Although many studies report that the therapeutic alliance predicts psychotherapy outcome, few exclude the possibility that this association is accounted for by 3rd variables, such as prior improvement and prognostically relevant patient characteristics. The authors treated 367 chronically depressed patients with the cognitive-behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP), alone or with medication. Using mixed effects growth-curve analyses, they found the early alliance significantly predicted subsequent improvement in depressive symptoms after controlling for prior improvement and 8 prognostically relevant patient characteristics. In contrast, neither early level nor change in symptoms predicted the subsequent level or course of the alliance. Patients receiving combination treatment reported stronger alliances with their psychotherapists than patients receiving CBASP alone. However, the impact of the alliance on outcome was similar for both treatment conditions.
Mutual victimization in marriage was studied in a sample of clinic couples (N = 57) where both spouses reported partner aggression on an adapted version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). As predicted, wives sustained more injuries and were more negatively affected by their partner’s physical aggression than did husbands. Multiple dimensions of aggression were used to identify subgroups of mutually victimized couples (e.g., frequency, severity of aggressive act[s], psychological impact, and severity of injury). The largest subgroup consisted of spouses who reported low levels of victimization on all dimensions. Subgroup 2 included couples in which wives reported higher overall levels of victimization than did their husbands. A third small subgroup was also identified where husbands reported higher levels of victimization than did their wives. Contrary to prediction, both highly victimized wives and highly victimized husbands in the asymmetrical victimization subgroups reported greater levels of relationship and individual distress than did spouses in the mutual/low victimization and nonaggression control groups. However, the marriages of the two highly victimized subgroups did differ in important ways. The findings were interpreted to suggest an integration of feminist and dyadic theories of marital aggression.
Theoretical and empirical analyses suggest that affective features of dyadic communication bear importantly on relationship satisfaction. A circumplex model that originated in research on the structure of affect was first replicated using data from premarital problem-solving discussions. Negativity, Positivity, and Disengagement emerged as the three primary factors. Multiple regression analyses, controlling for premarital relationship satisfaction, showed affective Disengagement at premarriage to be negatively associated with marital satisfaction at 18 (n = 84) and 30 (n = 72) months after marriage. Negativity of premarital affective expression correlated negatively with premarital satisfaction (n = 88) but not with postmarital satisfaction. Two variables formed by combining affect factors contributed to the prediction of 30-month marital satisfaction. Elements associated with current marital satisfaction appear to differ from those associated with later marital satisfaction.
A significant source of confusion in the marital observation area is the proliferation of systems for collapsing microbehavioral codes into categories. This study used an archival data set of 995 couples' videotaped conflict negotiations coded with the Marital Interaction Coding System-IV (MICS). A factor analysis was conducted to provide some empirically based guidance for the formation of coding categories. Four factors emerged for both men and women: Hostility, Constructive Problem Discussion, Humor, and Responsibility Discussion. Suggestions are made for category formation with MICS codes and for the development of a new coding system based on these results.Researchers wishing to use marital microobservational coding systems are faced with a paradox. Despite the more than 20-year history of such systems (cf. Gottman, 1979) and a wealth of reliability and validity data to support
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.