Proposed Method

boxscore-IV_DVchart_visual.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Proposed Method

Researchers subjects Method/IVs DVs Outcomes

Satisfaction, affect, and reciprocity___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Huston & Vangelisti (91)

newlyweds face-to-face interviews; satisfaction and 10 semantic differential items

Satisfaction & other characteristics

• H's & W's negativity → W's dissatisfaction; not the reverse.

Huston & Chorost (94)

105 newlyweds

Longitudinal (yearly follow up for 2 yrs) - negativity, affectional expression, maintenance behs. Discussion and interview.

Satisfaction, accommodation, and negativity

• Affectional expression & Maintenance buffered W from their H's negativity, but W's aff. had no effect on H

Gottman (79) 15 Distressed & 15 non- distressed couples

Talk-table, video interactions (see below for details of talk- table)

Coded negativity, measured self-reported satisfaction

• *Distressed W's negativity → H's satisfaction, not the reverse

Gaelick et al. (85)

29 hetero couples co- habitating @ least 6 mo.

Ongoing relationship problems discussed in lab

Perceived intent of message, actual intent, & response to message

• All couples underestimate freq. of intended warmth messages & accurately perceive hostility messages. W > M @ hostility interpretation

• W's expressions of hostility did not effect H's overall rel. beliefs, but W's rel beliefs highly corr. w/ their own & their partners' expressions and perceptions of negative affect

• W seem more inclined than M to attribute partners' hostility to deep underlying feelings w/ serious rel. implications

• H less bothered by W's hostility than W bothered by H's host. when they noticed it, which wasn't as often as W noticed H's hostility

Buss (89) College students in dating rels.

Questionnaire: what bothers you most about partner?

Amount of negativity associated with each behavior

• M most upset by partner's complaining and withholding sex; W most upset by partner's rejecting, neglecting, and frequent sex demands

Pasch, Bradbury & Davila (97)

60 Community newlyweds (age 35 and under)

10 minute interaction; Assessed helping (helper and helpee behavior) , Ss discussed nonmarital issue. Coders used the Social Support Interaction Coding System (SSICS) on videotaped behavior. Both partners were helpers and helpees

-Reciprocity

-Support behaviors -MAT (Satisfaction) -Depression (BDI) -Neuroticism (EPQ-N)

• husbands high in negative affectivity received high levels of Positive Emotional behavior from their wives. Wives high in negative affectivity received relatively low levels of Positive Emotional and Positive Other behaviors from their husbands.

• W more likely to reciprocate their partners' feelings and behavioral expressions than M

• Ws' negative affectivity was not related to patterns of negative reciprocity, but Hs negativity was strongly related to negative behavioral sequences

Gottman & Levensen (99b) (Need to add to paper)

42 married couples at all levels of satisfaction

Longitudinal (4 year follow-up) a second lab interaction. Discussed "events of last 4 years" and conflict (spouses chose topic)

Coded videos for facial and voice affect, coded number of consecutively similarly coded speech-acts Stability of emotional expression over time

• H > stable than W for belligerence, domineering beh., contempt, and tension/fear

• W > stable than H for whining and positive & negative affect (note: stereotypical behs in marriage, not found in diary studies of non- marrieds)

Researchers subjects Method/IVs DVs Outcomes

Gill et al. 99

(need to add to paper)

40 married couples @ differing levels of sat.

15 min. Lab discussion (problem rated highest in disagreement by both spouses). Tried to work towards a mutually agreeable solution. MAT mailed to most couples 1 year later.

Raters took turns rating Hs and Ws beh. on videotapes. Used the Revised Conflict Rating Scale --negative, positive, and avoidant beh. Also used the Verbal Tactics Coding Scale to code neg, pos, and avoidant communication behs.

• Hs' negativity did not predict changes in Hs' satisfaction

• H's positivity neg. assoc. w/ change in Hs' satisfaction.

• Hs' avoidance pos. assoc. w/ change in Hs' satisfaction

• Ws' negativity assoc. w/ decreases in Ws' satisfaction

• Ws' positivity assoc. w/ Ws' improved satisfaction

• Ws' avoidance predicted no changes in Ws' satisfaction

• Hs' negativity → declines in Ws' sat

• Hs' positivity →improved Ws' satisfaction

• Hs' avoidance did not predict changes in Ws' satisfaction

• W's negativity did not predict declines in Hs' satisfaction, and Ws' positivity did not predict improved Hs' satisfact.

• Ws' avoidance predicted improvements in Hs' satisfact.

Gottman, et al. (76)

30 married couples 15 distressed, 15 non- distressed)

two high-conflict tasks: agreed- upon relationship problem and the Inventory of Marital Conflict (IMC). Talk table used

Performed analyses of covariance to compare the probabilities of positive and negative statements from husbands and wives, given a prior positive or negative statement from husbands or wives. Reciprocity

• *H = W message intent and interpretation

• bank account model supported (nondistressed marriage = more positive deposits than negative withdrawals. Consequent positive impact codes are not contingent upon the spouse's antecedent coding)

Physiological measurements________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Levensen and Gottman (85)

30 married couples 15 distressed, 15 non- distressed)

two 15-minute conversation interactions and for a 5-minute pre-interaction baseline prior to each interaction. Talk table used

Heart rate, pulse transmission time, skin conductance level and general somatic activity; satisfaction

• Satisfaction > when where W showed < positive affect and H showed > negative affect.

• < involvement by the H → wife's decreased satisfaction

• > involvement by the W → wife's decreased satisfaction

• Neither wives' nor husbands' behaviors predicted husbands' satisfaction

• Marital satisfaction higher in rels where Ws showed less positive affect and Hs showed more neg. affect.

• Decreases in satisf. → Ws' GSR & Hs' faster heart rate

Levensen, Carstensen, & Gottman (1994)

151 old and middle-aged married couples, satisfied or dissatisfied

Videotaped three 15-min. discussions of a neutral topic, resolving a conflict, and a positive topic. Spouses view videotapes & provide self-reports of affect during the interactions (talk table)

self-reported affect → Cardiac interbeat interval → skin conductance level → general somatic activity → pulse transmission time to finger and ear → finger pulse amplitude → finger temperature →

• men's subjective affect was correlated with most types of physiological data collected.

• Found no correlation between women's physiological data and their self-reported affect,

H > W H > W H > W H > W H > W H > W H > W

Kiecolt- Glaser et al. (1996).

90 newlyweds 24-hr clinic admission; couples had blood drawn, had conflict discussion, pleasant interview w/ experimenters, then blood drawn hourly until 5pm

measure the stress hormones cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine, as well as growth hormone and prolactin

• H < W on all physiological measures

• Hs' positive behavior accounted for the most variance

• Neither satisfaction, affect, nor personality measures showed reliable relationships w/ endocrine data. (so what does the data actually show?)

Researchers subjects Method/IVs DVs Outcomes

Newton et al. (99) (need to add to paper)

68 healthy under- graduates from subject pool (34 M, 34 W)

Dyad partners randomly assigned (mixed-sex). Videotaped 3 3-min. discussions, each separated by a 3 min rest period. Partners were seated back-to-back. PAQ (to assess trait dominance!!), Cook & Medley Hostility scale

State affect (self-reported after each discussion). Affect related to dominance, submissiveness, & effortful engagement; Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate.

• Trait dominance higher for M than W, but no diffs. for trait hostility

• No diffs. in effect of DBP or HR, indicating that these were stable and comparable across the test periods

• Men showed the greatest SBP reactivity, but trait dominance assoc. w/ SBP for M and not for W.

• Women had higher HR reactivity

• They explain that the mixed-sex dyad may be a context that activates sex-stereotypic beh (as in marriage?), which calls for men to lead and women to follow

Newton & Sanford (under review)

41 married couples were recruited from newspaper ads, public service announcement s, newsletters, (initially 116 contacted researchers)

Chose 1 topic in which H sought change in W, and 1 topic in which W sought change in H. (other did not desire change). 15-min. discussion w/ 11-min rest btwn topics. Counterbalanced order.

MAT (satisfaction), State affect - subjective dominance, mental effort, and feeling in control. SBP, DBP, and HR measured Behavioral coding of videos for hostility and dominance; talk time in seconds; conflict outcome

• Feelings of dominance increased more among W than H

• Changes in state dominance varied by social position (want change vs. status quo) only for H.

• SBP increased for W from baseline to rest after discussion, but did not increase for H (who had higher baseline SBP).

• Hs & Ws both showed > DBP when seeking change from spouse than when they wanted status quo.

• Ws' HR was > than Hs' when they wanted spouse change

Relationship longevity/survival______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gottman & Levensen (99a) (Need to add to paper)

79 married couples at all levels of satisfaction

Longitudinal (4 year follow-up) 3 15-minute conversation interactions and for a 5-minute pre-interaction baseline prior to each interaction.

Coded videos for facial and voice affect, coded number of consecutively similarly coded speech-acts Whether couple stayed together

• Stayed married: < H contempt/disgust, > H interest

• Stayed married: < W sadness, < W affection, > W interest

Carrere & Gottman (99) (Need to add to paper)

124 married couples at all levels of satisfaction

Longitudinal (yearly 6 yr. follow up). Discussed their most problematic issues (15 mins),

Coded videos for facial and voice affect, coded number of consecutively similarly coded speech-acts Whether couple stayed together

• For Both H & W, STARTUP of conflict discussion predicts divorce.

• Stable marriages = less neg. and more pos. affect at very beginning of discussion

• Hs' differences are amplified over remaining discussion time: Hs' data predicts divorce better (more easily).

• Hs' in stable marriages become > neg. but stay = pos. while Hs' who divorce become > neg. and < pos.

• For Ws, initial group diffs. not amplified over interaction

Researchers subjects Method/IVs DVs Outcomes

Bradbury and Fincham (1988)

Married couples from a community sample

Discuss marital problem and attempt to solve it to mutual satisfaction

Responsibility and causal attributions measured

• when distressed wives make causal or responsibility attributions for their husbands' behavior, both spouses tend to engage in poor problem-solving skills

• husbands' attributions do not predict problem solving behavior for either distressed or nondistressed couples

Bradbury and Fincham (1992)

47 married couples "from all walks of life" (originally 225 couples, narrowed down sample, to represent all levels of satisfaction)

Spouses rated the degree to which each topic was experienced as a difficulty in the marriage, and these values were summed individually for each partner. Husbands and wives were then instructed to make causal and responsibility attributions for the topic with the highest value. A second topic that was problematic for spouses was chosen by the experimenter, and this problem could differ between the spouses if they disagreed about what topics were problems. Participants then met to discuss the problem for 15 minutes while seated facing each other

Videotapes were coded for problem- solving ability and maladaptive attributions (both causal and responsibility)

• Ws exhibited < positive behavior when they made unfavorable causal and responsibility attributions for their husbands' actions.

• Hs with lower levels of marital satisfaction exhibited > avoidant and negative behaviors, and < positive behaviors.

• Ws' satisfaction was not related to the rate of their negative and avoidant behaviors, and Hs' attributions were not associated with their negative and avoidant behaviors.

• Hs' satisfaction and Ws' attributions predict rates of positive, negative, and avoidant behavior to a certain extent.

• high marital distress was related to maladaptive causal attributions for W but not for H, but higher levels of distress were related to maladaptive responsibility attributions for H and W.

• Ws' maladaptive causal attributions and responsibility attributions are related to relationship satisfaction. Only Hs' maladaptive causal attributions are related to relationship satisfaction.

• distressed Hs making maladaptive attributions were less likely to avoid discussion of the problem than were non-distressed Hs.