited evidence of support were found. A
fairly strong tendency existed for lower discrepant couples
to have more transactions, i.e., more speaker turn over,
than higher discrepant couples. This was particularly so
for short history dyads. Also, a tendency was found for
discrepancy levels of short history dyads to vary directly
with amount of silence was found, but no differences
existed between discrepancy levels and length of discus-
sions.

It was further predicted that lower discrepancy
would be related to more random usage of transactional
types. No significant variations from randomness were

found by discrepancy levels.

Transaction Types

Transitory transactions accounted for almost
sixty percent of all transactions. There were more one—
down transitory exchanges than one-up. Approximately
thirty percent of the transactions were symmetrical with
neutralized symmetry accounting for the largest propor-
tion. Submissive symmetry, followed by competitive
symmetry, were the least frequent occurring types of
transactions (both about five percent). A little more

than ten percent of the transactions were complementary.

227

When transaction types were compared by discrep-
ancy levels, no variations in complementary exchanges
were found. However} symmetrical and transitory trans—
action patterns did vary with discrepancy level.

First, at the broad level of analysis, referring
to all combined sub—types of symmetry and transitory
transactions, higher levels of discrepancy were related
to higher proportions of symmetry and lgwgg proportions
of transitory exchange. Both relationships were particu-
larly evident for the short history dyads.

At the more specific level, analyzing each sub-
type separately, there was a tendency for higher propor-
tions of competitive symmetry, to be expressed in higher
discrepant dyads. With neutralized symmetry, there was
a significant discrepancy difference for ghorg history
dyads with higher proportions of neutralized symmetry
found to be expressed in higher discrepancy systems.
There were no differences in the use of submissive
symmetry.

The analysis of transitory types of discrepancy
found that dyads did not differ significantly on one-up
transitory exchanges but that they did vary on one-down
transitory type transactions, particularly when the hus-
band was one-down. These differences again were more

pronounced in short history dyads.

228
Configuration Patterns

There was a low rate of occurrence of configura—
tion patterns (long—run sequences of identical transac-
tions) in the dyadic discussions. There were no
significant differences between discrepancy levels and
configuration sequences. The tendencies displayed for
lower discrepancy dyads to have less symmetrical and more
transitory configurations and the reverse for higher dis-
crepancy dyads, parallel the transactional differences

by discrepancy level discussed earlier.

Implications

 

Major Conclusions

The present research was an application of the
general system cybernetic principles to the study of
dyadic interaction processes. Inequity (role discrepancy)
was the main system characteristic under study. It was
defined as the perceived variance from distributive
justice and was hypothesized to be related to the self-
governing homeostatic dynamics of ongoing systems. The
basic research question was: Do systems of different
levels of inequity strain manifest behavior, particularly
communication behavior, that is predictable from a homeo-
static model based on the principle of an adaptive capacity

to stabalize. Taking into account the exploratory nature

229

of this area of research and the recent development of
the research instruments, it appears that the directional
and statistical support found for many of the predictions,
and the way in which those findings “fit“ together, give
ample evidence that the systems approach has sound poten-
tial as a theoretical base for the study of interaction
systems. One important consideration emerging from the
research needs to be made.

It was noted both in the analysis of the self-
report data and in the relational analysis that many of
the research hypotheses had stronger prediction power
for short history dyads than long history dyads. It was
suggested in the text that the homeostatic principles
may operate differently depending on the length of the
system's history. In particular, history differences
were most noted in the high_discrepancy categories.

The following comments are highly intuitive, but
an overriding impression of the author was that Horney's
(1945) classic delineation of interaction styles is
descriptive of the history-discrepancy differences found.
The interaction style of the low discrepant couples
(both short and long history, but more evident for those
with short history) seemed to "go towards" one another
(e.g., spent larger amounts of time together, talked to
one another more—-about personal matters, gave more

support, had fewer symmetrical exchanges). The short

230

history-high discrepant couples appeared to "go against"
one another (e.g., high allocations of time spent together
and of talk—time, but lower satisfaction with communica-
tion relation, least support, more symmetry), while the
122g history-high discrepancy dyads seemed to "go away"
from one another (e.g., spent less time together, less
time spent talking, lower communication satisfaction,
least satisfaction with marriage relationship).

The suggestion arising from the various analyses
is that when system inequity is present, short history

dyads may exemplify patterns of confrontation and long

 

history dyads may exemplify patterns of avoidance.

 

Homeostatic-based hypotheses appear to be more predictive
of the former than the latter style of accommodation.

A continued effort toward development of improved
indicators of system strain will offer increased oppor-
tunity to assess the value of the homeostatic model.

One suggestion for improvement is to utilize a behavioral

 

measure to tap this dimension more effectively than the
self-report type of measurement used in this study. On
the basis of the present research findings, an example
of such a measure might be the ratio of support to non-
support messages manifested in the transactions. This
type of measurement has the advantage of being based on
actual behavior output of the system, rather than

individual reporting of the system state. Thus, it is

231

a measure that is potentially less affected by a public
or halo effect and also, and very importantly, it is
more of a systems level measurement.

One aspect of this study that is of considered
importance is the attempt to move from the more frequent
monadic level of analysis to a dyadic level. It is
felt that with the transactional communication analysis
this attempt was successful, but hopefully a first step
toward higher level analyses, both in terms of moving
toward triadic and larger system studies and in moving
toward higher levels of abstractions of interaction
patterns. As indicated earlier, this shift is conceptu-
ally and methodologically difficult, but necessary for
studying system processes.

The relational analysis technique, developed
and first utilized in the family communication project
of which this research is a part, does appear to have
value at the general descriptive level of message type
and control, but as indicated above, to have particular
value in describing communication behavior and processes
at the transactional level. Further, the emergent com-
munication pattern profiles of high versus low discrep-
ant dyads--with higher discrepancy related to fewer
support statements, more wife one-up control movements,
fewer husband one—down transitory transactions, fewer

unsuccessful talk-overs and more symmetry give evidence

232

for the diagnostic potential of the relational communica-
tion analysis.

The present research is a beginning effort to
relate system states and communication patterns.
Whether the behavior styles found are interpreted as
arising from perceived system inequity, or as modes of
behavior which promote the perception of system inequity,
patterned variations of interaction were observed among
"normal" dyads of different system states. If, in future
research the types of dyads and the dimensions of sys-
tem states analyzed are expanded, the potential compari-
sons of relational communication patterns of different
systems, at different states, will increase the diagnos-
tic possibilities. Improved diagnostic skill is an
integral aspect of the present social concern with the

enrichment of interpersonal relations.
Research Suggestions

A variety of additional suggestions for future
research are possible, e.g., analyze the data by topics,
instead of across topics, include more nonverbal dimen-
sions in the analysis, expand the research beyond the
dyadic system, etc. These all have merit; however, only
the more specific suggestions that arose in the design-

ing and carrying out of this research will be mentioned

 

233

here. These will deal with the relational communication
analysis.

First, and considered the most important sugges—
tion, is the consideration of analyzing transaction pat—
terns not only by speaker order, but by control order of
the messages making up the transaction. In this manner,

more specific sequential information can be obtained.

 

For symmetrical transactions order of control, of course,

I
1
is no problem, but in the analysis of complementarity and !
transitory types of exchange, essential process informa- g
tion is missed by a noncontrol ordered transaction matrix. L
Thus, instead of having one axis represent one speaker
and the other axis represent the other speaker, have one
axis indicate the first control direction of a trans-
action and the other the second control direction of the
tranSaction. This type of summarization gives the flow
of direction for all nine transactional types. Also,
this method of analysis would allow utilization of the
relational control analysis with groupings larger than
the dyad.
Two further suggestions for modification and
expansion of the relational analysis scheme are: (1)
an intensity measure and (2) a time dimension of message
control of transactional exchanges. As experience with

the relational analysis technique is developed and know-

ledge of its utilization expanded, further and more

234

complicating additions may be added to increase the infor-
mation obtained from its application.

A measure of control intensity is possible by
viewing messages as having more than equal units of
one-up and one-down movements. For example, an instruc-

tion might be considered one unit of onewupness and an

.051“;

order two units of one—upness. For one—down, giving

'2 anu‘ifi - 7"

approval might be an example on one unit of movement
downward, while asking for approval or assistance, two

units of downward movement.

P 9.1 BA\ mal-o. finnv
1

The addition of a time dimension to control
movements is another suggestion for increasing information
concerning transactional processes. This point can be
made clearer by referring to the graphic presentations
that were made in the last chapter. The examples given
considered all messages as equivalent units, so that the
graphing of the transactional control movements is much
like a musical score of identical notes. Graphs of timed
control movements would be analagous to a musical score
‘with a variety of whole notes, mixed with quarter and
half time notes, etc. This would require large expendi-
‘tures of energy, but the potential transactional discov-
eries would seem to merit this experimentation.

A concluding thought--or warning--is that any

:study of transactional communication processes will

235

require heavy investments of time and involvement. Yet
with research efforts oriented toward an understanding
of social interaction, it is essential to focus on the
relational aspects of communication. As Duncan so aptly
stated, "We do not relate and then talk, but we relate

in talk. . ." (1967, p. 249). r‘

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX I

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

)4"
fl

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48823

 

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION 0 CABLE: COWDBPT

March 6, 1972

A study is now underway concerning family communication. We are
interested in learning how husbands and wives talk about differ-
ent issues that come up in their daily lives. In order to gain
a better understanding of family Opinions, we are asking many
families to participate in this study. We would like your per-
mission to talk with both you and your spouse, if you have
children under twelve years of age. Couples who are willing to
participate in this study will receive ten dollars ($10) for
their time.

This study is being done by the Department of Communication at
M50. The findings will be placed in a report so that no indi-
vidual's or family's views can be identified. We want to assure
you that your Opinions will remain totally confidential.

In order for the findings to show a true picture of different
families' vieWpoints, your participation is very important to
us. You are part of a random sample and your cooperation is
essential to the value of this study.

If you have any questions about the study, feel free to ask
the person bearing this letter, or contact me directly at my
office phone, 517-355-3478. I think you will find this study
interesting and you will be making an important contribution
to the understanding of families.

Sincerely,

Richard V. Farace

Director of the Family
Communication Project

524 South Kedzie Hall

RFV:jo

236

APPENDIX II

SELF-REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE

 

INSTRUCTIONS

This study consists of two parts. First, we would
like you to fill our a questionnaire on family communication
patterns. In the second part, we would like you and your
spouse to discuss a few topics.

PART 1: The questionnaire is to be filled out by each of
you. Please do not consult your spouse about any
of the questions in the questionnaire until you
have completed it. After you have completed
your questionnaire, please place it into the en-
velope, seal it, and give it to the interviewer.

PART 2: When both of you have completed the questionnaire,
you will be given three topics to discuss. Two
deal with emergency situations and the other deals
with a family topic. We would like you to take
about ten (10) minutes to talk about the possible
alternatives for each topic, and decide what you
and your family would do in each situation.

In case you have any questions about any part of the
questionnaire, please feel free to ask the interviewer about
them.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS STUDY AND HOPE THAT
YOU WILL FIND IT INTERESTING!

237

 

FAMILY QUESTIONNAIRE

 

239

The following questions concern the time you spend
with other people during the course of a day. We would
like you to give a rough estimate of the time you spent,
yesterday, with the pe0ple listed below. For each question,
please check the response that best estimates this amount of
time.

1. How much of your time yesterday during waking hours was
spent . . .

a. with your spouse? Count the time you were
with one another even though others might
have been present.

___we didn't spend any time
together

1 to 30 minutes

30 minutes to 1 hour

1 to 2 hours

2 to 4 hours

4 to 6 hours

6 to 8 hours

__pmore than 8 hours

b. with just your spouse?

we didn't spend any time
'_—' alone
1 to 30 minutes
30 minutes to'l hour
1 to 2 hours
2 to 4 hours
4 to 6 hours
6 to 8 hours

more than 8 hours

lllll

c. with just one or more of your children?

__pwe didn't spend any time
alone

1 to 30 minutes

30 minutes to 1 hour

1 to 2 hours

2 to 4 hours

4 to 6 hours

6 to 8 hours

more than 8 hours

240

d. with people other than your spouse and children?

I wasn't with anyone else
1 to 30 minutes

30 minutes to 1 hour

1 to 2 hours

2 to 4 hours

4 to 6 hours

6 to 8 hours

more than 8 hours

2. a. When you and your spouse were together yesterday,
how much time did you spend in conversation?
Count the time actually spent talking and listen-
ing to your spouse.

we didn't spend any time
1 to 30 minutes

30 minutes to 1 hour

1 to 2 hours

2 to 4 hours

4 to 6 hours

6 to 8 hours

___more than 8 hours

b. How much time yesterday would you have liked to
have talked with your spouse?

much more

somewhat more‘

about the way it was
somewhat less

much less

I

3. Is the amount of time you spent talking with your spouse

yesterday typical of most week days?
yes--If yes, go to Question 4.

no-- If no, please estimate the amount of time you
spend talking with your spouse on a typical
weekday.

we don't spend any time
1 to 30 minutes

30 minutes to 1 hour

1 to 2 hours

2 to 4 hours

4 to 6 hours

6 to 8 hours

more than 8 hours

 

241

4. Since weekends may be different from weekdays, please
estimate the amount of time you spent last Sunday . . .

a. with your spouse?

we didn't spend any time
___ together
1 to 30 minutes
30 minutes to 1 hour

1 to
2 to
4 to
6 to
___more

2 hours
4 hours
6 hours
8 hours
than 8 hours

b. in conversation, talking and listening, to your

spouse?

we didn't spend any time
1 to 30 minutes
30 minutes to 1 hour

 

l to
2 to
4 to
6 to
___more

5. How much time last Sunday, would

2 hours
4 hours
6 hours
8 hours
than 8 hours

you have liked to have

talked with your spouse ?

much more
somewhat more
about the same
somewhat less
much less

I

6. Was the amount of time you spent talking with your
spouse last Sunday typical of most Sundays?

yes--If yes, go to Question 7.

no-- If no, please estimate the amount of time you
spend talking with your spouse on a typical
Sunday.

we don't spend any time
1 to 30 minutes

30 minutes to 1 hour

1 to 2 hours

2 to 4 hours

4 to 6 hours

6 to 8 hours

more than 8 hours

‘4“; ’"1".

242

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. The previous questions dealt with time estimates. Now
we are interested in the general kinds of topics you and
your spouse talk about. Please indicate how often you
and your spouse talk about each of the following topics
by checking the appropriate columns.
Once Once or Once or Lessthan Never
a day twice twice once a talk
or more a week a month month w;
a. your job(s)
{2
b. your feelings to- i
ward each other g
c. your children ?
d. family leisure :
time activities u
e. care of the home
f. financial matters
9. friends
h.’ relatives
1. local community
events e.g., church,
P.T.A., elections,
committees, etc.
j. national and inter-
national events
K. PLEASE SPECIFY OTHER

TOPICS BELOW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

243

What just you and your spouse talk, who starts
most of the conversations between you?

My spouse does more than I
I do more than my spouse
Each of us about the same
Don't know, can't say

When just you and your spouse talk, how much of the
time do you talk in comparison to him/her?

Much more 3
Somewhat more 9
About the same E
Somewhat less ‘
Much less

When just you and your spouse talk, whose interests
or concerns do you talk about? g

__;Mainly talk about what my
spouse wants to discuss

__JMainly talk about what I
want to discuss

'___Split about evenly between
his/her interests and mine

When just you and your spouse talk, who usually
ends or stops the conversation?

___My spouse usually ends them

___I usually end them

___Split about evenly between
us, depends on topic

__;Usually ended by outside
interference or interruptions

9. In general, how satisified are you with the communication
between you and your spouse?

Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied

About as satisfied as dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

244

10. When husbands and wives talk to one another different
kinds of feelings may result. Listed below are some of
the ways that you may have felt when talking with your
husband. Please indicate with the appropriate number
(l-S), how often you have had the feeling mentioned in
each of the statements.

 

1 2 3 i 4 5
Always Often Now and then Seldom Never
a. In a conversation with my husband, I am uncomfor-

table during a period of silence.

b. I am satisfied with our ability to talk things out
together.

c. My husband does not listen to me when I'm talking.

d. I find it difficult to express my true feelings to
my husband.

e. I know my husband's feelings and emotions from his
gestures and facial expressions.

f. I avoid talking about certain subjects with my hus-
band because it may be unpleasant to us.

9. When we're talking, my husband understands me and
how I feel.

h. My husband encourages me to express my concerns.

i. I can anticipate what my husband is going to say
before he says it.

j. My husband's manner of speaking is irritating.

k. My husband lets me know how he feels about what I'm
saying.

1. In our conversations, I don't understand how my
husband feels.

m. I find other people more interesting to talk to
than my husband.

n. It's easy to talk to my husband about any problem
or complaint.

0. I feel dissatisfied with my husband's ability to
express his feelings and emotions in words.

*For husband's form of questionnaire, the word "husband"
was replaced with "wife."

245

 

 

 

 

 

11. Each of us receives information from many sources. We
are interested in how you learn about different types of
events. Listed below are several ways you may have
learned about them. Please check all your sources of
information for the following types of events (e.g.,
school events, community events, etc.) You may have
more than one answer for each event.
SCHOOL COMMUNITY NATIONAL & NATURAL &
i EVENTS EVENTS' INTERNATIONAL CIVIL DEFENSE
SOURCES OF . EVENTS ‘ PREPAREDNESS
INFORMATION I n i P1
Co-workers ‘
Neighbors . i j 5
My Spouse ' ‘
My Children
Newspapers/ . ,
Magazines ' ' L”,

 

 

TV or radio

 

Delivered in
Mail

 

Never received

 

 

 

 

 

12.

Now, considering just your own immediate family, who tends
to bring the most information about these same events to
the attention of the other family members.

FAMILY MEMBER SCHOOL COMMUNITY NATIONAL & NATURAL &
WHO BRINGS MOST EVENTS EVENTS INTERNATIONAL CIVIL DEFENSE
INFORMATION EVENTS PREPAREDNESS

 

My Spouse

 

Myself

 

My children

 

All of us
about the
same

 

None of us

 

 

 

 

 

13.

246

Earlier, we mentioned "delivered in mail" as one way
of learning about events. We are now interested in
finding out who looks at, and what your family does
with the third class mail (Like advertisements, public
information announcements) that is delivered to your
house.

 

a. In your family, who is usually the first person to
look at this type of mail?

Advertisements Public Information
(store ads, magazine (School events, community notes,
ads, special offers) civil defense literature, etc.)
My spouse My spouse
Myself Myself
My children My children
No one in particular No one in particular
b. Who else in the family looks at it?
Advertisements Public Information
My spouse My spouse
I do I do
My children My children
No one in particular; No one in particular;
depends on material depends on material

c. What is usually done with this type of mail?

Advertisements Public Information
Thrown away immediately Thrown away immediately
Kept for a short time Kept for a short time

Kept for future reference Kept for future reference

d. How often is this material discussed with other
members of the family?

Advertisements Public Information
Often Often
Seldom Seldom

Never Never

14.

247

Each family works out its own way of doing things. We
would like to ask you about how certain things are

done in your family. Please indicate, by using the
number of the appropriate response below (l-6), how you
and your spouse divide up some of the family jobs.

1 2 3 ‘ 4 5 6
Husband Husband Both Wife Wife Neither
Almost More than About the More than Almost One
Always Wife Same Husband Always
a. Who does the grocery shopping?

b. Who prepares the meals?
c. Who repairs things (appliances, furniture, toys)

around the house?

d. ___Who disciplines the children?

e. ___Who gets up at night, if necessary, with the
children?

f. ___Who helps the children with their homework?

g. ___Who decides on the family budget?

h. ___Who makes complaints, if necessary, to salesmen,

service repairmen or landlord?

i. ___Who selects the family car(s)?

j. ___Who plans what to do on a Saturday night?

k. ___Who decides what people you will invite to the
house?

1. __4Who keeps in touch with relatives?

m. ___Who shows affection for the other spouse?

n. Who takes the initiative to make up when there's

been a disagreement?

0. Who tries to see the other's point of View when
there is a difference of opinion?

15.

248

We would now like to ask you how you feel these family

jobs should be done.

In your

family, who do you think

should be responsible for doing the following things,
regardless of whether that person actually does them or

not.

Please indicate below, by using the number of the

appropriate response (1-6), your own preference as to
how these jobs should be divided up between yourself
and your spouse.

1 2 3 4 _ 5 6
Husband Husband Both Wife Wife Neither
Almost More than About the More than Almost One
Always Wife Same Husband Always

a. Who do you think should do the grocery shopping?

b. Who do you think should prepare the meals?

c. Who do you think should repair things (appliances,
furniture, toys) around the house?

d. Who do you think should discipline the children?

e. Who do you think should get up at night, if
necessary, with the children?

f. Who do you think should help the children with
their homework?

g. Who do you think should decide the family budget?

h. Who do you think should make complaints, if
necessary, to salesmen, service repairmen or
landlord?

i. Who do you think should select the family car(s)?

j. Who do you think should plan what to do on a
Saturday night?

k. Who do you think should decide what people you
will invite to the house?

1. Who do you think should keep in touch with re-
latives?

m. Who do you think should show affection for the
other spouse?

n. Who do you think should take the initiative to
make up when there's been a disagreement?

0. Who do you think should try to see the other's

point of View when there is a difference of Opinion?

16.

249

Now, we would like to ask you to react to a number of
pairs of statements about things that you may or may
not like; about ways in which you may or may not feel.
This is not a test. It is an attempt to find out how
people feel about themselves. Therefore, there are no
right or wrong answers. For each pair of statements,
choose the statement you think best describes the way
you feel. CIRCLE the letter of that statement. Some
choices may be difficult; nevertheless, choose the one
that best describes how you feel. (If neither state-
ment accurately describes how you feel, choose the one
which you consider to be less inaccurate). For example,
in the sample item below you might choose item (a) if
you feel that statement describes you best.

Example: (1) @ I like to tell amusing stories and
jokes at parties.
b I would like to write a great novel
or play.

Please select one statement in each pair by circling
the letter of the one you choose.

(1) a I feel timid in the presence of other people
I regard as my superiors.
b I like to supervise and to direct the actions
of other people whenever I can.

(2) a I like to be called upon to settle arguments
and disputes between others.\
b I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations.

(3) a I like to tell other people how to do their
jobs.
b I feel like getting revenge when someone has
insulted me.

(4) a I like to show a great deal of affection to-
ward my friends.
b I like to be regarded by others as a leader.

(5) a I like to sympathize with my friends when they
are hurt or sick.
b I like to be one of the leaders in the organ-
izations and groups to which I belong.

(6) a When with a group of peOple, I like to make the
decisions about what we are going to do.
b I like to predict how my friends will act in
various situations.

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(ll)

(12)

(l3)

(14)

(15)

(16)

a

250

I like to put in long hours of work without
being distracted.
I like to be regarded by others as a leader.

I like to tell other people how to do their
jobs.

I like to ask questions which I know no one
will be able to answer.

I get so angry that I feel like throwing and
breaking things.

I like to tell other people how to do their
jobs.

When serving on a committee, I like to be
appointed or elected chairman.
I would like to write a great novel or play.

I like to be one of the leaders in the organ-
izations and groups to which I belong.

I like to be able to do things better than
other people can.

I like to do things in my own way without re-
gard to what others may think.
I like to supervise and to direct the actions
of other people whenever I can.

I like to be called upon to settle arguments
and disputes between others. .

I like to be regarded as physically attractive
by those of the Opposite sex.

When serving on a committee, I like to be ap-
pointed or elected chairman.

When I am in a group I like to accept the
leadership of someone else in deciding what
the group is going to do.

I like to be able to persuade and influence
others to do what I want to do.

I like to think about the personalities of my
friends and to try to figure out what makes
them as they are.

I like to keep my letters, bills, and other
papers neatly arranged and filed according to
some system.

I like to be one of the leaders in the organ-
izations and groups to which I belong.

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

U'fl’

251

I like to write letters to my friends.
I like to argue for my point of view when it is
attacked.

I like to be called upon to settle arguments
and disputes between others.

I like my friends to do many small favors for
me cheerfully.

When with a group of people, I like to make the
decisions about what we are going to do.

I like my friends to sympathize with me and to
cheer me up when I am depressed.

I like to be regarded by others as a leader.
I like to keep my letters, bills, and other
papers neatly arranged and filed according to
some system.

I like to do things with my friends rather than
by myself.

I like to argue for my point of view when it is
attacked by others.

When I am in a group, I like to accept the
leadership of someone else in deciding what
the group is going to do.

I like to supervise and to direct the actions
of other people whenever I can.

I like to argue for my point Of view when it
is attacked by others.

I like to experience novelty and change in my
daily routine.

I like to tell other people how to do their jobs.
I like to be the center of attention in a group.

I feel depressed by my own inability to handle
various situations

I like to be able to persuade and influence
others to do what I want.

I like to engage in social activities with
persons of the Opposite sex.

When with a group of peOple, I like to make the
decisions about what we are going to do.

252

(27) a I like to be able to persuade and influence
others to do what I want.
b I like to finish any job or task that I begin.

(28) a When serving on a committee, I like to be ap-
pointed or elected chairman.
b I like to try new and different jobs--rather
than to continue doing the same Old things.

Finally, we would like to ask you just a few more questions
about yourself.

17. What is your age? years

18. Please circle the last grade completed in schools.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 5 6
Grade School High School College Graduate School

19. What is your present occupation?

 

20. Approximately, what is your family's yearly income?

less than $3,000
$3,000 to $5,999
$6,000 to $7,999
$8,000 to $14,999
over $15,000

21. How long have you been married? . years
22. Is this your first marriage? yes no
23. How would you describe your satisfaction with your
marriage?
1 2 3 4 5
Very Somewhat Somewhat

Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

6
Very
Dissatisfied

24. How satisfied do you think your spouse is with your

marriage? ‘
l 2 ‘ 3 4 5
Very Somewhat Somewhat

Satisfied Satisfied Safigsfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Very
Disatisfied

253

25. What about your marriage do you like the least?

 

 

 

26. What about your marriage do you like the most?

 

 

 

 

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR COOPERATION

APPENDIX III

DISCUSSION TOPICS

254

Topic 1
To begin with, talk with each other about how you first

met, dated and decided to marry.

Topic 2

Imagine it is a typical weekday and at least one of you
is at home. A Civil Defense alert--a loud wailing siren-—
is sounded. After turning on the radio, you learn that there
has been a nuclear attack. You are warned to prepare for the
radiation fallout which will reach your area in about two
hours. Your neighbors have also heard the warning and need
to find shelter. (A) If your house has a cellar or basement,
would you be willing to share it with your neighbors during
the disaster? (B) If you don't have a basement, would you
be willing to go to someone else's house for protection?
Please discuss the possible alternatives and decide on a

plan Of action.

Topic 3

Some married couples feel that both the husband and the
wife should be able to have independent careers, jobs and
interests outside the family. Other couples feel that both
should be devoted to the interest of the family, and that the
wife in particular should be in the home as a full time
homemaker and mother. What are your feelings on this matter

and what is your joint conclusion?

255

Topic 4

Imagine a tornado watch has been in effect for several
hours in your area. You, your spouse, and your children are
at home one evening watching television, when a tornado
warning is broadcasted indicating the sighting of a tornado.
You are told that you have about 15 minutes to prepare and
take shelter. What would you and your family do in this
situation? Please discuss the possible alternatives and

decide on a plan of action.

APPENDIX IV

INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS

INTERVIEWER'S INITIAL INTRODUCTION

If you recall, you or your husband/wife were inter-
viewed by phone about six weeks ago from Michigan State
University concerning your Opinions about a number of topics.
We sincerely appreciated your cooperation in that phase of
the study.

From the large group of persons we spoke to by phone,
we have selected a smaller group to represent them in a more
meaningful study of family communication patterns. We hope
that you and your wife/husband will cooperate further by
participating in this part of the study. This letter will

explain more about the study .

FIRST-- Greet the person who answers the door. Ask for the
male or female head of the household. Introduce
yourself by name and say you are working for Mich-
igan State University (East Lansing, Michigan --

Department of Communication).

256

257

RESPONDENT DIRECTIONS
QUESTIONNAIRE

(To be given orally by interviewer)

First, we'd like you to fill out this questionnaire. There's
a separate one for each of you. Please wait until after you've

finished the questions to talk about them.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable for writing if you sat at
the table (if you see an "eating table" readily available).
I'll be glad to answer questions for you, if there is any-

thing puzzling about the questionnaire.

If they complain that it will take too long or looks too
thick: Most of these pages only require you to check Off
choices. There's almost no writing involved, so it doesn't

take a long time to complete.

If they complain that some Of the choices are difficult to
£2321, I know it's difficult to make some Of those choices,
but don't spend too long on any of them; just choose the

one that describes your feelings pegp, or the one that seems

least wrong.

 

258

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS
Discussion Topics

(to be given orally by the interviewer)

Thank you for your help with the questionnaires.

 

Would you like to take a short break or should we go on
to the discussion?

We'll handle each discussion topic separately.
I'll introduce the tOpic and we'll briefly discuss it to
make sure you have no questions.

If there are no questions, I'll start the tape

and you may begin talking to each other. While the tape

 

is playing, my attention will be centered on the recording
equipment to make sure it's working properly, so I probably
won't be looking at either of you.

Please discuss each topic in some depth--as fully
as possible--but we'll have to stop you at ten minutes.

(START TOPIC I)

259

I
To begin with, talk with each other about how you
first met, dated and decided to marry.
Some things you might include in the discussion are:

1. Your first impressions or reactions.

 

2. Your expectations.

 

3. Your later feelings.
4. Any problems you encountered.

5. Any solutions you worked out.

 

 

PROBES--to be used only when essential:

a. when asked for direction,

b. when there has been 15 seconds of silence,
less than five minutes discussion AND one
of the five discussion areas has been ne-
glected.

1. Tell each other about the problems you may have
had.

2. Talk about how you felt during this time.
3. Consider how you handled any problems you had.
4. Try to talk about your first impressions.

5. Discuss any expectations about marriage.

"it”

NA

1! a .-r_' ' .‘u Iva-1"). ". am

260

II

Imagine it is a typical weekday and one of you is

 

 

at home. A Civil Defense alert--a loud wailing siren--is

 

sounded. After turning on the radio, you learn that there

has been a nuclear attack. You are warned to prepare for

 

the radiation fallout which will reach your area in about

 

two hours. Your neighbors have also heard the warning and

 

need to find shelter. (A) If your house has a cellar or

basement, would you be willing to share it with your neigh—

 

bors during the disaster? (B) If you don't have a basement,

would you be willing to go to someone else's house for pro-

 

tection? Please discuss the possible alternatives and de-

cide on a plan of action.

Some things you might include in the discussion are:

1. Your first impressions or reactiOns in this
situation.

 

 

2. Your expectations.

 

3. Your later feelings.
4. Any problems you encountered.

5. Any solutions you worked out.

 

 

PROBES--to be used only when essential:
a. when asked for direction
b. when there has been 15 second of silence,
less than five minutes discussion AND one
of the five discussion areas has been ne-

glected.

 

261

Talk about any other problems you might en-
counter.

Tell each other how you might feel in this
situation.

Consider how you could try to handle any pro-
blems you might encounter.

Discuss what your first reaction to this
situation would be.

 

Try to consider what you might expect to happen
under these conditions.

III

Some married couples feel that both the husband and

the wife should be able to have independent careers, jobs

 

and interests outside the family. Other couples feel that

both should

be devoted to the interest of the family, and

that the wife in particular should be in the home as a full

 

time homemaker and mother. What are your feelings on this

matter and what is your joint conclusion ?

Some things

1.

you might include in the discussion are:

Your first impressions or reactions to this
topic.

 

 

Your expectations.

 

Your later feelings.
Any problems you encountered.

Any solutions you worked out.

 

 

PROBLES--tO

be used only when essential:

a. when asked for direction,

262

b. when there has been 15 seconds of silence,
less than five minutes discussion AND one
Of the five discussion areas has been ne-
glected.

1. Tell each other your expectafions regarding this
topic.

 

2. Talk about how you feel about this topic.

3. Consider any problems that might develop in such
a situation.

4. Discuss any solutions to such problems.

 

5. Try to talk about your first reaction to or
impression of this topic.

 

IV

Imagine a tornado watch has been in effect for several

 

hours in your area. You, your spouse, and your children are

 

 

at home one evening watching television, when a tornado warn-

 

ing is broadcasted indicating the sighting of a tornado. You

are told that you have about 15 minutes to prepare and take

 

shelter. What would you and your family d9 in this situation?
Please discuss the possible alternatives and decide on a plan

of action.

Some things you might include in the discussion are:

1. Your first impressions or reactions in this
situation.

 

 

2. Your expectations.

 

3. Your later feelings.
4. Any problems you encountered.

5. Any solutions you worked out.

 

263

PROBLES--to be used only when essential:

a. when asked for direction,

b. when there has been 15 seconds of silence,
less than five minutes discussion AND one
of the five discussion areas has been ne-
glected.

Talk about any other problems you might en-
counter.

 

Tell each other how you might feel in this
situation.

Consider how you could try to handle any pro-
blems you might encounter.

Discuss what your first reaction to this
situation would be.

 

Try to consider what you might expect to happen
under these conditions.

264

Interviewer Instructions
Discussion Topics

Try to have respondents comfortably seated, at corner-
wise chairs in a livingroom, or at a table in an eat-
ing area. If it is possible to have a clock visible
to the respondents, it would be ideal.

Deal with each topic separately. Hand only one dis-
cussion topic to the respondent at a time.

Spend no more than ten minutes per topic. Stop the topic
discussion at the end of that time. Say something like;
"I'm sorry folks, the time is up; and we don't want you
to have to spend extra time on this, so we'll go on to
the next topic now."

 

Do not turn on the recorder until both respondents have
had a chance to:

a. Read the tOpic from their own copy;

b. Listen to you emphasize the underlined phrases;

c. Ask any questions they may have about the topic;

d. Listen to you direct them regarding some of the
general things to consider in their discussion Of
the tOpic.

Attempt to stay out of their discussion, unless you are
asked a question by one of the, or there is a silence
of over 15 seconds.

Use eye contact only when giving a standard probe for
the particular discussion topic.

Use the standard probes only when asked, or after about
15 seconds silence, when one of the five general areas
Of consideration has not yet been mentioned by respon-
dents; and the discussion has not lasted at least five
minutes.

If the respondents are engaged in a discussion, let them
continue. Make no attempt to pull them back to the five
areas of consideration, unless they are silent and have
not used all the areas. Some of what they say may sound
irrelevant. Do not attempt to stop this sort of conver-
sation.

Following each topic's discussion, give some sort Of ver-
bal reward to the respondents, such as,"Thank you, that
was fine;" or "You've both done a good job."

APPENDIX V

DISCUSSION TIME BY TOPIC

265

 

 

mm H aa m wm OH mo H OHQOB

ow N mm A no «a HH m unmoe

mm N mm A em NH ma H canoe

mm m mm m ma ma «m a canoe
mOnOOOm mmpdcaz .Omm .cflz .Omm .OHE .Omm .sflz

coflumw>molcnmocmum

mfifielsmwz

OEwBIEdEflxmz

OEHBIEOEHCHS

 

Demos ha mafia coflmmsomfln com: UGO wmcmm

APPENDIX VI

SECOND AND THIRD DIGIT CODE CATEGORY EXAMPLES

 

266

Second digit code category examples:
1. Assertion: Any complete referential statement.

"I'm 10 years old. It's cold. Yes. I'm going.
I don't know. I'll get it. You're the one who
has to decide. It's going to be one of those
nights. We couldn't find it. He was here yes-
terday."

2. Question: Any comment punctuated with a "?."

"How old are you? OK? Right? What do you think?
Why don't you got? If you're so smart, why don't

you do it? Well, what will we talk about? Do you
listen?"

3. Talk-over: Any codable interruption, i.e., a verbal
intervention made while other is talking. A talk-
Over can take any grammatical form.

4. Noncomplete: A phrase or incomplete sentence.

"Well, ah . . . But, what I . . . Hmmmm . . .
You are . . . Now then . . . But what I really
thought was . . .It's like this, we're going to
. . . That was in . . . ah. . .Let's see if . ."

5. Other: All messages that do not fit in the previous
four categories. ~

Third digit code category examples:

1. Support: Any message that facilitates the other
interactor via assistance, agreement, encouragement,
or seeks Opinion, approval, etc.

Nonquestion form: "Yes. I agree. OK I'll help?
That's a great idea you had."

Question form: "What do you think? Could you
help me with that? Can I come
too? Are you OK?"

2. Nonsupport: Any message that Opposes the other via
resistance, rejection, disagreement, demand, chal-
lenging, etc.

Nonquestion form: "NO, I don't like it. I won't do
it. You did not. I didn't say that.
I bet I can do it better than you can."

267

Question form: "Where the hell have you been?
You disagree so--what's you View?
Will you stand still? Are you
crazy?"

Extension: A message that continues the flow or
theme (not always the precise topic) of preceding
message; or a noncommittal response, like "I don't
know," or "I can't remember."

Answer: A response with knowledge, firmness, sub-
stance that follows a question. F“

"Yes. NO. He's ten. It's two miles. I'm going
home. I want to go to the movies. You have to add
water, then Oil."

Instruction: A statement that is a qualified sug-
gestion involving clarification, justification and/
or explanation.

 

"I think we should go. It would be best if you did
it now, because it's got to be done sometime. I
really ought to. You shouldn't do that, you'll get
hurt." -

Note: If an order is qualified by a question or
"other," it is coded as an instruction, e.g.,
"You go get it, OK?"

Order: A statement of command, involving no or little
explanation.

"Get the paper. Go on to the next one. Don't do
that. Come on--right now. You do it."

Disconfirmation: A response that disregards the
demands of the previous message.

(Are you going?) "The cat's eyes are green."
(What should we do about Johnny?) "It's a little
cloudy, might even rain."

Topic change: A message that switches the flow or
theme of the preceding message.

(The baby's learning to walk now.) "Where tonight's
paper?" (I bought a new dress.) "The neighbors
sure don't take very good care Of their lawn."

268

Initiation: The first message to start a dialogue,
or if dialogue has been brought to closure, the
message that starts it up again.

"Hey, that's a good one. Well, what do you think?
To start off with, I think we need to consider what
the inputs are."

Termination: A message that brings a dialogue to a
close.

"That's about it. That does it. I gotta go now.
There's no more to say."

Other: Any message with an unclassifiable response
mode.

APPENDIX VII

TRANSCRIBING PROCEDURES

INFORMATION FOR TYPISTS/TRANSCRIBERS

General Procedures

 

Type dyad number from tape and topic number (1, 2, 3, 4)
in appropriate places on coding form.

Listen to Topic One (1) on tape in order to distinguish
speakers and their style of interaction.

After listening to T0pic One, rewind tape and, using the
coding form, begin typing the interaction when the first
member Of the dyad speaks.

Identify speaker as Husband (H) or Wife (W) by placing
the appropriate code letter in the SPEAKER column of the
coding form. NOTE: On some of the tapes, the inter-
viewer gives a probe or message designed to extend the
discussion. You will be given a sheet which indicates
those discussions that were probed. Probes will be in
the form of suggestions ("You might discuss. . .") or
requests ("Could you discuss. . .") and will include

one or more of the following points:

a. Your first impressions or reactions
b. Your expectations

c. Your feelings

d. Any problems

e. Any solutions

Identify the interviewer giving one Of these probes with
an (I) by placing this code in the SPEAKER column.

When Topic One is transcribed, rewind tape and compare
transcription with the actual interaction; correct any
errors in the transcribed copy.

When Topic One transcriptions is complete and accurate,

proceed to other topics on tape utilizing the same
general procedures.

269

270

Rules for Specifying Messages

For each person, a message represents everything he or
she says until the other person speaks. Include all
interviewer probes as messages, but please exclude mes-
sages spoken by children.

Type messages accurately as heard, including grammatical
errors. For those words that involve mispronunciations,
determine from context what word was intended and give
its correct spelling.

Indicate questions by a question mark; pay attention to
inflection patterns of a speaker's voice to determine the
interrogative form.

"Talk-Overs" are messages initiated by the second speaker
while the first is already speaking. A "successful"
talk-over is one where the first person stops talking
and allows the interruptor to speak. For this situation,
the last words spoken by the first speaker prior to be-
ing interrupted should be followed by three periods

(. . .). In addition, the interruptor's message should
be placed within brackets [ ] to indicate that it was a
successful talk-over. If, after the interruptor com-
pletes his message, the first speaker continues his
previous thought, it should be introduced by three
periods. A "nonsuccessful" talk-over is a message ini-
tiated by the second speaker while the first speaker

is talking and does not stop talking or relinquish the
floor. In other words, when the second person talks
over, both speakers continue to talk at the same time.

If distinguishable, the interruptor's message should be
placed within parentheses ( ) to indicate that it was an
unsuccessful or nonsuccessful talk-over. If the in-
terruptor's message is not distinguishable, NONDISTINGUISH-
ABLE should be typed within the parentheses.

The following examples illustrate the typing format for
these two types of talk-overs.

Successful Talk-Over

 

H: We would probably leave the radio on and--uh--tune in
W: [We'd probably use our transistor radio.]
H: . . .uh, the local warnings and weather forecasts.

271

Nonsuccessful Talk-Over

 

H: I think we'd go to the closest public shelter and
W: (We don't even know where it is.)
H: Stay there until the all clear sounded.

Pay attention to silence. For any period of silence that
is at least three (3) seconds, type the word SILENCE

in the middle of the line following the preceding mes-
sage. If the silence runs an additional five (5) seconds,
type another SILENCE below the first. For every addition-
al five second periods of silence, follow the same pro-
cedure.

For any message that is not distinguishable, identify the
speaker and type NONDISTINGUISHABLE in place in place of
the message. For a part of a message that is not dis-
tinguishable, type as much of the message that is recog-
nizable and where it becomes unclear or garbled, type
NONDISTINGUISHABLE. For example, the former situation
would be typed as follows:

H: I suppose I would come from work as soon as I could
get out.

W: NONDISTINGUISHABLE

H: Yeah, I guess that's what I'd do.

The latter situation would be typed as follows:

W: One of us would have to go to the school to check
with the teacher and the principal.

H: It depends on who it was who accused him of doing
NONDISTINGUISHABLE

W: We'd sure check up on that teacher.

APPENDIX VIII

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODERS

RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION CODING SCHEME

DIGIT ONE DIGIT TWO DIGIT THREE
(Speaker) (Format) (Response)
1 = Wife 1 = Assertion l = Support
2 = Husband 2 = Question 2 = Nonsupport
3 = Talk-Over 3 = Extension
4 = Noncomplete 4 = Answer
5 = Other 5 = Instruction
6 = Order
7 = Disconfirmation
8 = Topic change
9 = Initiation-
Termination
0 = Other

Silence is coded by a 000 code for every period

of silence

longer than three seconds. Every additional five second

period Of silence is also coded as 000.

DO NOT CODE LAUGHTER

************************

******

To illustrate how this scheme may be used to categorize

messages, a sample from an interaction is shown

below:

Husband: But then I don't remember what'd I say

to him? 223
Wife: You explained the wrong ways and the

right ways and childbirth and other

things. ll4
Husband: Oh, yah, I remember that . . . let's

see . . . 211
Wife: Over in E. Lansing they already have

a program in reproduction so he really

already knew the right way. 113

272

273

The husband's first message is coded 223 tO indicate a ques-

tion of extension that seeks information about the tOpic be-

ing discussed. The wife's first message is coded as 114 to

show that it is an assertion that serves as an answer. The

husband's second message is a supportive assertion and the

wife's second message is an assertion Of extension.

DIGIT TWO

"Assertion"

"Question"

"Talk-Over"

Definitions of Code Categories

 

Any completed referential statement that may be
in either the declarative or imperative form;
i.e., a message that has a subject and a verb.
Also, words such as "yes," "no," "sure,"
"Hmmm—mmm," "Uh-uh," and "right" which clearly
indicate a control function.

Any statement that takes an interrogative form.

Any interruption or verbal intervention made
while the other person is speaking.

"Noncomplete" Any utterance, other than those coded as "talk-

"other"

DIGIT THREE

"Support"

overs," that are initiated but are not completed.

Any utterance that is indistinguishable or is
not classifiable as to form.

Any statement giving or seeking acceptance,
agreement and/or approval.

"Nonsupport" Any statement or utterance that is a disagreement,

"Extension"

"Answer"

rejection, demand, and/or challenge.

Any statement that continues the flow or theme
of the preceding message, or any statement that
is a noncommittal response to a question.

Any statement that is a definitive response to
a question or at least has substance and/or
commitment.

274

"Instruction" Any statement that is a regulative response to
a in the form of a suggestion; it is Often
qualified or contains an explanation.

"Order" Any statement that is a regulative response but
is in the form of an unqualified command with
little or no explanation..

"Disconfirmation" Any statement that ignores or by-passes
the request of the other individual.

"Topic Change" Any response that has little continuity with
previous messages and no response continuity
was requested.

"Initiation-

Termination" Any statement that either begins or ends an
interaction; its use signifies starting and
ending points for particular discussions or
conversations.

"Other" Any response that is unclear or unclassifiable.

Priority Considerations for Using Categories
DIGIT TWO

1. First, determine if the message should be considered as
a talk-over (#3). A talk-over may be a question, as-
sertion, or noncomplete, but an interruptive speech is
coded as a talk-over, independent of form.

2. If not a talk-over, the message should be considered as
a question (#2).

3. If not a question, it should be considered as an asser-
tion (#1).

4. If not a question, it should be considered as a noncom-
plete (#4).

5. If it cannot be categorized as any of these, it is coded
as "other" (#5). For instance, any message or partial
message that is, or follows, an "INDISTINGUISHABLE" or
"NONDISTINGUISHABLE."

275

DIGIT THREE

1. The first consideration should be whether the message
initiates or terminates. (Although messages coded in
this category can also be coded in other categories--
e.g., as an answer, a nonsupport, or a tOpic change--,
the major consideration should be whether the message
is an initiation or a termination.)

2. If the message is not an initiation-termination, it
should be considered as an answer (#4). The main re-
sponse function Of an answer is to provide information.
However, an answer which gives support or nonsupport
should be coded according to its control function.

3. If the message is a response switch, it should first be
considered a disconfirmation(#7).

4. If the message is not a disconfirmation, it should be
considered a topic change (#8).

5. If the message has a regulative function, it should first
be considered as an order (#6).

6. If the message is not an order, it should be coded as
an instruction (#5).

7. If the message is not codable in any of these categories,
it should be considered an extension (#3), a message
of support (#1), or a message Of nonsupport (#2).
NOTE: Coding Of any of these three categories should
follow this priority scheme; i.e., any indecision be-
tween the three should result in a code of (#3), ex-
tension.

8. If a message cannot be categorized as any of these, it
is coded as an other (#0). Any message or partial
message that is, or follows, an "INDISTINGUISHABLE"
or "NONDISTINGUISHABLE " should be coded as an other.

Coding of Dual Response Messages

 

As shown on page one, each message by a speaker is coded
with a three digit number. In most cases, these messages will
have only a three digit code to indicate who was speaking,
what form the message was, and what the message was in res-
ponse to the other speaker's previous message. In some cases,
however, a speaker's message may serve more than just one
response mode; it may represent support as well as being

276

of a regulative nature. In these situations, such a message
will receive at least two three digit numbers to categorize

its different response functions. For example, in the follow-
ing sample interaction, the second speaker's message illustrates
a situation in which his message is an agreement or support

and also a question seeking information.

Speaker 1 (Wife): I think we should leave now. 115
Speaker 2 (Husband): Okay, I guess so, but what

about bringing the food? 211-223
Speaker 1 (Wife): Well, we'll have to come

back for it. 114

In the next sample interaction, the second speaker's message
shows both support and nonsupport Of the first speaker's
previous message.

Speaker 1 (Husband): I think we should leave now. 215
Speaker 2 (Wife): Okay, I guess so, but I don't

like you always deciding what

time we leave. 111-112
Speaker 1 (Husband): That's too bad! 212

Sample Interaction

 

The following example represents the form of interaction
that you will possibly code and illustrates both single and
dual response messages.

Wife: That's a very interesting situation,
but I really don't know how I'd
handle it, what about you, honey? ll9-l23
Husband: Well, I think that in the case of an
emergency we would probably first
tune in the radio and listen for
directions and at the same time

begin to gather up some food . . . 214
Wife: [. . . and clothing . . . ] 133
Husband: . . . to the basement . . . 243
Wife: [We' d have to take blankets . . .] 133
Husband: . . . where we'd . . . 243
Wife: [. . .because we'd need the warmth

in the basement and besides the

children would need it.] 133
Husband: Right, that sounds about right. 211

In this example, the wife's first message receives two codes--
a 119 to indicate an assertion that, arbitrarily, is defined
as starting the interaction, and a 133 to show a question that

277

seeks to extend the discussion Of the topic. The husband's
first message is an assertion that serves as an answer. The
next message from the wife is enclosed in brackets to indicate-
a successful interruption and is coded 133 to indicate a
talk-over in extension. The husband's continuation Of his
original thought is coded 243 to indicate a noncomplete that
is an extension. The wife again comes in with a talk-over

in extension and the husband tries to Complete his original
statement. The wife again successfully talks over and com—
pletes her idea. Finally, the husband makes an assertion that
supports his wife's previous message.

In some situations, messages which begin as assertions
(or talk-overs) may end as questions, or vice versa. For
example, note the following interactions:

Wife: After we met, you asked me to come

visit you, right? 113-123
Husband: Yeah, then, uh, we went home to visit

my folks. 211-213

The wife's message is double coded to indicate that she kept
the discussion going (113) but then sought information agree-
ment for what she had said (123). The husband provided
agreement (211) and then continued the flow of the conversa-
tion(213). Words that might frequently turn assertions into
questions are "Okay?", "right?", and "huh?".

Husband: And what would you do? I think you
should get some blankets, flashlight,
and water together, open all the
windows and get the kids to the base-

ment. 223-215
Wife: Shouldn't I also bring some food?

Well, oh wait, I could bring some

graham crackers for the kids. 123-113

Here, the husband asked a question (223) but didn't allow his
wife to answer. Instead, he followed his question with an
instruction (215). The wife responded with a question (123)
and then followed that with an assertion in extension (113),
rather than waiting for her husband to answer her question.

In some cases, one person may have an unsuccessful talk-
over followed by another message. For example:

Wife: I could carry the metal buckets from
the garage down to the basement and
fill them with water from the water
heater. 113

Husband:

278

(They'd be too heavy for you. You'd
need . . .). One of the boys would
have to help you carry them or you'd
trip all over yourself. 232-212

Here, the wife had a message that continued the previous

discussion (113), the husband had an unsuccessful talk-over
in disagreement or nonsupport (232), and then followed with
a statement that was also a disagreement with what the wife

had said.

DIGIT TWO

Assertion

Question

Talk-over

Code Category Examples

 

- "I think, uh, we should talk about the
public shelters."

- "It's going to depend on several things."

- "You're the one who has to decide."

- "I'll get it."

- "How Old are you?"

- "Right?"

- "Did you listen?"

- "What do you think?"

- Any message or partial message enclosed
within brackets [ ] or parentheses ( ) that
is a verbal interruption. These messages may
take any grammatical form but will be iden-
tified by the brackets or parentheses. NOTE:
In some cases, a series of three messages may
be coded as follows:

H [It would probably be at least two hours]
W (What about . . .)
H [before we could come out of the basement.]

In this sequence, the husband had a success-
ful talk-over, indicated by the [ ], the wife
had an unsuccessful talk-over while the hus-
band was talking, indicated by the ( ), and
the husband's message was continued, as in-
dicated by the [ ]. Any message within a

[ ], like any message enclosed within regular
brackets [ ], is considered a successful talk-
Over. Any message contained within a [ ] is
coded as an Assertion or Noncomplete in Ex-
tension and is 22E coded as a talk-over in
Extension.

Noncomplete

Other

DIGIT THREE

Support

Nonsupport

Extension

Answer

Instruction

279

"Well, ah . . ." Mmm . . ."
"But what I really thought . . ." "Umm. ."
". . . and besides, uh, we, uh . . .""Ah. ."

All messages that do not fit in the previous

four categories.

QUESTION FORM - "Are you Okay?"
"What do you think?"
- "Could you help me with that?"
- "Can I come too?"

ASSERTION FORM "Yes, I agree." "Yeah."
"Hmm-mm."
- "Okay, I'll help." "Right."
- "That's a great idea." "Sure."

QUESTION FORM "Why would you want to do
something stupid like that?"
- "Are you crazy?"

- "I suppose you're smarter?"

ASSERTION FORM "I don't like it." "uh-uh."
- "We won't do it."
- "That's ridiculous."

"Furthermore, its the best way to do it."

"I don't know." .

(NOTE: In order to be coded as an extension,
a message has to continue the flow or theme
of a preceding message, or be a noncommittal
response to a question.)

"It's forty miles to the nearest public
shelter."

"You have to add water, then oil."

(NOTE: An answer is a definitive response to
a question.)

"I think we should go."

"You have school tomorrow and its time you

went to bed."

"You shouldn't do that because you'll get
hurt."

"You go get it, okay?"

Order

Disconfirmation

Topic change

Initiation

Termination

Other

280

"Close the door."

"Go on to the next one."
"Don't do that."

"You do it."

- (Are you going?) "It's fourteen above in
Kalamazoo." .

- (What should we do tomorrow night?) "It's
raining outside."

- (NOTE: Disconfirmations represent messages
that disregard requests or demands Of pre-
vious messages.)

(The baby's learning to walk now.) "Where's
tonight's paper?"

(I bought a new dress.) "Hey, guess who I
saw today at work?"

(We're eating late tonight.) "Let's gO to
the hockey game on Saturday."

"Well, to start off with, I think we need to
consider what the conditions are."

"We would probably go to the basement right
away."

(NOTE: An initiation is any message that
starts a dialogue or discussion.)

"That's about it."

"There's no more to say."

(NOTE: A termination is any message that
brings a dialogue to a close.)

Any message with an unclassifiable response
mode, i.e., messages or parts of messages
labeled as "INDISTINGUISHABLE" or "NONDISTIN-
GUISABLE."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, N. W. The ngchodynamics of Family Life.
New York: Basic Books, 1958.

Adams, J. S. "Inequality in Social Exchange." In
Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic .
Press, 1965, pp. 267-299.

 

Adler, L. E. and Enelow, A. J. "A Scale to Measure
Psychotherapy Interaction." Unpublished
Manuscript, University of Southern California,
1964.

Amidon, E. J. and Flanders, N. The Role of the Teacher
in the Classroom. Minneapolis: Amidon and
AssoEiates, I963.

 

 

Amidon, E. J. and Hough, J. B. (eds.). Interaction
Analysis: Theory, Research and Application.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1967.

 

Argyle, M. The Psychology oflInterpersonal Behaviour.
Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1967.

. Social Interaction. New York: Atherton
Press, 1969.

 

Bales, R. F. Interaction Process Analysis: A Method
for the Study of Small Groups. Reading, Mass.:
Addison—Wesley, 1950.

 

 

. "How People Interact in Conferences."
Scientific American, 192, 1955, 31-35.

 

and Borgatta, E. F. "Size of Group as a
Factor in the Interaction Profile." In Small
Groups: Studies in Social Interaction. A. P.
Hare, E. F. Borgatta, and R. F. Bales (eds.).
New York: Knopf, 1955, 395-413.

 

 

Bateson, G. Naven. 2nd ed. (first published in 1936).
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.

281

282

Becker, J. Systematic Sociology on the Basis of the
Beziéhungslehre and Gebildelehre of Leopold
von Wiese. New Yofk: WIley, I932.

 

 

 

and Useem, R. H. "Sociological Analysis of
the Dyad." American Sociological Review, 7,
1942, 13-26.'

 

Berkowitz, L., and Howard, R. C. "Reactions to Opinion
Deviates as Affected by Affiliation Need and
Group Member Interdependence." Sociometry, 22,
1959, 81-91.

 

Berlo, D. K. "Essays on Communication.“ Unpublished
Manuscript, Department of Communications,
Michigan State University, 1970.

Bertalanffy, L. von. "General System Theory--A Critical
Review" General Systems, VII, 1962, 1-20.

 

Bishop, B. M. "Mother-Child Interaction and the Social
Behavior of Children." Psychol. Monogr., 11:65,
1951, 1-43.

 

Blumstein, P. W. and Weinstein, E. A. "The Redress of
Distributive Injustice." The American Journal
of Sociology, 74, 1969, 408-418.

 

 

Bodin, A. M. Family Interaction, Coalition DiSagreement
and Compromise in Problem, Normal and Synthetic
Family Triads. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.
State University of New York at Buffalo, 1966.

Borgatta, E. F. "A Systematic Study of Interaction
Process Scores, Peer and Self-Assessments,
Personality and Other Variables." Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 63, 1961, 3-65.

 

and Cottrell, L. S. "On the Classification of
Groups." Sociometry, 18, 1955, 665-678.

 

; Cottrell, L. S.; and Meyer, H. J. "On the
Domensions of Group Behavior." Sociometry,
19, 1956, 223-240.

 

and Guerrin, R. F. "The Two Person Group:
Some Notes on Theory and Research." Sociology
and Social Research, 45, 1960, 3-13.

 

 

283

Borke, H. "The Communication of Intent: A Systematic
Approach to the Observation of Family Interaction."
Human Relations, 20, 1967, 13-28.

 

. "The Communication of Intent: A Revised
Procedure for Analyzing Family Interaction from
Video Tapes." Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 31, 1969, 541—544.

 

Bossard, J. H. "Low of Family Interaction.“ American
Journal of Sociology, 50, 1956, 292-294.

 

Buckley, W. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967.

Burgess, E. W. "The Family as a Unity of Interacting
Personalities." Family, 7, 1926, 5.

Burr, W. R. "An Expansion and Test of a Role Theory of
Marital Satisfaction." Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 33, 1971, 368;372.

 

 

Caputo, D. V. "Parents of the Schizophrenic." Family
Process, 2, 1963, 339-356.

Carr, L. J. "Experimental Sociology: A Preliminary
Note on Theory and Method." Social Forces, 8,
1929, 63—74.

 

Carter, L. F.; Haythorn, W.; Meirowitz, B.; and Lanzetta,
J. "The Relation of Categorizations and Ratings
in the Observation of Group Behavior." Human
Relations, 4, 1951, 239-254.

 

Cattell, R. B. "Concepts and Method in the Measurement
of Group Syntality." Psychological Review, LV,
1948, 43—63.

. "New Concepts for Measuring Leadership in Terms
of Group Syntality." Human Relations, 4, 1951,
161-184.

 

Chapple, E. D. "Measuring Human Relations: An Introduc-
tion to the Study of Interaction of Individuals,"
Genetic Psychology Monography, 22, 1940, 3-147.

. "The Interaction Chronograph: Its Evolution
and Present Application." Personnel, 25, 1949,
295-307.

 

284

Cheek, F. E. "The Schizophrenogenic Mother in Word and
Deed." Family Process, 3, 1964, 155-177.

 

Corsini, R. "Multiple Predictors of Marital Happiness."
Marriage and Family Living, 18, 1956, 240—242.

Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. "Construct Validity
in Psychological Tests." Psychological Bulletin,
52, 1955, 281-302. I'

DeGre, G. "Outline for a Systematic Classification of
Social Groups." American Sociological Review,
14, 1949), 145—148.

Deitcher, S. "Development of Interspousal Verbal Com-
munication of College-Educated Couples." Unpub-
lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University,
1959.

Denzin, N. K. "Rules of Conduct and the Study of
Deviant Behavior: Some Notes on the Social
Relationship." In G. T. McCall (ed.), Social
Relationships. Chicago: Aldine, 1970, 62-94.

 

Duncan, H. D. "The Search for a Social Theory of Com—
munication in American Sociology." In F. Dance
(ed.), Human Communication Theory. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967, 236-263.

Durkheim, E. The Division of LaDor in Sociepy. Trans.
by G. Simpson, Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1893.

Duvall, E. M. Family Development. Chicago: Lippincott,
1957.

Dymond, R. "Interpersonal Perception and Marital Happi-
ness." Canadian Journal of Psychology, 8, 1954,
164-171.

Ericson, P. M. "Relational Communication: Complementarity
and Symmetry and Their Relation to Dominance-
Submission." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1972.

Farina, A. "Patterns of Role Dominance and Conflict in
Parents of Schizophrenic Patients." Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psyghology, 51, 1960, 31-38.

285

Ferreira, A. J. "Decision—Making in Normal and Patho—
logical Families." Archives of General Psychiatry,
8, 1963, 68—73.

and Winter, W. D. "Family Interaction and
Decision Making.“ Archives Of General Psychiatry,
13, 1965, 214—223.

and Pointdexter, E. J. "Some Interactional
Variables in Normal and Abnormal Families."
Family Process, 5, 1966, 60—75.

Festinger, L. "Informal Social Communication." Psycho-
logical Review, 57, 1950, 271—282.

and Thibaut, J. "Interpersonal Communication
in Small Groups." Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 46, 1951, 92—99.

Fisher, 8.; Boyd, I.; Walker, D.; and Sheer, D. "Parents
of Schizophrenics, Neurotics, and Normals."
Archives of General Psychiatry, 1, 1959, 149-166.

Flanders, N. "Interaction Analysis in the Classroom:
A Manual for Observers." Unpublished Manuscript,
1960.

Framo, J. L. "Systematic Research on Family Dynamics."

In I. Boszormenyl-Nagy and J. Framo (ed.),
Intensive Family Therapy, Chapter 11.. New York:
HOEBer Medical DivisiOn, Harper and Row, 1965.

Goffman, E. "The Nature of Deference and Demeanor."
Interaction Ritual. Garden City: Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1967.

Goldman-Eisler, F. "A Study of Individual Differences
and of Interaction in the Behavior of Some
Aspects of Language in Interviews." Journal of
Mental Science, 100, 1954, 177—197.

Golembiewski, R. T. ThetSmall Group. Chicago: Univer-
sity Of Chicago Press, 1962.

Gross, N.; Mason, W. S.; and McEachern, A. W. Ex lora-
tions in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1958.

Haberstron, C. J. "Organization Design and Systems
Analysis." In J. March (ed.) Handbook of Orgagiza-
tions. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965, p. 1173.

286
Haley, J. "Family Experiments: A View Type of Experi-
mentation." Family Process, 1, 1962, 265-293.

. "Marriage Therapy." Archives of General Psy-
chiatry, 8, 1963, 213—224}

 

. "Research on Family Patterns: An Instrument
Measurement." Family Process, 3, 1964, 41-65.

 

. "Speech Sequences of Normal and Abnormal
Families with Two Children Present." Family
Process, 6, 1967, 81-97.

Hall, A. D. and Fagen, R. E. "Definition of System."
General Systems, I, 1956, 18—28.

 

Hawkins, J. L. and Johnsen, K. "Perception of Behavioral
Conformity, Imputation of Consensus, and Marital
Satisfaction." Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 31, 1969, 507-511.

Hemphill, J. K. Situational Factors in Leadership.
Ohio State University: EducatiOnal Research
Monograph NO. 32, 1949.

 

. Group Dimepsions: A Manual for their Measure-
ment. Ohio State University: Bureau of BuSiness
Research Monograph, 1956.

Hess, R. and Handel, G. Family Worlds. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1959.

 

Hill, R.; Back, K.; and Stycos, J. M. "Intra-Family
Communication and Fertility in Puerto Rico."
Rural Sociology, 20, 1955, 258-271.

 

Homans, G. C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, 1950.

 

. "Social Behavior as Exchange." The American
Journal of Sociology, LXII, 1958, 597-606.

 

. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961.

Horney, K. Our Inner Conflicts. New York: Norton,
1945.

 

Hurvitz, N. "The Marital Roles Inventory and the Measure-
ment of Marital Adjustment." Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 16, 1960, 377-380.

 

 

287

Jackson, D. D. "The Study of Family." Family Process,
4, 1965, l-20.

. "Family Interaction, Family Homeostasis and
Some Implications for Conjoint Family Psycho-
therapy." In J. H. Masserman (ed.), Individual
and Famil Dynamics. New York: Grune and
Statton, Inc., 1959, 122-141.

 

Jahoda, M.; Deutsch, M.; and Cook, S. W. Research Methods
in Social Relations, Vol. I. New Yofk: Dryden
Press, I955.

 

Kenkel, W. F. "Observational Studies of Husband-Wife
Interaction in Family Decision-Making." In
M. B. Sussman (ed.) Source Book in Marriaga

and the Famil . Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1963, 144-156.

Kolar, S. :"Middle—Class Marital Role Perceptions and
Marital Adjustment." Sociology and Social
Research, 49, 1965, 283-293.

Komarovsky, M. Blue-Collar Marriage. New York: Random
House, 1962.

Leary, T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New
York: Ronald,i1957.

Lennard, H. L.; Beaulieu, M. R.; and Embrey, N. G.
"Interaction in Families with a Schizophrenic
Child." Archives of General Psychiatry, 12,
1965, 166-183.

Lidz, T.; Cornelison, A.; Fleck, S.; and Terry, D. "The
Intrafamilial Environment of Schizophrenic
Patients: II. Marital Schism and Marital Skew.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 114, 1957, 241-248.

. "The Intrafamiliar Environment of Schizophrenic
Patients: VI. Transmission of Irrationality.
Archieves of Neurological Psychiatry, 79, 1958,

 

 

305-316.

Luckey, E. B. "Marital Satisfaction and Congruent Self-
Spouse Concepts." Social Forces, 34, 1960,
153-157.

. "Perceptional Congruence of Self and Family
Concepts as Related to Marital Interaction."
Sociometry, 24, 1961, 234-250.

 

288

Mangus, A. "Family Impacts on Mental Health." Marriage
and Family Living, 19, 1957, 256—262.

 

Mark, R. A. "Parameters of Normal Family Communication
in the Dyad." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.

Markwell, G., and Hage, J. "The Organization of Role-
Relationships: A Systematic Description."
American Sociological Review, 35, 1970, 884—900.

 

McCall, G. J. "The Social Organization of Relationships."
In G. J. McCall (ed.) Social Relationships.
Chicago: Aldine, 1970, 3-34.

 

, and Simons, J. L. Identities and Interactions.
New York: Free Press, 1966.

 

Mishler, E. and Waxler, N. "Interaction Sequences in
Normal and Schizophrenic Family Triads: Appli-
cations of Multivariate Informational Analysis."
Unpublished Manuscript. Boston: Massachusetts
Mental Health Center, 1969.

Ort, R. S. "A Study of Role—Conflicts as Related to
Happiness in Marriage." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, XLV, 1950, 691-699.

 

 

 

Parsons, T. The Social System. New York: Free Press,
1951. -

Peak, H. "Problems of Objective Observation." In L.
Festinger and D. Katz (eds.) Research Methods
in the Behavioral Science. New York} Dryden
Press, 1953, 243—300.

 

 

Rainwater, L.; Coleman, R.; and Handel, G. Workingman's
Wife. New York: MacFadden Books, 1962.

 

Redfield, R. The Folklgulture of Yucatan. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1941.

 

Rogers, L. E. "Social Exchange: Basic Issues." Unpub-
lished Manuscript. Department of Communication,
Michigan State University, 1971.

Rollins, B. C. and Feldman, H. "Marital Satisfaction
Over the Family Life Cycle." Journal Of Marriage
and the Family, 32, 1970, 20-28.

 

 

289

Rosenfeld, H. "Instrumental Affiliative Function of
Facial and Gestural Expressions." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 1966,
65'72 o

Ruesch, J. and Bateson, G. CommunicatioanThe Social
Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1951.

 

Rychoff, J.; Day, J.; and Wynne, L. "Maintenance of
Stereotyped Roles in the Families of Schizophre-
nics." Archives Of General Psychiatry, 1, 1959,
93'980

Safilios-Rothchild, C. "Family Sociology or Wives'
Family Sociology? A Cross—Cultural Examination
of Decision—Making." Journal Of Marriage and
the Family, 31, 1969, 291-292.

 

Satir, V. Conjoint Family Therapy. Palo Alto: Science
and Behavior BOOks, 1967.

 

 

Schachter, 8. "Deviation, Rejection and Communication."
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 46, 1951,
190-207.

Simmel, G. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe:
Free Press. Translated by K. Wolff, 1950.

Smardan, L. "An Exploratory Study of Communication."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell
University, 1957.

Sluzki, G. E. and Beavin, J. "Simetriay Complementari-
did: Una Definicion Operacional y una Tipologia
de Parejas." Acta Psiquidtrica y Psicologica de
America Latina, 11, 1965, 321-330.

 

Soskin, W. F. and John, U. P. "The Study of Spontaneous
Talk." In R. G. Barker (ed.), The Stream of
Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts,

1963, 228-281.

Steinzor, B. "The Development and Evaluation of a
Measure of Social Interaction." Human Relations,
2, 1949, 103-122.

Straus, M. A. "Communication, Creativity and Problem-
Solving of Middle and Working Class Families in
Three Societies." In M. Sussman (ed.), Source-
book in Marriage and the Family, 3rd edition.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968, pp. 15-27.

 

290

Strodtbeck, F. L. "Husband-Wife Interaction over Revealed
Differences." American Sociological Review, 16,
1951, 468-473.

. "The Family as a Three Person Group." American
Sociological Review, 19, 1954, 23—29.

 

Stuckert, R. "Role Perception and Marital Satisfaction--
A Configurational Approach." Marriage and Family
Living, 23, 1963, 415—419.

Sullivan, H. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry.
New York: Norton, 1953.

Thibaut, J. W. and Kelley, H. H. The Social Psychology
of Groups. New York: Wiley, 1959.

 

Thomas, D.; Loomis, A.; and Arrington, R. Observational
Studies Of Social Behavior. Yale University,
Institute of Human Relations, Vol. I, 1933.

 

Thomas, E. J. and Fink, C. F. "Effects of Group Size."
Psychological Bulletin, 60, 1963, 371—384.

 

TOnnies, F. Egmeinschaft angyGesellschaft. (Translated
by C. P. Loomis, 1957), East Lansing: Michigan
State University Press, 1887.

Watzlawick, P. and Beavin, J. "Some Formal Aspects of
Communication." The American Behavioral Scientist,
10, 1967, 4-8.

, and Jackson, D. D. Pragmaticslof Human Communi-
cation. New York: Norton, 1967.

Waxler, N. and Mishler, E. "Experimental Studies in
Families." In L. Berkovitz (ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 5, 1970,

Weick, K. E. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

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

ll)llllflllHHIIHIIIWIWIIHIIIHIIIIWIIHII)WWHI