Attributions for Spousal Behavior in Relation to Criticism and Perceived Criticism

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Behavior Therapy 42 (2011) 655 – 666

www.elsevier.com/locate/bt

Attributions for Spousal Behavior in Relation to Criticism and Perceived Criticism Kristina M. Peterson David A. Smith University of Notre Dame

This study examined relations between spousal attributions and criticism in a sample of 118 married couples. Spouses rated general perceived criticism (PC) and their own expressed criticism as well as interaction-specific PC from a videotaped discussion. Independent judges also coded criticism from the discussion. Spouses’ self-reported causal and responsibility attributions for hypothetical spousal negative behavior were related to all types of criticism. Attributions were also associated with unique variance in spouses’ reports of general PC and criticism, even after controlling either for judges’ or partners’ ratings of criticism and marital adjustment. General PC and expressed criticism appear to reflect more than either the amount of criticism present or feelings about the marriage; rather, general PC and expressed criticism are uniquely associated with the cause and responsibility ascribed to partners’ behavior.

Keywords: relationship attributions; criticism; expressed emotion; depression; marital discord

BOTH GENERAL PERCEIVED CRITICISM (PC) and criticism coded by trained raters of interviews with relatives are related to a host of negative outcomes, including psychiatric relapse, marital discord, and poor coping with physical illness (Hooley, 2007; Renshaw, 2008; Wearden, Tarrier, Barrowclough, This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant MH-066301-02. Address correspondence to Kristina M. Peterson, Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, 118 Haggar Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556; e-mail: [email protected]. 0005-7894/xx/xxx-xxx/$1.00/0 © 2011 Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Zastowny, & Rahill, 2000). Strong associations between PC, ratings of criticism, and negative outcomes underscore the importance of deepening our understanding of factors associated with high levels of PC and criticism. Among a host of other contributing factors, the attributions that relatives make about ill family members’ behavior are thought to be associated with relatives’ criticism of family members as well as with how much criticism ill family members perceive from relatives (Barrowclough & Hooley, 2003; Chambless, Blake, & Simmons, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to clarify the relationships among attributions and different types of criticism by exploring how negative causal and responsibility attributions that spouses make about partners’ behavior are differentially and uniquely related to specific forms of criticism, such as PC, spouses’ self-reported criticism, criticism as reported by partners, and criticism as it is coded by outside judges. Attributions are meanings people attach to events. When people observe others’ behavior they frequently attribute meaning to such behavior, and the meaning attached can amplify the impact of the behavior. Whereas negative attributions cast behavior in a negative light, positive attributions shed a more positive light on behavior. Among the most commonly studied attributions in the marital literature are attributions of cause and responsibility (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). As an illustration of negative causal and responsibility attributions, consider a spouse who forgets a wedding anniversary. Negative attributions for forgetting might include that the cause of forgetting is unlikely to change (negative causal attribution) or that the spouse forgot on purpose (negative responsibility

656

peterson & smith

attribution). In other words, the effects of the behavior (forgetting the anniversary) are amplified by the additional negative meaning that is produced by the negative causal and responsibility attributions attached to that behavior.

Attributions and Criticism Drawing on Weiner's (1986) theory of attribution, both Bradbury and Fincham's (1990) model of attributions, behavior, and marital satisfaction, and Hooley's (1987) attribution model of expressed emotion posit that attributions spouses attach to their partners’ behavior bear on how spouses act toward partners. Specifically, in Bradbury and Fincham's model, after spouses perceive partners’ behavior as negative (i.e., after a primary processing stage; p. 24), spouses assign private attributions to partners’ behavior. If private attributions are negative, then spouses are thought to be more likely to act in destructive ways toward their partners. In a similar fashion, Hooley's attribution model of expressed emotion suggests that relatives who are high in expressed emotion are highly critical because they make certain types of attributions about ill relatives’ symptoms, such as attributions of control over such symptoms. Empirical research supports both Bradbury and Fincham's and Hooley's models, demonstrating that the more spouses assign either private or public negative attributions to partners’ aversive behavior, the more likely spouses are to act in aversive ways toward partners (Bradbury, Beach, Fincham, & Nelson, 1996). Notably, spouses who make negative attributions are also likely to be viewed as highly critical when both aversive behavior and criticism are coded by trained judges (Barrowclough & Hooley, 2003). Despite demonstrations of how spousal criticism as coded by trained outside judges is related to private and public spousal attributions for partners’ behavior, at this time we do not know if private attributions spouses make about partners’ negative behavior are related to how spouses report their own negative behavior toward partners. Since previous studies documented differences between self-reports of being critical and of judges’ reports of the same criticism (e.g., Hooley & Teasdale, 1989; Smith & Peterson, 2008), it is probably unwise to assume that the same relationship between private attributions and criticism as coded by judges holds for attributions and criticism as reported by spouses themselves. Therefore, in this study we investigated whether spouses’ own reports of being critical were positively related to the private negative causal and responsibility attributions they made for their partners’ behavior.

In addition, given that important unique variance can be isolated from peoples’ reports of their own critical behavior (Peterson & Smith, 2010), we also sought to determine whether private negative causal and responsibility attributions might be uniquely related to spouses’ reports of their behavior even when controlling for what either outside judges or what partners observe. That is, if spouses privately make destructive attributions and blame partners for their behavior, spouses might also report acting in a very destructive and critical way toward partners. To the extent that outside judges or partners are unable to access spouses’ private attributions, spouses’ own reports of being critical may be uniquely positively related to their attributions for partners’ behavior beyond what can be accounted for by either judges’ or partners’ ratings of spouses’ criticism.

Attributions and Perceived Criticism In addition to being associated with behavior and criticism directed toward partners, attributions are also thought to be associated with the perception of criticism. Chambless et al. (2010) hypothesized that the more spouses make negative attributions for partners’ behavior in general, the more likely spouses are to subsequently perceive higher levels of criticism from partners. In a similar manner, according to Bradbury and Fincham's (1990) model, private negative attributions about partners’ behavior are thought to be related to primary processing of such behavior. For instance, Bradbury and Fincham hypothesize that if spouses do not perceive behavior as particularly negative (during primary processing of behavior) then spouses may be less likely to make negative attributions about such behavior. Therefore, how spouses process and attend to partners’ behavior is thought to be associated with the attributions spouses ascribe to behavior, with increased perceptions or attention given to more negative and self-relevant behavior, leading to increased negative attributions made about such behavior. As can be seen, Chambless et al. and Bradbury and Fincham hypothesize different causal connections between attributions and perceptions or primary processing. Regardless of the direction of the association, however, first we had to test whether attributions were related to perceptions of criticism. Even though it has been two decades since Bradbury and Fincham (1990) highlighted the need for research on the pathway between primary processing and attributions, such investigations have been scarce until recently. In two recent studies, one with a sample of community participants and one with a sample of patients with

attributions and criticism anxiety disorders, Chambless et al. (2010) found that the more spouses reported perceiving criticism, the more judges reported that spouses made negative attributions for their partners’ behavior. What is more, in the sample of patients with anxiety disorders, such relations held even after controlling for judges’ reports of criticism directed toward patients. Therefore, it appears that spouses who are more likely to detect their partners’ critical comments are also more likely to make negative attributions for their spouses’ negative behavior. To replicate and extend Chambless et al. (2010) using different methods and a different sample, we investigated how private causal and responsibility attributions made for partners’ behavior were related to spouses’ own primary processing of criticism (i.e., the perception of criticism) from partners. We then investigated relations between the perception of criticism and attributions while controlling for criticism as it was coded either by independent judges or by partners. This analysis helped us determine whether perceptions (i.e., primary processing) of criticism were uniquely related to attributions about partners’ behavior in comparison to “actual” criticism as coded by partners or independent judges.

Individual Differences marital adjustment In Bradbury and Fincham's (1990) model, marital adjustment is related to both primary processing and private attributions. As a result, any associations found between PC and attributions may simply result from their overlap with marital adjustment. Therefore, just as in Chambless et al. (2010), beyond testing the simple association between attributions and PC, we performed secondary analyses to determine whether spousal negative causal and responsibility attributions were related to spouses’ PC after controlling for spouses’ marital adjustment. depression Given PC's role in predicting depressive relapse (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989), self-reported criticism's association with depressive symptoms of depressed wives (Peterson & Smith, 2010), and the established relations among depression, marital discord, and attributions (Uebelacker & Whisman, 2005), we thought it important to test whether relationships among attributions, PC, and criticism extended to depressed spouses. We also tested whether such relationships differed for depressed and nondepressed spouses.

657

gender Although there have been some exceptions (e.g., Chambless et al., 2010; Sanford, 2006), gender differences have been reported in the relationship between negative attributions and actual behavior toward spouses (Bradbury et al., 1996), and between attributions and marital conflict (Davey, Fincham, Beach, & Brody, 2001). Therefore, we tested for gender differences in the association between negative causal and responsibility attributions and both criticism and PC.

Overview of Study and Hypotheses First, we examined relations between negative causal and responsibility attributions for partners’ behavior and criticism directed toward partners (as coded by both outside judges and as reported by spouses themselves). We hypothesized that negative causal and responsibility attributions for partners’ behavior would be positively related to both judges’ and spouses’ ratings of criticism directed toward partners. This has already been shown in previous studies (Barrowclough & Hooley, 2003; Bradbury et al., 1996; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). We also hypothesized that spouses’ reports of their own criticism toward partners would be positively related to negative causal and responsibility attributions made for partners’ behavior even after controlling for either judges’ reports of criticism from spouses’ or partners’ reports of criticism from spouses. We expected this because judges or partners may not have access to private attributional processes that link spouses’ attributions to their views of themselves as highly critical. Second, we examined relations between negative causal and responsibility attributions for partners’ behavior and PC. We hypothesized that, as reported by Chambless et al. (2010), but using different samples and different methods to assess attributions, negative spousal causal and responsibility attributions for partners’ behavior would be positively related to the amount of criticism spouses perceive from partners. As also reported by Chambless et al., we hypothesized that the more spouses endorsed negative causal and responsibility attributions, the more they would perceive criticism from their partners, even after controlling for either judges’ or partners’ reports of criticism directed toward spouses. Last, we tested whether reported effects remained after controlling for individual differences, including marital adjustment, diagnosis of current major depressive disorder (MDD), and gender. We expected that reported effects would remain significant after controlling for marital adjustment because they have done so in previous studies

658

peterson & smith

(Chambless et al., 2010; Fincham & Bradbury, 1993). In addition, because at least one study has shown there to be no difference between depressed and nondepressed couples in the relation between attributions and behavior (Bradbury et al., 1996), we predicted that the magnitude of the association between negative causal and responsibility attributions and criticism would be similar for depressed and nondepressed couples. Finally, although there have been some exceptions (e.g., Chambless et al., 2010; Sanford, 2006), several studies suggest there are gender differences in the relationship between attributions and behavior (e.g., Bradbury et al., 1996; Davey et al., 2001; Miller & Bradbury, 1995); therefore, we too expected gender differences in the relationship between negative causal and responsibility attributions and criticism.

Method participants Potential participants in this investigation were first diagnosed following a Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Non-Patient Edition (SCID-I/NP; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001). Based on these diagnoses, couples were then excluded from analyses if either spouse was acutely suicidal, had experienced psychotic symptoms, or if either spouse met criteria for substance abuse or dependence within the past year, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within the past 2 years, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) within the past 2 years, or had current or past manic episodes. Couples with these disorders were excluded because evidence indicates that PTSD, bipolar disorder, and substance disorders impact marital functioning even more so than does depression (Whisman, 2007), and in the case of OCD, to a similar extent as does depression (Riggs, Hiss, & Foa, 1992). It is important to note that recent evidence suggests that generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) may be more strongly linked with marital distress than with MDD (Whisman, 2007); however, due to comorbidity in our sample, and because other studies of depression and attributions have not excluded couples on the basis of comorbid GAD (Uebelacker & Whisman, 2005), we decided to include couples even if either spouse suffered from GAD. Fifty-seven couples from the original sample of 180 were excluded based on these criteria, leaving 118 couples in the current study (35 depressed couples and 83 nondepressed couples). A second diagnostician reviewed 80 randomly selected SCID interviews (approximately 23% of the interviews). Chance-corrected interdiagnostician agreement for the overall “depressed” versus

“nondepressed” versus “excluded” classification was κ = .82. The majority of participants identified their race/ ethnicity as Caucasian (78.0%), 9.3% identified as African American, 3.4% identified as Hispanic, 0.8% identified as Asian, and 3.4% identified as another race/ethnicity (e.g., “mixed”). Six participants did not indicate a race/ethnicity. Couples had been married for an average of 14.00 (SD = 14.28) years. Spouses averaged 42.44 years of age (SD = 14.15). Couples averaged 2.09 children (SD = 1.65; range = 0–7). Annual family incomes ranged from $0 to $150,000, with a median of $40,000 (M = 47,468, SD = 28,537).

procedure Participants in this investigation were the same as those reported in Peterson, Smith, and Windle (2009), which sought to establish the validity of a new construct, criticality bias (i.e., the overperception of criticism) by examining the relationship between criticality bias and a number of interpersonal and intrapersonal constructs, including relationship attributions and criticism. As described in that report, we recruited two groups of married couples from South Bend, Indiana. We sought nondepressed community couples using newspaper advertisements for a “marital communication” study. We targeted depressed couples through newspaper advertisements, referrals from physicians, and fliers placed in a local community mental health center. Couples recruited through the newspaper were paid $50 for their participation. Couples recruited from the community mental health center were paid $100 in order to achieve a comparable rate of referrals and because such participants took substantially more time to complete the study (owing primarily to the greater attention their symptoms required during the diagnostic interview). After inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked, the final sample comprised 39 couples recruited through newspapers for a “marital communication” study and 79 couples recruited through physician referrals and advertisements placed in the newspaper and posted at a community mental health center. There were no significant demographic differences between these two groups. However, as expected, couples recruited from the community mental health center were likely to have more psychological and relational distress. For example, couples from the community mental health center had higher levels of negative affect, t (113) = − 5.91, p b .001, and made more negative spousal causal and responsibility attributions, t (114) = − 2.37, p b .05, than those recruited from the community.

659

attributions and criticism As described in Peterson et al. (2009), couples participated in a 3-hour laboratory visit during which they completed a variety of tasks, including filling out questionnaires, engaging in a 10-minute videotaped marital discussion, and rating their videotaped discussions for perceived criticism. The marital discussion was a desired-change interaction task (cf. Pasch & Bradbury, 1998) where the topic of discussion was a mutually identified change in the “target” spouse. For depressed couples, the depressed spouse was the “target,” whereas for control couples, a randomly selected spouse was the target. For expository purposes, we will refer to all of the nontarget spouses as the “sources,” inasmuch as they were the sources of the criticism to which targets were exposed. Participants were not aware of the source/target designations and were simply informed as to which spouse was to be the topic of the change to be discussed. To select topics, each spouse was asked to independently list five things to change about the target spouse. Participants ranked these changes in order from most to least important. The topic of the interaction was the highest ranking item appearing on both spouses’ lists. If there were no overlapping items, the experimenter asked permission to disclose the target's list to the source spouse who then chose a topic from the target's list. Spouses did not otherwise see or discuss each other's lists. After topic selection, couples were videotaped engaging in a 10-minute discussion. Two identically time-stamped videotapes were made of this interaction for later independent viewing by the spouses. Following the interaction, spouses were taken to separate rooms where they watched their videotape, listening to the audio using headphones so that experimenters could not overhear the couple's discussion. During playback, experimenters paused each video following identical 30-second segments using the embedded time stamps as cues. While the videos were paused, targets completed a questionnaire assessing their perceived criticism during the prior 30-second interval. At a later date, trained judges also rated couples’ videotaped interactions for criticism from the targets and sources during the same discussion segments as the spouses’ ratings.

interaction-specific measures Targets’ Ratings of Interaction-Specific PC Targets rated their interaction-specific PC by responding to the question, “How critical was your partner being of you?” after viewing each 30second segment of their videotaped discussion. Ratings were made by considering both the

duration and intensity of the criticism on Likerttype scales with anchors of 0 (not at all critical) and 3 (very critical). The internal consistency reliability of target ratings of PC across the 20 intervals was quite high, ICC(3, 1) = .95 (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). This high degree of reliability reflects not only the consistency of behavior between intervals but also the benefits of aggregating across 20 observational intervals, which is psychometrically analogous to aggregating across items in a 20-item scale. As reflected in Table 1, on average, targets were perceiving just fewer than one slightly critical comment during each of the 30-second intervals of the interaction (in all, they perceived one slightly critical comment in about 12.6 or 16.6 of the 20 intervals for nondepressed and depressed spouses, respectively). Judges’ Ratings of Target and Source Criticism Three randomly selected judges (out of a pool of seven different judges) independently rated both targets’ and sources’ criticism during the same 30second videotaped segments rated for PC by the targets. Training of the judges was based on definitions of criticism given in major observational coding systems (e.g., Magaña et al., 1986; Vaughn & Leff, 1976; Weiss & Summers, 1983), and judges practiced rating sample tapes together before rating participant tapes. Judges rated comments as critical if they expressed dislike, disapproval, or resentment of the spouses’ personality or behavior. Criticism ratings were made following each 30-second segment using a 0 to 3 scale, where 0 (no criticism), 1 (low intensity and short duration criticism), 2

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Main Study Constructs in the Nondepressed and Depressed Groups. Variable

Nondepressed M

SD

Depressed M

SD

1. Target attributions 68.85** 23.11 82.47** 23.08 2. Target general PC 2.01 1.43 2.47 1.33 3. Target interaction PC .63 .71 .83 .61 4. Target general criticism 2.36*** 1.30 3.44*** 1.16 5. Source general PC 2.05*** 1.35 2.97*** 1.24 6. Source general 2.45 1.67 2.59 1.16 criticism 7. Judge observed .09 .13 .09 .12 target criticism 8. Judge observed .14 .17 .13 .14 source criticism 9. Target marital 109.02*** 16.13 94.38*** 23.80 adjustment Note. Significance values indicate significant differences between groups. ** p b .01, *** p b .001.

660

peterson & smith

(high intensity or long duration criticism), and 3 (high intensity and long duration criticism, or global criticism of character). The average intraclass correlation of the three judges’ ratings on each of the 20 observational intervals was ICC(3, 3) = .83 (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) for targets’ observed criticism and ICC(3, 3) = .84 for sources’ observed criticism. As seen in Table 1, according to the judges, targets expressed low intensity and short duration of criticism in about 1.8 of the 20 intervals of the 10-minute interaction. Sources expressed similar amounts of criticism, displaying criticism in about 2.6 of the intervals during the interaction.

general measures Targets’ Negative Causal and Responsibility Attributions Target spouses’ negative causal and responsibility attributions for hypothetical negative spousal behavior were measured with the Relationship Attribution Measure (RAM; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992). Targets answered questions assessing causal (locus, stability, globality of the behavior) and responsibility (intentional, selfish, blameworthy) attributions for four hypothetical situations describing negative spousal behavior (i.e., “Your spouse criticizes something you say,” “Your spouse begins to spend less time than you,” “Your spouse does not pay attention to what you are saying,” and “Your spouse is cool and distant”). Ratings were made using 6-point scales ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly). All 24 items of the RAM were summed to create a total relationship attribution score, with higher total scores indicating more negative causal and responsibility attributions. Total RAM scores have good reliability and validity (Fincham & Bradbury). Internal consistency estimates have ranged from .89 to .94 (Fincham & Bradbury) and was .94 for targets in the present sample. The means and standard deviations of the RAM are presented in Table 1. Spouses’ General Criticism and Perceived Criticism A modified version of the 2-item Perceived Criticism Measure (PCM) developed by Hooley and Teasdale (1989) assessed both general PC (“How critical is your spouse of you?”) and general criticism (“How critical are you of your spouse?”). The original PCM has anchors of 1 (not at all critical) and 10 (very critical indeed), but in the current study the scale anchors were changed to 0 (not at all critical) and 5 (extremely critical) to correspond with a more comprehensive measure, the General Criticism Inventory (Smith, Couture, &

Myers, 2001), which measures criticism from multiple sources on 0 to 5 scales. 1 The PCM has good temporal stability and concurrent validity with the original EE measure based on the Camberwell Family Interview (Van Humbeeck, Van Audenhove, De Hert, Pieters, & Storms, 2002). The PCM has convergent validity in that it corresponds with naïve raters’ coding of destructive criticism in spousal interactions as well as spouses’ ratings of interaction-specific PC (Chambless & Blake, 2009). The PCM also has moderate discriminant validity with respect to depression and personality (Riso, Klein, Anderson, Ouimette, & Lizardi, 1996). Test–retest reliability estimates for perceived criticism have ranged from rTT = .60 to .75 over an approximately 12-week interval, whereas for criticism r TT = .60 over 20 weeks (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989). For the current study, we used target spouses’ general PC and criticism as well as source spouses’ general PC and criticism. As shown in Table 1, on average spouses perceived moderate levels of PC and reported they were critical to a moderate degree. Targets’ Marital Adjustment Target spouses’ marital adjustment was measured with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). Scores on the DAS can range from 0 to 151, with lower scores indicating less marital adjustment (or more marital discord). The DAS is a widely used measure with excellent internal consistency reliability (N.90) as well as compelling evidence of convergent and discriminant validity (Heyman, Sayers, & Bellack, 1994; Spanier, 1976).

1

As described in Peterson et al. (2009), this scale was developed for a larger study in which we sought to compare cross-spouse reports on this measure. We feared that a 10-point scale was calibrated too finely for our participants, and that near misses in the agreement matrix caused by their attempts to apply this finegrained scale would markedly reduce kappa-type indices. Once we elected to deviate from the original 1–10 format of the scale, we then decided to invoke a few other preferences in the production of a replacement scale. First of all, we felt that the number “0” better represented the concept “not at all critical” than did the number “1,” which is the anchor number of the Hooley scale (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989). Secondly, we sought to avoid a bias toward the middle, or “average” range of the scale, by choosing an even number of response options (in our case 0–5 gives six response options, which offers participants no center value). A preponderance of middle values could distort the marginal distributions, biasing nominal scale agreement and reducing validity. Finally, in order to choose among possible even numbers for the scale, we felt that when asking participants to reflect on the totality of their experiences with their spouses (as opposed to their experiences during the 10-minute interaction), 4 scale points was too few, and 8 scale points was not sufficiently fewer than the original 10 to justify the alterations.

attributions and criticism Cronbach's alpha estimate of the internal consistency of the DAS was .93 for targets. The DAS means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. As can be seen by comparing these means with a conventional clinical cutoff of 98, which is the point of maximal separation between distressed clinic couples and nondistressed community couples (Eddy, Heyman, & Weiss, 1991), the majority of nondepressed targets were not martially distressed, whereas many of the depressed targets were martially distressed.

Results preliminary analyses The means for the combined sample that included both depressed and nondepressed groups were presented in Peterson et al. (2009), who investigated how these constructs relate to criticality bias. In addition, Peterson and Smith (2010) presented within-couple comparisons of criticism from depressed and nondepressed spouses. However, the present study is the first to include the means of both depressed and nondepressed groups together and the first to compare the means between groups. Therefore, we felt it was important to test whether the means differed in the depressed and nondepressed groups. There was a significant difference in the proportion of female targets in each group, χ 2 (1) = 5.98, p = .015. More specifically, 73.52% of targets in the depressed group were female, whereas 48.78% of the targets in the nondepressed group were female. Such differences were expected because of the gender differences in the prevalence of MDD (Kessler, McGonagle, Swartz, Blazer, & Nelson, 1993) and the fact that for couples in the nondepressed group, we randomly assigned spouses to be targets. Other differences in the means between groups are presented in Table 1. As expected, the targets in the depressed group were more martially distressed than targets in the nondepressed group, t(114) = 3.84, p b .001. In addition, as can be seen by inspecting Table 1, depressed targets made significantly more negative causal and responsibility attributions than did nondepressed targets, t(114) = −2.89, p = .005. However, like the pattern of findings from previous studies (e.g., Bradbury et al., 1996; Uebelacker & Whisman, 2005), after controlling for marital adjustment, the difference between groups in targets’ attributions was nonsignificant, F(1, 113) = .55, p = .460, and marital adjustment emerged as a significant covariate, b = −.72, SEb = .09, t(113) = − 7.65, p b .001, in a one-way ANCOVA with diagnostic group as the between-subjects factor and targets’ attributions as the dependent variable (DV).

661

Moving to criticism, the levels of criticism were similar in both groups with two exceptions. First, depressed targets reported being significantly more critical than did nondepressed targets, t(113) = −4.21, p b .001. To determine whether this difference between groups persisted after taking marital adjustment into account, we ran a one-way ANCOVA with diagnostic group as a betweensubjects factor, marital adjustment as a covariate, and targets’ general criticism as the DV. Even after controlling for targets’ marital adjustment, there was a significant difference in levels of targets’ general criticism between groups, F(1, 112) = 8.10, p = .005, with depressed targets reporting being more critical than nondepressed targets. Second, there was a significant difference between groups in how much general criticism source spouses reported perceiving from targets, t(114) = −3.42, p b .001, with sources reporting perceiving more criticism from depressed targets than did sources from nondepressed targets. To determine whether this difference between groups persisted after taking marital adjustment into account, we ran a one-way ANCOVA with diagnostic group as a betweensubjects factor, marital adjustment as a covariate, and sources’ general perceived criticism as the DV. Even after controlling for marital adjustment, there was a significant difference in levels of targets’ general criticism between groups, F(1, 113) = 5.58, p = .020. Taken together, depressed targets appear more critical than nondepressed targets, even when martial adjustment is taken into account or when targets or sources report the criticism.

main analyses We tested each of the main associations between negative causal and responsibility attributions and types of criticism for differences between depressed and nondepressed couples. To do so, we conducted multiple regressions with the type of criticism (e.g., targets’ general criticism or judges’ ratings of target criticism) as the DV. The independent variables (IVs) were the main effect of negative attributions and diagnostic group as well as the interaction between negative attributions and diagnostic group. In no case did diagnostic group moderate the association between attributions and criticism. The t values of the interaction term ranged from −.83 to .02, whereas p values ranged from .41 to .98. Due to (a) the lack of significant group differences, (b) theoretical reasons to expect similarity in associations between negative causal and responsibility attributions and criticism for both groups, and (c) because we ran analyses separately for both groups but results in both groups were similar, the results we present in this manuscript

662

peterson & smith

include both depressed and nondepressed targets. In addition, because previous studies have found similar patterns in both community couples and those with anxiety disorders (Chambless et al., 2010), we felt justified in combining those with and those without clinical depression. Finally, presenting the results from the combined sample allowed us to maintain our power for detecting mediumsized effects (r = .3) above .80 for a two-tailed test at an alpha level of .05. Targets’ Attributions and Targets’ Criticism Our first hypothesis was that targets’ negative causal and responsibility attributions for partners’ behavior would be positively related to targets’ criticism directed toward partners whether criticism was coded from a videotaped interaction by outside judges, as reported in general by targets themselves, or as perceived in general by partners of targets. As shown in Table 2, our hypothesis was supported in that the more targets made negative causal and responsibility attributions about their partners’ behavior, the more critical targets were of their partners. This was true whether such criticism was coded by outside judges (i.e., judge observed target criticism), r(110) = .28, p = .003, when such criticism was reported in general by targets themselves, r(113) =.46, p b .001, or when such criticism was reported as perceived by source partners, r(113) = .24, p = .009. Next we tested whether targets’ negative causal and responsibility attributions would be positively related to targets’ reports of their own general criticism even after controlling for either (a) targets’ criticism as observed by outside judges, or (b) targets’ criticism as perceived in general by source partners. To do so, we first ran a multiple regression in which targets’ general criticism was the DV and both targets’ negative attributions and judges’ ratings of interaction-specific criticism were

the IVs. Results revealed that even after controlling for judges’ ratings of interaction-specific criticism, targets’ negative causal and responsibility attributions were significantly positively related to targets’ general criticism, b = .03, SEb = .01, t(108) = 5.08, p b .001, semipartial r(sr) = .43. In addition, because targets reported their general criticism while judges’ rated interaction-specific criticism from targets, to directly compare targets’ general criticism with other ratings of targets’ general criticism, we ran another multiple regression in which targets’ general criticism was the DV and both targets’ negative attributions and spouses’ ratings of general criticism perceived from targets were the IVs. Results revealed that even after controlling for source spouses’ reports of general perceived criticism from targets, targets’ negative attributions were significantly positively related to targets’ general criticism, b = .02, SEb = .01, t(112) = 4.79, p b .001, sr = .38. Taken together, these results indicate that targets’ negative causal and responsibility attributions capture 14–18% of the unique variance in targets’ general criticism as reported by targets. Targets’ Attributions and Targets’ PC Second, we hypothesized that the more targets made negative causal and responsibility attributions for spousal behavior the more targets would report perceiving criticism, both in general and as rated in the laboratory marital discussion. As shown in Table 2, results support these hypotheses in that the positive correlations of targets’ negative attributions with both targets’ general PC and interaction-specific PC were significant, r(113) = .51, p b .001 and r(107) = .32, p b .001, for targets’ general PC and interaction-specific PC, respectively. In other words, the more targets made negative causal and responsibility attributions, the more

Table 2

Intercorrelations of Main Study Constructs. Variable

1. Target attributions 2. Target general PC 3. Target interaction PC 4. Target general criticism 5. Source general PC 6. Source general criticism 7. Judge observed target criticism 8. Judge observed source criticism 9. Target marital adjustment 10. Target gender 11. Target diagnosis

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

___ .51*** .32*** .46*** .24** .19* .28** .10 −.62*** −.18 .26**

___ .28** .46*** .06 .37*** .27** .25** −.51*** .12 .15

___ .24* .28** .03 .48*** .37*** −.33*** −.12 .13

___ .37*** .21* .25** .15 −.43*** −.22* .37***

___ .20* .37*** .16 -.33*** −.23* .31**

___ .03 .20* −.21* .29* .05

___ .23* −.45*** −.13 −.00

___ −.06 .11 −.01

___ .17 −.34***

___ −.23*

Note. Gender was coded as “0” for females and “1” for males. Diagnosis was coded as “0” for nondepressed and “1” for depressed. *p b .05, **p b .01, ***p b .001.

attributions and criticism they perceived criticism from their spouses, both in general and during a specific laboratory interaction. To test whether negative causal and responsibility attributions were uniquely related to targets’ PC, we ran multiple regressions controlling for either (a) judges’ ratings of interaction-specific source criticism, or (b) source spouses’ self-reports of their own general criticism. Targets’ attributions were significantly positively related to both targets’ general and interaction-specific PC after controlling for interaction-specific source criticism as coded by judges, b = .03, SEb = .01, t(108) = 6.14, p b .001, sr = .49, and b = .01, SE b = .00, t(103) = 3.84, p b .001, sr = .33, for general PC and interactionspecific PC, respectively. In addition, negative attributions were significantly positively related to both targets’ general and interaction-specific PC after controlling for sources’ criticism as reported in general by sources themselves, b = .03, SEb = .01, t (112) = 5.73, p b .001, sr = .44, and b = .01, SEb = .00, t(106) = 3.40, p b .001, sr = .31, for general PC and interaction-specific PC, respectively. Therefore, negative causal and responsibility attributions accounted for 10–24% of the unique variance in targets’ general and interaction-specific PC, when either judges’ ratings of interaction-specific source criticism or sources’ reports of their own general criticism were taken into account.

individual differences Marital Adjustment Because any associations between negative causal and responsibility attributions and criticism could have been due to their shared associations with a third variable, marital adjustment, and because of the significant correlations in our study among marital adjustment, attributions, and criticism (as shown in Table 2), we tested whether the relationships between negative attributions and criticism would hold even when controlling for marital adjustment and either judges’ or sources’ reports of criticism. To do so, we ran two regression models with targets’ general criticism as the DV in each one and targets’ attributions, targets’ marital adjustment, and either (a) targets’ interaction-specific criticism as rated by outside judges (Model 1), or (b) targets’ general criticism as perceived by sources (Model 2) as the IVs. Results indicated that targets’ negative attributions about partners’ behavior were positively related to the amount of self-reported general criticism of targets even after controlling for both interaction-specific criticism from targets as coded by judges and targets’ marital adjustment, b = .02, SEb = .01, t(107) = 3.26, p = .002, sr = .27. This same pattern held for the model in which we

663

controlled for source spouses’ reports of general perceived criticism from targets and targets’ marital adjustment, b = .01, SE b = .01, t(111) = 2.99, p = .003, sr = .24. Therefore, negative causal and responsibility attributions targets make about spousal behavior explain 6–7% of the unique variance in how critical targets generally are, beyond what can be accounted for by targets’ marital adjustment and either targets’ interaction-specific criticism as rated by outside judges or reports of targets’ general criticism as perceived by sources. Similar results were found when using two parallel models, with targets’ general PC as the DV and targets’ negative attributions, targets’ marital adjustment, and either (a) sources’ interaction-specific criticism as objectively coded by judges (in Model 1), or (b) sources’ general criticism as reported by sources themselves (in Model 2) as the IVs. Even after taking both objectively coded sources’ criticism and targets’ marital adjustment into account, there was a significant positive relationship between targets’ negative causal and responsibility attributions and targets’ general PC from sources, b = .02, SEb = .01, t(112) = 3.07, p = .003, sr = .24. In the second model, even after taking both general criticism as reported by sources and targets’ marital adjustment into account, there was a significant positive relationship between targets’ negative attributions and targets’ general PC from sources, b = .02, SEb = .01, t(112) = 2.91, p = .004, sr = .22. Taken together the results of both models suggest that the negative causal and responsibility attributions targets make about partners’ behavior explain 5–6% of the unique variance in how much criticism targets generally perceive from sources beyond what can be accounted for by targets’ marital adjustment or other ratings of criticism from judges or sources. In contrast, however, targets’ attributions were not significantly related to targets’ interactionspecific PC after taking judges’ ratings of interaction-specific criticism from sources and targets’ marital adjustment into account, b = .01, SEb = .00, t (102) = 1.61, p = .110, sr = .14. It is important to note, however, that marital adjustment was not significantly related to targets’ negative attributions, b = −.01, SEb = .00, t(102) = −1.87, p = .064. In this analysis, only judges’ ratings of interactionspecific criticism from sources were significantly related to targets’ interaction-specific PC, b = 1.51, SEb = .36, t(102) = 4.20, p b .001, sr = .36. Gender To test for gender differences in the main study models, we ran models in which each specific type of criticism was the DV and targets’ negative

664

peterson & smith

attributions, targets’ gender, and the interaction between targets’ negative attributions and targets’ gender were the IVs. In no case was the interaction between targets’ gender and targets’ negative attributions significant. For example, b = − .14, SEb = .73, t(111) = −.37, p = .712; b = .00, SEb = .00, t(108) = −1.74, p = .084; b = .01, SEb = .01, t(111) = − .73, p = .468; b = .00, SE b = .01, t(105) = .04, p = .996; b = .00, SEb = .00, t(108) = −.20, p = .845, for the interaction between targets’ gender and targets’ negative causal and responsibility attributions predicting either targets’ general criticism, judges’ ratings of interaction-specific criticism from targets, targets’ general PC, targets’ interactionspecific PC, or judges’ ratings of interaction-specific criticism from sources, respectively.

Discussion The more that depressed and nondepressed spouses make negative causal and responsibility attributions for their partners’ aversive behavior the more they also report both being critical of their partners and perceiving high levels of criticism from their partners. These findings support and extend Hooley's (1987) attribution model of expressed emotion and Bradbury and Fincham's (1990) model of spousal attributions and behavior. Specifically, to the extent that PC is an indicator of primary processing (Bradbury & Fincham, p. 24) of spousal comments as critical or negative, our work demonstrates crosssectional relations between such primary processing and the private attributions spouses make for their partners’ behavior. Additionally, we found support for positive relationships between private negative causal and responsibility attributions for spouses’ negative behavior and self-reports of being critical that could not be accounted for simply by monoreporter biases, since such patterns were replicated when judges and partners reported the same criticism. Therefore, our findings, taken together with those by Chambless et al. (2010) who found similar pathways between spouses’ PC and those same spouses’ attributions for actual spousal behavior as coded by outside judges in a sample of community couples and couples with anxiety disorders, lend strong support for the notion that how spouses perceive criticism, report being critical, and are critical as rated by outside judges are all positively related to the negative attributions spouses ascribe to their partners’ behavior, whether attributions are self-reported or rated by trained judges. What is more, negative causal and responsibility attributions were associated with unique variance in general PC even after controlling for either outside judges’ or partners’ ratings of partners’ criticism. This suggests that negative attributions capture part

of the PC construct that is separable from the amount of criticism that is objectively present when the amount of criticism objectively present is reported by judges or partners. This supports Bradbury and Fincham's (1990) distinction between behavior and the primary processing, or detection, of such behavior and suggests that primary processing of behavior may be more highly related to attributions than are the behaviors themselves. As such, as noted by Chambless et al. (2010), treatments that focus on reducing general PC might be enhanced with components addressing not just actual criticism but also how spouses detect criticism and the attributions spouses make about criticism. Similar to unique relationships between negative causal and responsibility attributions and PC, we found that self-reports of spouses’ own criticism were uniquely positively related to private negative attributions, even when controlling for spouses’ actual criticism as reported by judges or partners. Taken together these findings suggest that spouses’ ratings of their own general criticism are uniquely related to spouses’ negative attributions ascribed to partners’ behavior. Therefore, treatments to reduce spouses’ feelings of being critical or their perceptions of themselves as being highly critical might focus on reducing spouses’ negative attributions for partners’ behavior. Such a process might be especially important for depressed wives because in one study (Peterson & Smith, 2010) depressed wives’ depressive symptoms were uniquely related to how critical they reported being of their husbands even while controlling for husbands’ reports of PC from depressed wives. In addition to the unique positive relationships between negative causal and responsibility attributions and general PC and criticism, we found unique positive relationships between negative attributions and general PC and criticism even while accounting for both marital adjustment and ratings of criticism from either judges or partners. Taken together, the present study and Chambless et al. (2010) suggest that general PC and self-reports of spouses’ own general criticism reflect more than just spouses’ general view of their marriage, or the actual amount of criticism, but rather capture spouses’ specific view of partners’ negative behavior as global, stable, purposeful, intentional, selfish, and blameworthy. It is important to note, however, that the association between spouses’ attributions and spouses’ interaction-specific PC was no longer significant after controlling for judges’ ratings of interaction-specific partner criticism and spouses’ marital adjustment. Therefore, ratings of interaction-specific PC made after reviewing a videotaped interaction may be less uniquely related to attributions made about hypothetical spousal behavior in general but rather

attributions and criticism more uniquely related to how much criticism is objectively present. It would be interesting in the future to see whether this pattern would have held had we asked spouses to rate interaction-specific attributions that were made with reference to the same marital discussion upon which interaction-specific PC was assessed. The effects described in the previous paragraphs are similar for depressed and nondepressed couples. Even though depressed spouses made more negative causal and responsibility attributions and reported being more critical than nondepressed spouses reported themselves to be, the strength of the association between negative attributions and criticism was similar in magnitude in the depressed and nondepressed couples, a pattern that has been replicated in the past (Bradbury et al., 1996). However, due to the low power of this study to detect differences between depressed and nondepressed couples (post hoc power = .69 for a mediumsized univariate effect, b.5 for the various interactions), it is premature to conclude there are no differences between them. Finally, it is important to note that no significant gender differences were found in the magnitude of the associations between attributions and PC or criticism. In general, the literature linking attributions with marital behavior has been inconsistent when gender differences are explored. Some studies have found that only women's attributions are related to women's behavior (Bradbury et al., 1996; Miller & Bradbury, 1995), whereas others have found no difference in the magnitude of the relationship between men's and women's attributions and behavior (Sanford, 2006) or marital satisfaction (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). As was true for the diagnostic group difference, while the present study adds to a growing number that have failed to document gender differences in the relationship between attributions and behavior, the evidence is still inconclusive given the low power in this study to detect any gender differences (post hoc power = .76 for a medium-sized univariate effect, b.4 for the various interactions). Insofar as future research is concerned, given that the current study and the Chambless et al. (2010) studies were cross-sectional and correlational, the direction of relations between PC, criticism, and attributions still needs to be explored. Bradbury and Fincham (1990) posit that after the primary processing stage (e.g., perceiving criticism), attributions are made about the behavior that is processed. On the other hand, Chambless et al. implies that attributions made about spouses’ behavior might cause high levels of PC. Therefore, at this time it is imperative to sort out the direction of this relationship.

665

This study not only replicates but it also extends Chambless et al. (2010) by using a different sample and different methods. We used self-reports of negative causal and responsibility attributions of hypothetical negative spousal behavior, including spousal criticism, rather than judges’ ratings of negative attributions of actual behavior made by participants, and we used a sample that included participants with current MDD. Apart from these advantages, the study also has limitations. In addition to the limitations already mentioned (i.e., low power to detect group and gender differences as well as the cross-sectional nature of the design), we did not test how negative attributions about specific instances of spousal criticism relate to negative attributions about specific criticisms. In order to advance our knowledge of how people perceive criticism and make attributions about critical behavior it is important to test how the two are related when considered close in time. Finally, it is imperative to be mindful of the limits of the generalizability of this study. We excluded couples on the basis of certain comorbid psychopathology (e.g., suicidality, psychotic symptoms, manic episodes, PTSD, OCD, and substance abuse or dependence). Therefore, to the extent that we excluded couples, it may reduce the generalizability of our findings, especially the generalizability to couples with depression and comorbid disorders such as substance abuse or dependence. In particular, although we excluded for some comorbid psychopathology, we did not exclude for other psychopathology, most notably GAD. Thus, we can not be certain whether the findings in our depressed sample are true specifically for people experiencing depression or could also be true for those experiencing either GAD or a combination of depression and GAD. Finally, this study was not as ethnically or racially diverse as it might have been had it been conducted in a different area of the country. Therefore, at this time we can only generalize our findings to similar, predominantly Caucasian samples. Testing relations between attributions and criticism in different ethnic groups is especially important given findings suggesting that people in different cultural groups have different outcomes when exposed to high levels of family criticism, and that different behavior may be criticized in different groups (Hooley, 2007). Ultimately, however, our study, when combined with the results of studies in the expressed emotion and marital literatures, offers convincing evidence for an important relationship between negative attributions and both self-reports of general criticism and PC, making these phenomena potentially profitable targets of future efforts at explicating the processes by which criticism is perceived, attributions are made, and criticism is self-reported or objectively expressed.

666

peterson & smith

References Barrowclough, C., & Hooley, J. M. (2003). Attributions and expressed emotion: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 849–880. Bradbury, T. N., Beach, S. R. H., Fincham, F. D., & Nelson, G. M. (1996). Attributions and behavior in functional and dysfunctional marriages. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 569–576. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33. Chambless, D. L., & Blake, K. D. (2009). Construct validity of the Perceived Criticism Measure. Behavior Therapy, 40, 155–163. Chambless, D. L., Blake, K. D., & Simmons, R. A. (2010). Attributions for relatives’ behavior and perceived criticism: Studies with community participants and patients with anxiety disorders. Behavior Therapy, 41, 388–400. Davey, A., Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Brody, G. H. (2001). Attributions in marriage: Examining the entailment model in dyadic context. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 721–734. Eddy, J. M., Heyman, R. E., & Weiss, R. L. (1991). An empirical evaluation of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Exploring the differences between marital “satisfaction” and “adjustment. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 199–220. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 457–468. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1993). Marital satisfaction, depression, and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 442–452. First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001, February). SCID-I/NP-TR: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR disorders. New York: Biometrics Research. Heyman, R. E., Sayers, S. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1994). Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical comparison of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 432–446. Hooley, J. M. (1987). The nature and origins of expressed emotion. In M. J. Goldstein, & K. Hahlweg (Eds.), The contribution of family interaction research (pp. 176–194). New York: Family Process Press. Hooley, J. M. (2007). Expressed emotion and relapse of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 329–352. Hooley, J. M., & Teasdale, J. D. (1989). Predictors of relapse in unipolar depressives: Expressed emotion, marital distress, and perceived criticism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 229–235. Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K., Swartz, M., Blazer, D. G., & Nelson, C. B. (1993). Sex and depression in the National Comorbidity Survey: I. Lifetime prevalence, chronicity and recurrence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 29, 85–96. Magaña, A. B., Goldstein, M. J., Karno, M., Miklowtiz, D. J., Jenkins, J., & Falloon, I. R. H. (1986). A brief method for assessing expressed emotion in relatives of psychiatric patients. Psychiatry Research, 17, 203–212. Miller, G. E., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). Refining the association between attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 196–208. Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 219–230. Peterson, K. M., & Smith, D. A. (2010). An actor–partner interdependence model of spousal criticism and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 555–562. Peterson, K. M., Smith, D. A., & Windle, C. R. (2009). Explication of interspousal criticality bias. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 478–486. Renshaw, K. D. (2008). The predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of perceived criticism: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 521–534. Riggs, D. S., Hiss, H., & Foa, E. B. (1992). Marital distress and the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder. Behavior Therapy, 23, 585–597. Riso, L. P., Klein, D. N., Anderson, R. L., Ouimette, P. C., & Lizardi, H. (1996). Convergent and discriminant validity of perceived criticism from spouses and family members. Behavior Therapy, 27, 129–137. Sanford, K. (2006). Communication during marital conflict: When couples alter their appraisal, they change their behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 256–265. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. Smith, D. A., Couture, S. M., & Myers, N. N. (2001, November). Inter-spousal criticism: Depressive and relational effects. Poster presentation at the 35th annual convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Philadelphia, PA. Smith, D. A., & Peterson, K. M. (2008). Over-perception of spousal criticism in dysphoria and marital discord. Behavior Therapy, 39, 300–312. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. Uebelacker, L. A., & Whisman, M. A. (2005). Relationship beliefs, attributions, and partner behaviors among depressed married women. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 143–154. Van Humbeeck, G., Van Audenhove, C., De Hert, M., Pieters, G., & Storms, G. (2002). Expressed emotion: A review of assessment instruments. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 321–341. Vaughn, C. E., & Leff, J. P. (1976). The influence of family and social factors on the course of psychiatric illness: A comparison of schizophrenic and depressed neurotic patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 125–137. Wearden, A. J., Tarrier, N., Barrowclough, C., Zastowny, T. R., & Rahill, A. A. (2000). A review of expressed emotion research in health care. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 633–666. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Weiss, R. L., & Summers, K. J. (1983). Marital Interaction Coding System–III. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy (pp. 85–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Whisman, M. A. (2007). Marital distress and DSM-IV psychiatric disorders in a population-based national survey. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 638–643.

R E C E I V E D : July 13, 2010 A C C E P T E D : February 24, 2011 Available online 12 May 2011