1

Cognition During Marital Conflict: The Relationship of Thought and Talk

Alan Sillars, University of Montana Linda J. Roberts, University of Wisconsin-Madison Kenneth E. Leonard, Research Institute on Addictions and State University of New York at Buffalo Medical School Tim Dun, University of Iowa

This research was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grant R01AA08128. We wish to thank coders Jennifer Brodsky, Michele Crepeau, Shannon Marr, and Karissa Reinke, project directors Maria Testa and Tanya Bowen, and experimenters Rachel Levy, Tom Daniels, Daria Papalia, Jennifer Livingston, John Sabino, and Bill Zywiak. We would also like to acknowledge Richard E. Heyman and Roberts L. Weiss for their input and advice on the implementation of the video-assisted recall protocol.

In press, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

2 Abstract This paper describes and analyzes the stream of thought occurring concurrently with overt communication about marital conflict. The research considers how marital conflicts may be affected by selective attention to different elements of conflict (different emotions, issues, interactional behaviors, and background events) and by spontaneous attributions about communicative intentions and outcomes. One hundred eighteen couples discussed a current conflict issue, then individually watched a videotape of the discussion and reported thoughts and feelings experienced during the discussion. Descriptively, the thoughts revealed limited complexity, infrequent perspective taking, a predominant concern for implicit relationship issues over content issues, and frequent direct analysis of the communication process. Spouses viewed their own communication in more favorable terms than their partners communication. Husbands and wives also viewed the interactions differently, with wives appearing, in certain respects, more other-directed, relationship-sensitive, and objective. Interaction-based thoughts were especially subjective in the most severe conflicts, as suggested by a lack of correspondence between attributions about communication and observer coding of the interactions. Further, in severe conflicts and dissatisfied relationships, the individuals had more angry, blaming, and pessimistic thoughts and less focus on content issues.

3 Inevitably, interpersonal and marital conflicts reflect differences in partners perspectives. Within intense conflicts and distressed relationships, these differences may be especially pronounced. Despite some inconsistencies, most studies find lower understanding and congruence of perception in dissatisfied relationships (Ickes & Simpson, 1997; Noller & Gallois, 1986; Sillars & Scott, 1983), along with an increased tendency to make self-enhancing and partner-effacing attributions for marital conflict (Fletcher & Fincham, 1991). Divergent perspectives and thoughts about a conflict are played out in dyadic communication. For example, partners may attribute hidden implications to ambiguous messages, selectively remember background information that supports self or contradicts the partner, berate the partners communicative intentions (Guthrie & Noller, 1986), blame the partner for a failure to resolve issues, or react strongly to anticipated behaviors and emotional triggers based on private mulling that has preceded the interaction (Berger, 1992; Cloven & Roloff, 1991, 1993). Thus, while marital communication has the potential to bring partners perspectives more closely in line, it can also drive perspectives further apart. To study perspectives on conflict as they are manifested in interpersonal communication, we need a means of simulating the in vivo stream of thought that occurs during interaction. The most descriptively rich and realistic simulation yet devised involves the use of video-assisted recall, in which individuals first interact, then reconstruct their earlier thoughts and feelings while viewing a videotape of the discussion (Halford & Sanders, 1990; Waldron & Cegala, 1992). Although this method has been employed in a variety of contexts, its descriptive potential has scarcely been tapped, much less exhausted. We find a compelling interest in the form and content of moment-by-moment cognition during interactions. In the broadest terms, our argument is that the developmental course of

4 conflict turns on the intersection of subjective thought and overt talk. Simply stated, words and gestures are ambiguous signals that require interpretation. Further, in interpersonal and marital conflicts, individuals often interpret interaction in an incongruous manner; at times, dramatically so. Thus, to appreciate the subtlety and complexity of communication in conflict, it is helpful to consider what people are thinking as they interact and how their interpretive frameworks might vary. In the research reported here, we analyze video-assisted recall and behavioral interaction data from an observational study of marital conflict. Our primary goal is to document, in some detail, the spontaneous thoughts that spouses reported while reliving their interactions and to use these data to identify divergent partner perspectives on marital communication. We compare husband versus wife perspectives, self-directed thoughts versus partner-directed thoughts, and insider coding of the interaction versus observational coding. First, however, we elaborate the rationale for this in-depth analysis of interaction-based thought. Thoughts During Conflict We propose that selective perception is a central dynamic in conflict, particularly with respect to differential monitoring and interpretation of the stream of interpersonal communication. As we elaborate further on, the nature of this selection process is shaped by ones participation in the communicative process and thus is difficult to assess with global self-reports about conflict detached from live interaction. Consider the following example. A couple has a sharp disagreement relating to the husbands current unemployment. The husband tries to convince his wife to look for a job. She resists, partly on the basis that the children depend on her and further, she would like to be asked, not told to look for work. While separately reviewing the videotaped discussion, they report the following synchronous thoughts.

5 She thinks... I feel he...he uh...that it's up to him first to make up his decision because the household really revolves around him. So.... He thinks... She's just trying to prove a point and what she's saying really isn't true. She's just saying that cause I think that's the best thing that she's got on me. He's more or less upset, of course, that he lost his job, and he's under a lot of pressure but he's making it sound like it's my responsibility. He's more or less telling me, like, get a job, like, or else...where I don't feel it should be that way. She's making up another excuse. She always uses excuses, just to get out of doing anything. Always somebody else. But never doing anything for herself. Can't resolve nothing. She's backed up in a corner and she just wants to push the blame off on...most likely me or anybody that she could at the time.... I feel again he's using me as a scapegoat because I know he's hurting inside and everything...He also feels bad because he knows that I have someone to go to, to talk to and he really don't, except me. There I feel that he felt real bad, that maybe he was realizing what he was really saying. Now she's backing down and she's almost ready to give up. She'd walk out if she got any more pissed off. But I still have to drive it into her head and she still won't listen. I'll just keep pressing, to prove a point or just until she gives in.

Although there is great diversity in the thoughts that occur to individuals during marital

6 quarrels, this excerpt illustrates certain typical features. Most obviously, each person constructs an independent account of the conflict. Even the wifes attempts to empathize with her partners perspective show little recognition of what the husband is actually thinking and her direct attempt to anticipate his thoughts (he felt real bad...he was realizing what he was really saying) falls well short of the mark. The different constructions of the situation reflect disparities at both global and proximal levels of inference. At a global level, the husband believes that his wife does not want to face responsibility. From the wifes perspective, her husband is behaving irrationally, due to his stressful situation and social isolation. These global explanations frame proximal inferences about communication within the immediate encounter. That is, the husband sees the wifes communication as diversionary and manipulative, for example, she distorts the truth, makes excuses, and blames himself and others for her own failure to take responsibility. From the wifes perspective, the husband pressures and scapegoats her because he feels hurt. Thus, each person draws very different conclusions about the source of the conflict, the events that feed into the conflict, and the meaning of their interactional behaviors. In certain respects, the properties and demands of interpersonal communication contribute to diverging perspectives on interaction, as illustrated in the preceding example. Participation in communication presents a demanding cognitive environment that has the potential to increase divergence of perspectives, particularly when interactions are contentious, stressful, and angry. Of course, talking about conflict also has the potential to bring perspectives more closely in line by making assumptions and perceptions explicit, however, there are obvious exceptions in which communication reinforces divergent thinking (Sillars, 1998). Several considerations help account for the latter. First, tremendous selectivity of attention is necessarily involved in interpersonal

7 communication. Consciously attending to more than a tiny percentage of the inferences and decisions involved in communication would cause constant disruptions and digressions in the flow of conversation (Bavelas & Coates, 1992; Kellerman, 1992). As Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967, p. 95) state, ...a drastic selection process is necessary to prevent the higher brain centers from being swamped by irrelevant information. But the decision about what is essential and what is irrelevant apparently varies from individual to individual and seems to be determined by criteria which are largely outside individual awareness. Thus, it seems plausible to suggest that two people, despite being engaged in communication with one another, are frequently or even routinely thinking about different things. For example, while the wife may be concentrating on articulating her sense of being overwhelmed by housework, the husband may be thinking about his own demanding work situation, about similar past arguments, her tone of voice, his feelings of being criticized and under appreciated, or a phone call he is expecting. This simple possibility, that people attend to different potential objects of perception during communication, partly explains why they draw different conclusions about who is doing what to whom within the interaction sequence (Watzlawick et al., 1967). Second, cognition during an interaction is necessarily concerned with concrete inferences that relate directly to an individuals participation in communication. In particular, interactants have a need to understand the stream of communication in terms of the pragmatic intentions of the other, for example, whether the partner is presumed to be requesting information, criticizing, changing the topic, apologizing, and so forth. Although these inferences are more concrete and situationally specific than abstract attributions, they nonetheless represent ambiguous inferences that are made quite subjectively. Third, given the need to keep pace with interaction, most inferences are snap judgements

8 that go unquestioned (Bavelas & Coates, 1992; Fletcher & Fincham, 1991; Kellerman, 1992; Waldron & Cegala, 1992). Pragmatic inferences, in particular, are made so routinely and automatically throughout interaction that they are largely experienced as unmediated observations. Occasionally, an individual may adopt a more reflective and questioning stance toward communication. However, this usually occurs between interactions, when the immediate pressure to keep pace is not present. Further, individuals are not likely to reevaluate inferences subsequent to the interaction once an interpretation has been supplied (Scott, Fuhrman, & Wyer, 1991). Thus, attributions made during an interaction are characterized by a paradoxical relation between the inherent ambiguity of communication on one hand, and the subjective certainty of inference on the other (Sillars, 1998). Fourth, the disorderly nature of communication during serious relationship conflict invites even greater selectivity of perception. Ambiguity, disorganization and confusion are basic features of conflict resulting from several factors (see Sillars & Weisberg, 1987; Sillars, 1998) such as the following: (a) The source of conflict may be difficult to isolate, since relationship conflicts involve multiple issues simultaneously and different issues at different levels of abstraction (e.g., core dissatisfactions pertaining to equity or affection versus concrete issues pertaining to money, housework and sex). (b) Since core dissatisfactions provoke conflict over many specific issues, discussions often lose focus and jump from one issue to another. (c) The process of communication is frequently characterized by vacillation between engagement and avoidance tendencies, as well as other forms of conversational incoherence, due to the multiple and conflicting goals that individuals have as communicators. Thus, relationship conflict presents a complex and confusing stimulus field, which increases the likelihood that individuals will attend to the interaction idiosyncratically and assign meaning based on a small set of cues that are personally

9 salient or self-serving. Finally, it should be noted that many contextual factors, both distal and proximal, may inhibit or otherwise affect processing during conflictual interactions. Two important factors are stress and affect. Both stress and intense arousal have a negative impact on processing; they reduce the complexity of one's thinking (Fincham, Bradbury, & Grych, 1990, Sillars & Parry, 1982). Fincham and colleagues theorize that tension level should decrease the salience of the partner and increase the likelihood that a spouse will react to the mood or atmosphere. The atmosphere or affective tone also influences cognition (Fincham et al., 1990). For example, the salience of memories is contingent on mood (Bradbury & Fincham, 1987; Forgas, 1996). The influence of mood would cause an angry spouse to be more likely to access negative memories. Therefore, mood affects both attributions made retrospectively for marital events and the scripts couples access for the automatic, spontaneous processing that occurs during interaction. Our research explores the descriptive characteristics of interaction-based thought and compares different perspectives on the same interaction. We consider the extent to which individuals attend to specific conflict issues, emotions, expectations for the interaction, interactional behaviors and strategies, and abstract attributions, as well as meta-perceptions (Laing, Phillipson, & Lee, 1966) of the partners emotions, expectations, strategies, and attributions. Further, we examine the nature of inferences made about each spouses role in the interaction. We expect the thoughts that spouses report during video-assisted recall of interaction to show a high degree of selectivity and great variability in focus of attention. We also expect spouses to show considerable awareness and monitoring of the process of communication, a tendency to rely on snap judgements rather than reflective analysis of multiple possibilities and perspectives, and relatively little evidence of subjective uncertainty. Beyond this, our research

10 compares the thoughts of husbands versus wives, examines the communicative behaviors and strategies that individuals attribute to self versus the partner, and compares insider attributions about communication with observer coding of the interaction. Finally, we identify trends associated with conflict severity and marital dissatisfaction. Method Participants Participants were recruited and data gathered over a four year period in Buffalo, New York, as part of a larger experimental study (the Buffalo Marital Interaction Project or BMIP, see Leonard & Roberts, 1998 for further details). Couples visited a research laboratory where they completed questionnaires, held discussions of marital issues, and reported thoughts that were elicited through video-assisted recall of the discussions. Couples were recruited from a large epidemiological sample of newlyweds (McLaughlin, Leonard, & Senchak, 1992) and through newspaper advertisements soliciting young couples for a study of marital communication. Depending on the length of their visit to the lab, couples received $100 to $150 for their time. One hundred eighteen couples are included in the present study. A total of 139 couples participated in the BMIP, however, we could not analyze the video assisted recall data from 21 couples, either because one spouse did not follow instructions or because of problems with the recording equipment. All couples were in their first marriage, married from one to three years, were not in treatment for marital problems, were English-speaking, and husbands were between 21 and 32 years of age. In 95 of 118 couples, both partners were Caucasian. Twenty-nine percent of husbands and 35% of wives were college graduates. Seventy percent of husbands and 75% percent of wives had completed some college or trade school. Although marital aggression is not a focus of the current report, a primary goal of the

11 BMIP study was to investigate physical conflict in marital relationships. Thus, couples were recruited for the BMIP in which the husband had either engaged in mild to moderate aggression toward his wife, or engaged in no aggression at all on the basis of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). Of the 118 couples in the current study, 55 of the husbands were classified as physically aggressive. Couples who acknowledged frequent, severe aggression were excluded from the BMIP study. Procedures Couples visited a family interaction lab decorated to resemble a living room/dining room combination. Two low-light cameras were hidden behind smoked glass in bookshelf units; couples were made aware of the placement of the cameras, but videotaping of the marital interactions was minimally obtrusive. After informed consent procedures and the completion of a series of questionnaires including the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959), the Areas of Current Disagreement (ACD, Leonard & Roberts, 1998) was administered by an interviewer. The interview was used to identify potential discussion topics that represented current disagreements in the marriage. The couples generated their own list of unresolved disagreements. The spouses then individually completed a form to indicate any elicited disagreements they would not be willing to discuss during the lab visit and rated the conflict severity of each disagreement (the amount of conflict experienced on a 1-100 scale). Although couples engaged in two problem-solving discussions while at the lab, only the second discussion was used to elicit thought recall data and it is the focus of the present study. In this interaction, couples discussed their highest rated disagreement from the ACD for 15 minutes. The interviewer asked the couple questions designed to prime them for their conversation, (e.g., When was the last time you talked about this disagreement?) and then instructed them to talk

12 about and try to work out your differences on this issue and left the room. Immediately after the discussion, each spouse went to a separate room to view the videotape. Spouses were asked to imagine going through the interaction again and to attempt to re-experience how they felt and what they were thinking during the discussion. Spouses were left alone while the videotape played. Every 20 seconds the tape paused automatically and the participants reported (by speaking into a microphone) what they remembered thinking or feeling at that point in the discussion. The participant could speak up to 20 seconds before the playback began again. Although participants heard the full audio recording of the interaction, the videotape only showed their partner, thus modeling the visual perspective they had during the interaction. The goal of the recall session was to simulate what spouses actually thought and felt as they interacted. Waldron and Cegala (1992) argue that the contents of working memory of conversations can be adequately reconstructed from long term memory, provided that a realistic stimulus is used to probe memory. They recommend the video recall method over other methods because it does not disrupt natural conversation, uses realistic cues to probe memory, and generates a large corpus of reconstructed thoughts. The simulation appeared to provide a successful approximation to in vivo thought. The reconstructed thoughts we collected had a realistic quality and were remarkably candid. Further, Gottman and Levenson (1985) have empirically assessed the coherence of couples physiological reactions during an actual interaction and a recall session and concluded that couples physiologically relived the interaction during the recall session. Since the larger aims of the BMIP involved linkages between marital interaction, husbandto-wife aggression and alcohol effects, the second conversation involved an experimental manipulation involving alcohol. Prior to the interaction, some of the husbands received drinks of

13 vodka and tonic. The other husbands received either no beverage or a placebo so that the effects of alcohol consumption on marital problem-solving could be assessed (see Leonard and Roberts, 1998 for details). A separate forthcoming report will examine the effects of alcohol on interaction-based thought in aggressive and nonaggressive couples, thus, these factors are not a focus of the current report. Although the alcohol manipulation raises questions about the generalizability of results, the manipulation had little impact on descriptive characteristics of the thought data and other results that are the focus of the current research. In the discussion section of this report, we elaborate on how the alcohol manipulation and the over representation of physically aggressive couples in the sample may have affected the results reported here. Interaction Behavior Coding Procedures The videotaped interactions were coded using the Marital Interaction Coding System-IV (MICS-IV) under the direction of Robert L. Weiss (for further details on coding, see Leonard & Roberts, 1998). The MICS consists of 37 codes that describe both speaker and listener interaction behavior. To assess the relationship between the thought data and the behavioral data, we created three summary MICS variables: problem-solving (the combined frequency of agree, compromise, paraphrase/reflect, mindread positive, and accept responsibility codes); withdrawal (the frequency of withdrawal, disengage, and not tracking codes); and negativity (the frequency of criticize, put down, turn off, disagree, deny responsibility, excuse, disapprove, and mindread negative codes). Thought Data Coding Procedures The Interaction Cognition Coding Scheme (ICCS) was inductively developed using a sample of transcribed comments from the recall sessions. Approximately 500 twenty-second recall segments from 83 participants were included in the development sample. Segments were chosen to maximize diversity. Longer recall segments were divided into sentence units and then units

14 were sorted into homogeneous groups. Groups of thoughts were then re-sorted into hierarchical categories of varying abstractness. This inductive process was performed over several weeks and involved repeated iterations of sorting, categorizing, and organizing recall statements. The coding scheme was further refined and finalized during a four-week training period for coders. In organizing specific codes into higher-order categories, we looked for distinctions consistent with our research goals. In particular, we were interested in the types of inferences that participants made about the interaction process and the extent to which participants verbalizations indicated monitoring of the communication versus attention to other more distal aspects of the situation or relationship. Since the coding scheme is designed to code subjective accounts of interaction, every verbalization is treated as a thought or emotion, including references to behavior or descriptive information. The final form of the ICCS (Sillars, Dun, & Roberts, unpub., 1999) includes 50 specific codes that collapse into five primary content categories and several intermediate-level categories. The coding scheme has a large number of specific codes in order to maximize the descriptiveness and flexibility of the system. Table 1 lists the codes and summary categories and provides examples that characterize each code. The five summary content categories are defined as follows: (a) Emotion is any articulated thought that makes direct reference to an emotional state. (b) Issue appraisal refers to analysis of the ostensible topic, ideas, and opinions in the discussion. Issue appraisal codes are concerned with the content level of the interaction, that is, perceptions about the nature of the situation, what to do, how to allocate resources, and other objectifiable issues (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). (c) Person appraisal consists of personal evaluations and perceived characteristics of the partner, self, or the relationship. (d) Process codes refer to inferences about pragmatic intentions and communicative strategies (e.g., inferences that the partner was

15 exaggerating, criticizing, or changing the topic), as well as general evaluations of communication or interaction behavior. (e) Uncodable/off topic codes are those that do not meet the definitional criteria of any of the other categories. The uncodable/off topic category is used here only to determine how easily partners were able to remember their thoughts and stay with the task. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 1 here. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Since process codes refer to the immediate interaction and the process of communication, they represent insider perspectives on the interaction. Some of the process subcategories represent attributions of communicative action or intent or what we subsequently call attributed communication strategies. Three such categories, constructive engagement, avoidance/detachment, and confrontation, closely parallel a familiar trilogy in the literature on conflict strategies and tactics (i.e., the distinction between collaboration, avoidance, and competition; Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). Further, the categories parallel common distinctions in marital behavior identified in the study of problem-solving marital interactions (e.g., see Gottman, 1998), and may be seen as the insider complement to the three MICS summary categories of positive problem-solving, withdrawal and negativity. Other process codes, termed process appraisal, provide a broader appraisal of the nature of the discussion and how it is proceeding, for example, whether the participant feels understood by the partner or whether the discussion is moving toward resolution or impasse. In addition to the content coding of thoughts, units were also coded for focus. This secondary coding documented both the actor referenced in the thought (self, partner, or both persons) and whether the thought represented a direct perspective (the participants own

16 perspective) or a meta perspective (a perspective attributed to the partner). Transcripts of the thought data were coded by a team of five coders. The data were first divided into sentence units (i.e., subject-predicate combination plus dependent clauses) and then each unit was assigned one of the 50 specific content codes and, where appropriate, the focus modifier codes. A total of 18,724 units were coded. Coders met weekly throughout the coding period to assess the reliability of unitizing and categorizing. After duplicate transcripts were independently scored by different coders, the coding team met to compare judgements and resolve disagreements. Unitizing error (Guetzkow, 1950) was estimated at .08 based on 18 transcripts independently unitized by two coders. Kappa reliability (Cohen, 1960) was estimated at .70 based on a sample of 426 units independently coded by 3-5 coders. This reliability estimate may be considered conservative since the calculation of the kappa coefficient was based on 50 independent codes whereas the data analyses we report are based on the summary ICCS categories that collapse functionally similar codes. Several summary variables were derived by collapsing across specific categories and converting frequencies to percentages. The following summary variables were defined in this manner: (1) emotion (percentage of emotion codes), (2) issue appraisal, (3) person appraisal, (4) self focus (5) partner focus, (6) mutual focus (thoughts that areferred to self and partner simultaneously), (7) meta focus (percentage of thoughts that were meta-perspectives), (8) constructive engagement, avoidance, and confrontation strategies attributed to self; and (9) the equivalent communicative strategies attributed to partner. In addition, three variables were created to assess negative sentiment toward the interaction. Pessimism refers to negative evaluation of the communication process. It consists of process appraisal codes that show a negative or pessimistic outlook (repetitious behavior, foreboding, impasse, and lack of understanding attributed to the

17 partner) minus those that show optimism (resolution and understanding attributed to the partner). Blame refers to other-directed blame for conflict, as assessed by several person appraisal codes (denial/justification, complaint, hostile attribution, and rejection). Anger/frustration refers to direct references to anger or frustration experienced by the participant. Results Descriptive Characteristics of Interaction-Based Thoughts The distribution of thought codes reveals several basic characteristics of cognition during marital conflict. The percentages of thought units for each code as well as for the primary summary categories are indicated within parentheses in Table 1. First, the results document the extent to which husbands and wives consciously attended to emotions. Although an emotional tone accompanied many of the thoughts reported, emotional states were primarily latent in other types of thoughts rather than verbally articulated as a direct object of awareness. Second, about one-fifth (19%) of the reported thoughts were coded in the issue appraisal category, which reflects objectifiable issues associated with the content level of conflict. By comparison, the person appraisal and process categories, which reflect implicit relationship issues associated with the way the conflict is enacted, combined for about three-fifths (58%) of the reported thoughts. This comparison lends support to the common observation that interpersonal conflicts are more affected by underlying relationship issues (i.e., perceptions related to power, affect, blame, respect, etc.) than surface content (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). Third, about one-third of the reported thoughts were process codes (34%), suggesting that partners showed considerable awareness of the communication process. In contrast, 25% of verbalized thoughts were instances of person appraisal. While both process codes and person appraisal codes reflect implicit relationship issues, they differ with respect to both level of abstraction and time orientation. Process codes are defined

18 by inferences about relatively specific events and acts within the interaction, whereas person appraisal codes reflect more abstract assessments of person and relationship characteristics that transcend the immediate situation. Thus, individuals were somewhat more consciously attentive to the interaction process than to abstract person and relationship attributions. In several respects, the articulated thoughts were characterized by a lack of complexity. For example, there was very little evidence of relationship-level thinking. Although partners could have adopted a relationship focus in their thoughts (e.g., Were getting more and more irritated. Were both acting stubborn.), in practice, very few thoughts were framed in this manner. All instances of relationship-level thinking (the combination of emotion, process, and person-appraisal codes with a mutual focus) collectively comprised only 3% of the codable thoughts. This suggests that partners had little conscious awareness of interdependent patterns of behavior. Similarly, there were very few meta-perspectives (i.e., thoughts about how the partner was interpreting the situation) identified in the data (5%). Further, in the few explicit meta-perspectives that did occur, the perspective attributed to the partner was often undifferentiated and simplistic (e.g., He knows thats a lie. She knows Im sick of talking about this. He thinks hes right and Im wrong.). Thus, there was minimal evidence of complex perspective-taking. A similar observation applies to the general tone of many of the process codes. In general, the verbalizations characterizing these codes lacked behavioral specificity but were framed with subjective certainty. While a few codes describe moderately specific communicative acts (e.g., changing the topic or speaking with a negative tone of voice), most references to the communication process were stated in terms of broad intentions (e.g., Were compromising. Im trying to make a point. Hes attacking me.). Yet, even extreme, highly inferential attributions about communication (e.g., Shes lying, He wants to change the topic because he knows Im right, Shes backed into a corner and just wants

19 to push the blame off on me) were typically made without any hedging, qualification, or other selfconscious attention to the possibility of error. In general, the thought coding revealed that partners had minimal recognition of complexity or uncertainty. Overall, negative thoughts were more frequent than positive thoughts. This trend is evident in the emotion, person appraisal, and process categories, where negatively valenced codes (e.g., anger/frustration, complaint, rejection, avoidance/detachment) easily outnumbered positively valenced codes (e.g., positive emotions, admission, constructive engagement). To some extent more negative thoughts are to be expected given the interaction context (discussion of a divisive marital issue). Still, the blunt negativity of a considerable proportion of the articulated thoughts was striking. Further, the negativity of thought seemed to exceed the negativity of talk. Although the discussions themselves were occasionally quite confrontational, the observed interactions were mild by comparison to the internal dialogues obtained in the stimulated recall sessions. Finally, most participants seemed engaged in the recall task and did not show obvious difficulty reconstructing their thoughts from the videotaped interaction session. This is suggested by the fact that only 14% of the thought units were uncodable or off topic, including 6% in which participants stated that they could not remember what they were thinking or feeling earlier (i.e., the cant remember code). Contrasting Perspectives on Communication Husband-wife differences in perspectives. Table 2 displays the average percentage of codes (excluding uncodable units) for husbands and wives in the primary content, focus, communicative strategy and evaluative domains. As shown in Table 2, there were several significant differences in the manner in which wives and husbands attended to the interactions. In general, wives showed evidence of being more other-directed and relationship-sensitive, whereas husbands focused more

20 on message content and their own role in the conversations. As shown in Table 2, husbands, in comparison to wives, focused more on issue appraisal, thought more often about self and less often about the partner, had fewer meta-perspectives and fewer partner-attributed communication strategies. Thus, the husbands had a somewhat greater tendency to track the discussion topic in a literal manner, rather than analyzing implicit relationship issues (as reflected in the emotion, person, and process domains). In an interesting reversal, husbands thought about self more than they thought about the partner, whereas wives thought about the partner more than self. Husbands were also significantly more likely than wives to attribute constructive communication to themselves. Wives on the other hand were more likely than husbands to attribute constructive engagement, avoidance/detachment, and confrontation, to their partners. With respect to the evaluative categories, wives were more likely to report feelings of anger or frustration than husbands. No differences emerged for blame or pessimism. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 2 here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Self versus partner communicative strategies. We also compared communication strategies attributed to self versus the partner. The same pattern emerged for both husband and wives; they each saw their own communication in more positive terms than they saw their partners communication. Both wives and husbands attributed confrontation to the partner more often than to self (t = 5.3, p < .01; t= 4.9, p < .01, respectively) and they attributed constructive engagement more often to self than to the partner (t= 2.5, p < .05; t = 6.8, p < .01, respectively). Wives also attributed avoidance/detachment significantly more often to the partner than to self (t= 6.0, p < .01), whereas husbands attributed avoidance to the partner and self at about the same rate (t= 0.2.,

21 n.s.). Wives and husbands rarely attributed constructive engagement to the partner or confrontation to self, as each of these types of thoughts accounted for less than 2% of the codable units. A further way to assess the congruence between husband and wife perspectives is to examine correlations between self-attributed communication strategies and partner-attributed strategies. As shown in Table 3, husband and wife perspectives were somewhat consistent with respect to avoidance/detachment and constructive engagement but not confrontation. There were small but significant correlations between avoidance/detachment attributed to wives by wives versus husbands, avoidance/detachment attributed to husbands by husbands versus wives, and constructive engagement attributed to husbands by husbands versus wives. However, not only is there a lack of convergence with respect to confrontation, but the correlations are in the negative direction. Husbands and wives perspectives on their own confrontive behavior show no relationship to their partners perspective. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 3 here. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insider versus observer perspectives. The three MICS variables were compared with the three attributed communication strategies in order to assess the degree of correspondence between behavior and thought. If insider perceptions of the interaction are congruent with outside observers coding of behavior, then the thought codes should correlate with MICS categories that assess similar constructs (i.e., constructive engagement should correlate with positive problem solving, avoidance/detachment with withdrawal, and confrontation with negativity). Partial correlations were computed to control for the total frequency of behavioral interaction codes, thus eliminating a potential confound between the overall rate of behavioral codes and the frequency of

22 specific codes. As shown in Table 4, there were significant associations between insider and outsider perspectives with one exception; there was no correspondence between husbands self-attributed strategies and observed behaviors. In contrast to husbands, wives self-attributed avoidance correlated significantly with wives observed withdrawal and wives self-attributed constructive engagement correlated with wives observed problem solving. Thus, the results appear to show a gender difference in the objectivity of self-directed inference. On the other hand, partner-focused inference was more consistently related to behavior, irrespective of gender. Strategies attributed to the partner were positively correlated with the partners observed behavior in each test for both husbands and wives. Partner-attributed strategies thus appear to have at least some objective basis. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 4 here. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We were also interested in whether conflict severity moderated the objectivity of attributed communication strategies. We tested the hypothesis here that inferences would be more subjective and idiosyncratic in high severity conflicts, hence, there should be greater correspondence between attributed communication strategies and observed behaviors in low severity conflicts than in high severity conflicts. To consider this possibility, the sample was split at the median based on combined husband and wife ratings of conflict severity. Couples who had a mean rating over 75 (on a 1-100 scale) constituted the high severity group. Again, we computed partial correlations between attributed strategies and observed behaviors, controlling for the total frequency of behavioral interaction codes. The analysis confirmed that there was greater correspondence between attributed strategies

23 and observed behaviors in low severity than high severity conflicts. However, this conclusion applies only to the self-attributions of wives. Wives self-attributed engagement correlated positively with problem solving behavior in low severity conflicts (r=.30, p<.01) but not in high severity conflicts (r=.05, n.s.). Wives self-attributed avoidance correlated positively with withdrawal behavior in low severity conflicts (r=.46, p<.01) but not in high severity conflicts (r=.02, n.s.). In both cases, the difference between partial correlations obtained for low versus high severity conflicts was significant (p<.05, one-tailed test). In the remaining instances, differences between partial correlations were nonsignificant. Interaction Thoughts and Marital Functioning Finally, we considered associations between negative sentiment, marital adjustment and conflict severity. To simplify, we combined husband and wife scores in this analysis, as a preliminary check indicated that the correlations were similar for husbands and wives. The correlations are reported in Table 5. Indicators of negative sentiment include anger/frustration, blame and pessimism. Issue appraisal is also included in the analysis on the assumption that issue appraisal reflects a greater focus on objectifiable content issues and less cognitive analysis of potentially volatile relationship issues. Thus, issue appraisal may suggest a relatively objective and emotionally cool outlook that contrasts with other sentiment-dominated cognitions. A preliminary analysis supports this interpretation, as issue appraisal correlated negatively with articulated anger/frustration (r = -.42, p<.01). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 5 here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The correlations in Table 5 indicate that dissatisfied couples had more thoughts articulating

24 anger or frustration and more blaming thoughts. Similarly, conflict severity was associated with angry/frustrated thoughts and other-directed blame. Dissatisfied couples were also more pessimistic in their thoughts about communication. On the other hand, satisfied couples had a greater focus on issue appraisal. Discussion Researchers have often assessed attribution processes that occur in response to standard stimuli, however, the thought processes that occur during marital interactions are more difficult to assess. Yet, these moment-by-moment thought processes are especially important to our understanding of communication and the developmental course of conflict. Although talking can promote reconciliation and problem solving, in other instances, discussion leads to further entrenchment or escalation of marital conflicts. In the more problematic episodes of communication, individuals are likely to manifest different interpretive frameworks for interaction, for example, they may attend to different issues, behaviors, and background knowledge during interactions and interpret communication in an incongruous manner. We have suggested that these cognitive trends are shaped, in part, by compelling demands and constraints of communication during stressful conflicts. Therefore, the qualities of in vivo thought during marital conflict are not necessarily apparent from cognitive processes studied apart from interaction. Our research makes three in-roads into the complex inter-relationships between thought, communicative behavior, and marital functioning. First, the research descriptively analyzes the nature and content of spontaneous thought during marital conflict. Second, it compares alternative perspectives on interaction, including husband and wife perspectives, as well as insider (participant) and outsider (observer) perspectives. Third, the research considers how interaction-based thoughts reflect marital functioning and the severity of conflict.

25 The topography of thought during conflict interactions. The descriptive analysis of interaction-based thought showed that thoughts are quite variable in both content and level of analysis. Since there are numerous potential objects of perception within interaction, attention to different elements is inevitably selective and to some extent idiosyncratic. A further complication is that messages themselves are multi-layered and convey different meanings simultaneously (e.g., Watzlawick et al., 1967). Thus, individuals may differentially attend to the literal substance of messages versus the implicit relational implications of communicative acts and the broader context. Authors in the conflict literature draw an analogous distinction between content and relationship levels of conflict and they suggest that interpersonal and intimate conflicts are often driven by relational issues that are not explicitly articulated (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991). Our analysis supports this conclusion, insofar as person appraisal and process thoughts, which reflect underlying relationship issues (e.g., blame, trust, respect), were far more common than issue appraisal thoughts, which are concerned with objectifiable issues in conflict (e.g., the amount of money to spend on groceries). The video recall data also suggest that partners thoughts are often in the service of monitoring the interaction process; a large proportion of thoughts draw inferences concerned with pragmatic intentions and communicative outcomes. Further, a surprisingly high proportion of thoughts were negatively valenced and there was minimal evidence of attention to the inherent complexity and ambiguity that exists in the communicative process. Participants showed a tendency to construe their own and their partners communicative acts as objectifiable behaviors with unequivocal meaning. Presumably, this is part of the problem that occurs when interaction does not go smoothly -- people treat their inferences as objective observations. Further, spontaneous thoughts revealed minimal awareness of interdependent patterns (i.e., thoughts that referred to the

26 joint behaviors of both spouses) and few explicit meta-perspectives. Although empathic accuracy and perspective-taking are often seen as necessary components of effective and flexible communication, in practice, we found few examples of complex perspective-taking during interaction. The simplicity and certainty of thought is predictable to an extent from demands posed by an individuals participation in communication. Participation in live interaction does not afford the opportunity for searching reflection because of the involving nature of communication and the need to integrate multiple items of information, reconcile conflicting goals, and respond in real time (Waldron & Cegala, 1992). In addition, the often stressful and disorderly nature of marital conflict may further limit the capacity and inclination for complex thought. Convergence and divergence in perspectives. A pattern of husband-wife differences in the stream of thought emerged from the ICCS coding. Wives focused less than husbands on the content level of the interaction, less on their own intentions and behavior, and more on the partners intentions and behavior. This finding is consistent with previous research demonstrating that women show greater vigilance of relationship issues than men (Acitelli & Young, 1996; Roberts & Krokoff, 1990; Scott et al., 1991). Further, these trends underlie a phenomena that appears to be fairly common in marital conflicts. That is, one person tracks communication primarily in terms of the ostensible topic of discussion (money, housework, etc.), whereas the other party focuses intently on the process of interaction and the implicit relationship messages contained therein (e.g., the husband thinks about how his band can only practice on Tuesdays and Fridays, while at the same moment the wife thinks that he does not listen to her). This phenomena leads to a type of process-content confusion, in which one person assigns relationship-level meaning to messages that the other person is not aware of. Elsewhere we elaborate on qualitative characteristics of this phenomena (Sillars, Roberts, Dun, & Leonard, in press). While the pattern is

27 not inherently gender-based, the examples in our data tend to involve a husband who is contentoriented and a wife who analyzes and reacts to his messages in terms of implicit relationship level meaning. Both husbands and wives displayed a tendency to view their own communication more favorably than their partners communication. That is, both spouses attributed negative acts and intentions (confrontation) to their partner more often than to self, and positive acts (constructive engagement) more often to themselves. Thus, it appears that ambiguous interaction behaviors are often interpreted as constructive engagement by the actor and confrontation or avoidance by the partner. These data suggest that participants perceptions of communication tend to be self-serving and partner-effacing, paralleling other attribution tendencies within couples (Fletcher & Fincham, 1991; Orvis, Kelley, & Butler, 1976). Insider and outsider perspectives on the interaction had a small to moderate association in most cases. This is as would be expected, given the fact that the ICCS thought categories and MICS behavior categories were only roughly parallel, not equivalent constructs. Further, given the lack of shared method variance, the amount of convergence in the participant and observer perspectives is noteworthy. Associations between thoughts and behaviors were generally stronger for partner-attributed strategies than self-attributed strategies, suggesting that self-reflection on communicative behavior may be less objectively-based than inferences about the partners communicative behavior. Notably, wives self-attributed strategies were more congruent with outside observers assessments of the interaction than husbands self-attributed strategies. None of the correlations between husbands own attributed strategies and observational codes were significant. This discrepancy between husbands and wives is consistent with previous research on gender differences in sensitivity to interpersonal communication and meaning. This research

28 concludes that women are better decoders and encoders of nonverbal information than men (Hall, 1984; Noller & Gallois, 1986). Interaction-based thought and marital functioning. The reported severity of conflict moderated the association between ICCS thoughts and MICS behavior. In more severe conflicts there was less association between wives self-directed thoughts and the MICS behaviors. Although this pattern is more specific than we might have assumed, it is consistent with the idea that individuals monitor interaction more selectively and idiosyncratically in more severe conflict. As a general working hypothesis, we suggest that issues and events tend to be seen more similarly and objectively in controlled conflicts, thus, communication is often more focused and concerned with negotiating details of the conflict. On the other hand, in intense, angry conflicts, perspectives may be increasingly difficult to reconcile and depict entirely different events from the point of view of either partner. Negative sentiment in a more general sense also appears to be a barometer of conflict severity and marital quality. Angry, frustrated, and blaming thoughts (e.g., She is never on time. She just totally stays away from my family on purpose. I hate it when she does that.) were more prevalent in severe conflicts and dissatisfied marriages. Presumably, marital satisfaction reflects the cumulative impact of many such emotional and evaluative reactions to the partner during past interactions. In addition, marital dissatisfaction was associated with a pessimistic outlook toward communication, suggesting that there is little chance of positive change from talking about the conflict (e.g., I felt like the conversation was lost. Weve been through it a hundred times. This is going nowhere.). The repetitiveness of communication was a prevalent and especially poignant theme in this outlook, underscoring the strong sense of futility and frustration articulated by some individuals. By contrast, satisfied spouses expressed greater optimism toward

29 communication, reflected in a sense of impending resolution of conflict and faith that the partner is capable of understanding oneself. The pessimistic outlook of dissatisfied spouses may accurately reflect certain hard realities of troubled and incompatible relationships. Still, one can easily see how this pessimism is potentially self fulfilling. Raush, Barry, Hertel and Swain (1974) observe that spouses may develop rigid, absorbing schemata for marital conflict that reduce the search for new information and indepth processing of the other's messages. The anxiety provoked by marital conflicts and repetitiousness of marital interaction encourages the tendency to fit the others comments within existing schemata and limits the capacity to acquire new perspectives or learn from the interaction (Raush et al., 1974; Sillars, 1998). Finally, the positive association between marital satisfaction and issue appraisal is especially interesting since it points to the presence of a constructive thought pattern that can accompany marital conflict. This finding suggests that issue-oriented thoughts are likely to characterize lower level conflicts and are less volatile than thoughts about implicit relationship issues. This point is also confirmed by the significant negative association between issue appraisal and articulated anger and frustration. Summary and limitations. In this paper, we have concentrated on descriptive characteristics and broad trends in our interaction-based thought data in an effort to identify basic theoretical processes affecting interpersonal and marital conflict. However, the original goals of the research project were to study the role of alcohol on marital interaction in aggressive and nonaggressive couples (Leonard & Roberts, 1998) and these goals influenced study procedures. The BMIP purposively over sampled physically aggressive husbands and their wives; further, some of the husbands received alcohol or a placebo prior to the second interaction and the video-assisted recall

30 procedure. (Husbands received either no alcohol, drinks of gin and tonic, or a placebo of pure tonic water.) Because aggressive group and alcohol condition effects on the thought data are the subject of a separate, forthcoming report, these effects are not described in detail here. However, there is an obvious need to clarify how the study procedures might have impacted the generalizability of the results presented here. The impact of the alcohol manipulation on interaction-based thought was rather specific and did not alter the basic trends or conclusions reported here. Surprisingly, there were no overall differences in thought between the alcohol and no alcohol conditions. The only main effects of the alcohol manipulation were apparent expectancy effects associated with the placebo condition. Because some husbands received alcohol and wives did not, alcohol presents an alternative explanation for the gender differences observed in this research. However, further analyses showed this explanation to be implausible. If consumption of alcohol by some husbands had created the observed gender differences, then gender should have interacted with alcohol in predicting thought frequencies. However, all two-way interactions of gender and alcohol condition were nonsignificant. Further, alcohol consumption cannot account for the fact that husbands selfattributed communication strategies did not correlate with observed behaviors. When a further analysis was conducted excluding husbands who had received alcohol, the partial correlations still showed no association between communication strategies that husbands attributed to themselves and the codes assigned by trained observers (these partial correlations ranged from .02 to -.07). The aggressive status of the couples in the sample has a somewhat greater bearing on the results presented here, primarily with respect to attributions about communication strategies. Supplementary analyses revealed that aggressive husbands and their wives had a pronounced tendency to view their own communication in more favorable terms than the partners

31 communication. In nonaggressive marriages, the communication strategies attributed to self and partner were more similar and strategies attributed by different spouses were more congruent. Thus, the strong overall differences in self-directed versus partner-directed thought were partly a function of the over representation of aggressive couples in the sample. However, this qualification primarily applies to attributions about constructive engagement and avoidance. The entire sample attributed confrontational tactics to the partner at a much higher rate than to self. At any given moment, there are a myriad of internal and external stimuli that may inform an individuals interpretation of interaction and shape responses to a partners communication. These stimuli may represent, for example, specific interactional behaviors, background events, emotional states, expectations, strategies, or attributions, as well as meta-perceptions (Laing, Phillipson, & Lee, 1966) of the partners emotions, expectations, strategies, and attributions. Our research suggests that attention to these stimuli is both selective and at times, idiosyncratic, thus leading to profound differences in the subjective context that frames the interaction for each individual. Tentatively, it appears that in more severe conflicts and in troubled relationships, individuals may assign meaning in an increasingly subjective and antagonistic fashion, presumably contributing to further escalation and entrenchment of conflict.

32 REFERENCES Bavelas, J. B., & Coates, L. (1992). How do we account for the mindfulness of face-toface dialogue? Communication Monographs, 59, 301-305. Berger, C. R. (1992). Goals, plans, and mutual understanding in relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes, Vol. 1: Individuals and relationships (pp. 30-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1987). Affect and cognition in close relationships: Towards an integrative model. Cognition and emotion, 1, 59-87. Bradbury, T. N. & Fincham, F. D. (1991). A contextual model for advancing the study of marital interaction. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 127-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C.L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw patterns of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73-81. Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1991). Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict: Communicative cures for the mulling blues. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 134158. Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1993). Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict, II: The effects of communicative intentions on internal dialogue. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 309-329. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient for agreement of nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.

33 Fincham, F.D., Bradbury, T.N. & Grych, J.H. (1990). Conflict in close relationships: The role of intrapersonal phenomena. In V. Graham & S. Folkes (Eds.) Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict. Applied social psychology. (pp. 161-184) Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Fletcher, G.J.O., & Fincham, F.D. (1991). Attribution process in close relationships. In G.J.O. Fletcher & F.D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 7-35). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Forgas, J. P. (1996). The role of emotion scripts and transient moods in relationships: Structural and function perspectives. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (1996), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 275-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169-197. Gottman, J.M. & Levenson, R.W. (1985). A valid procedure for obtaining self-report of affect in marital interaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 151-160. Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58. Guthrie, D.M., & Noller, P. (1988). Married couples perceptions of one another in emotional situations. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspective on marital interaction (pp.153-181). Clevedon, England UK: Multilingual Matters.

34 Halford, W. K., & Sanders, M.R. (1988). Assessment of cognitive self-statements during marital problem solving: A comparison of two methods. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 515-530. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1991). Interpersonal conflict (3rd. ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (1997). Managing empathic accuracy in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 218-250). New York: Guilford. Kellerman, K. (1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic. Communication Monographs, 59, 288-300. Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H. & Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research. New York: Springer. Leonard, K. E., & Roberts, L. J. (1998). The effects of alcohol on the marital interactions of aggressive and nonaggressive husbands and their wives. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 602-615. Lloyd, S. A. (1987). Conflict in premarital relationships: Differential perceptiosn of males and females. Family Relations, 36, 290-294. Lloyd, S. A. (1990). A behavioral self-report technique for assessing conflict in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 265-272. Locke, H.J., & Wallace, K.M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255.

35 McLaughlin, I. G., Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1992). Prevalence and distributions of premarital aggression among couples applying for a marriage license. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 131-140. Noller, P. & Gallois, C. (1988). Understanding and misunderstanding in marriage: Sex and marital adjustment differences in structured and free interaction. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspective on marital interaction (pp. 53-77). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Orvis, B. R., Kelley, H. H., & Butler, D. (1976). Attributional conflict in young couples. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp.353386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, conflict and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Roberts, L. J., & Krokoff, L. J. (1990). A time-series analysis of withdrawal, hostility, and displeasure in satisfied and dissatisfied marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 95-105. Scott, C. K., Fuhrman, R. W., & Wyer, R. S. (1991). Information processing in close relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 3767). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sillars, A. L. (1998). (Mis)understanding. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of relationships (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sillars, A. & Parry, D. (1982). Stress, cognition, and communication in interpersonal conflicts. Communication Research, 9, 201-226. Sillars, A., Dun, T., & Roberts, L. J. (1999). Interaction cognition coding scheme. Unpublished manuscript, University of Montana.

36 Sillars, A., Roberts, L. J., Dun, T, & Leonard, K. E. (in press). Stepping into the stream of thought: Cognition during marital conflict. In V. Manusov and J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sillars, A. L., & Scott, M. D. (1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: An integrative review. Human Communication Research, 10, 153-176. Sillars, A. L., & Weisberg, J. (1987). Conflict as a social skill. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 140-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. Waldron, V. R. & Cegala, D. J. (1992). Assessing conversational cognition: Levels of cognitive theory and associated methodological requirements. Human Communication Research, 18, 599-622. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.

37 Table 1 Percentages of Occurrence* and Representative Examples for the ICCS Thought Codes and Categories CATEGORY
EMOTION (9%) positive emotions (2%) dysphoria (2%) anger & frustration (5%) ISSUE APPRAISAL (19%) elaboration (8%) agreement (3%) disagreement (8%) solution (1%) PERSON APPRAISAL (25%) positive & neutral (9%) admission (2%) denial & justification (2%) complaint (7%) hostile attribution (2%) rejection (3%) negative relationship PROCESS (34%) Constructive Engagement (5%) collaboration (1%) disclosure (2%) soliciting & attending (2%) Avoidance and Detachment (9%) He's being very cooperative. I liked knowing how open she is . I'm trying to get her to talk about it. I'm glad that he made the effort. It's probably my fault. I don't think that it's all my fault. I just want to be more appreciated. All he cares about is himself. This guy is a real jerk. It's crazy..like a fatal attraction. I was thinking that maybe I will have one more child, but not right now. That's a good point. It doesn't make sense to me. What's a solution, good question. So I felt good. I was starting to feel sad and hurt. Mad and frustrated.

EXAMPLE

38
withdrawal (3%) topic shifting (2%) stonewalling (1%) censorship (1%) lying & insincerity (1%) giving in Confrontation (5%) dominating the floor inflexibility (1%) exaggeration & distortion (1%) criticism & verbal aggression (2%) negative voice & appearance(1%) other aversive strategies (1%) Neutral and Mixed Strategies (5%) initiation & termination (1%) general talk relationship repair (1%) assertion (3%) joking (1%) Process Appraisal (9%) understanding (2%) not understanding (3%) keeping score unexpected behavior repetitious behavior (1%) foreboding resolution (1%) impasse (1%) I think he realizes how I feel. He's not gonna understand where I'm coming from. I was getting back on the upper hand. I can't believe he said that. We've been through this a hundred times. Oh I started something this time. I feel we're finally getting somewhere. We're not really resolving this problem. Trying to think of something to say. We were recapping what we had said about Mark. I was trying to please her. Just trying to get my point across. Trying joking with her. He always cuts me off, which is as usual. Shes not going to give at all. He does make a bigger deal of it than it is. She just wants to verbally attack me instead of talking to me like a human being. She rolls her eye balls. Heavy guilt trip, coming down. She just wanted to blow the whole thing off and not argue about it anymore. He wanted to change the subject. He's just making a lot of excuses. I am just going to have to control what I say. I know he doesnt mean that. I'm giving in, just like I always do.

39

UNCODABLE & OFF TOPIC (14%) other people (1%) can't remember (6%) thinking same as what was said not thinking anything no response (2%) unintelligible (1%) intoxication (1%) off topic (2%) I could tell that alcohol was starting to influence him. I was thinking of my cat. The baby likes to get in the plants. I don't know what I was thinking. I said what I was thinking then. Wasn't really thinking anything. I have no comment.

*In cases where no percentage is reported, the percentage of thought units coded into the category was less than .5%.

40 Table 2 Mean Percentage of ICCS Thoughts for Husbands and Wives Mean Percentage of Codes Husband Wife 9.8 25.3 27.5 36.9 33.8 26.1 3.1 3.6 5.2 3.4 1.3 .9 3.3 3.6 3.5 14.9 4.7 11.1 19.4 28.0 40.2 26.2 37.7 2.9 5.8 2.6 2.8 1.6 1.58 8.0 4.8 5.5 16.4 5.8

Code Categories Primary Content Emotion Issue Appraisal Person Appraisal Process Focus Self Partner Mutual Meta Attributed Strategy-- Self Constructive Engagement Avoidance and Detachment Confrontation Attributed Strategy -- Partner Constructive Engagement Avoidance and Detachment Confrontation Negative Sentiment Anger and Frustration Blame Pessimism * = p < .05; * = p < .01; two-tailed test

- .9 3.7** - .3 -1.5 3.7** -6.4** .4 -3.6** 4.0** 1.2 -1.0 -2.7** -5.5** -2.1** -2.2** -1.2 -1.5

41 Table 3 Pearson Correlations between Communication Strategies Attributed by Self and Partner Wifes Self Attribution and Husbands Partner Attribution Attributed Strategy Avoidance/Detachment Constructive Engagement Confrontation * = p < .05; one-tailed test .19* .10 -.06 .17* .19* -.12 Husbands Self Attribution and Wifes Partner Attribution

42 Table 4 Partial Correlations Between Observed Interaction Behavior and Attributed Communication Strategies Husbands Husbands Wifes Wifes Behavior and Behavior and Behavior and Behavior and Husbands SelfWifes Wifes SelfHusbands Attribution Attribution to Attribution Attribution to Husband Wife -.02 .29** .18* .24**

Observed Behavior Withdrawal

Attributed Strategy Avoidance/ Detachment Constructive Engagement Confrontation

Problem Solving

.13

.17*

.22**

.17*

Negativity

.01

.32**

.13

.18**

* = p < .05; ** = p < .01, one-tailed test; partial correlations control for the overall frequency of MICS codes

43 Table 5 Pearson Correlations Between ICCS Thought Categories and Marital Functioning Marital Satisfaction (Locke-Wallace Combined Score) -.20* -.27** -.37** .29** Conflict Severity

Thought Negative Sentiment Anger and Frustration Blame Pessimism Issue Appraisal

.22* .24** .16 -.18

* = p < .05; ** = p < .01, two-tailed test