- Email: [email protected]
Development of a coding system for marital problem solving efficacy
Behav. Revs. Thu. Vol. 32, No. I, pp. 159-164, Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
OC05-7967/94 $6.00 + 0.00 Copyright 0 1993 PergamonPressLtd
1994
DEVELOPMENT OF A CODING SYSTEM FOR MARITAL PROBLEM SOLVING EFFICACY DAVID R. WINEMILLER and M. ELLEN MITCHELL* Illinois Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, IIT Center, Chicago, IL 60616, U.S.A. (Received 9 September 1992) Summary-Efficacy in marital problem solving has received little attention, and work on general problem solving efficacy does not address marital issues. This study examined the ability to discriminate between groups and criterion validity of an efficacy-focused marital problem solving measurement method, the Marital Efficacy Coding System, which combines marital problem scenarios with general social problem solving assessment procedures. This system was administered to nondistressed married subjects, participants in marital therapy, and divorced or separated individuals. Participants were asked to develop a set of discrete steps or ‘means’ as solutions to marital problem scenarios. The content was coded by a number of means, participants’ ratings of problem frequency and typicality of response, and coders’ ratings of efficacy and equality. Overall percentage agreement between coders was 73.4%. Marital Efficacy Coding System variables, including problem frequency, solution typicality, and solution efficacy, were shown to significantly differentiate between participants high and low in marital satisfaction and to possess significant predictive ability.
INTRODUCTION
The social learning conceptualization of marital relationships borrows from social psychological exchange theories of interpersonal behavior (Homans, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and behaviorally-based theories of dyadic adjustment (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979; Stuart, 1969). Marital satisfaction is assumed to be determined by a couple’s rate and valence of behavioral exchanges. Exchanges, in turn, are thought to be determined by relationship skills (Billings, 1979; Birchler, Weiss & Vincent, 1975; Floyd, O’Farrell & Goldberg, 1987; Vincent, Weiss & Birchler, 1975). One critical relationship skill is problem solving. In this context, problem solving refers to purposeful attempts by members of a dyad to resolve troublesome relationship issues. Little is known about problem solving abilities or skills and their relationship to marital satisfaction. The ability to generate effective solutions to marital problems may prove to be an important contributor to marital satisfaction. Marital problem solving has been studied using interaction coding systems. There are several coding systems that are applicable to marital problem solving (e.g. Floyd & Markman, 1984; Gottman, 1979; Hops, Wills, Patterson & Weiss, 1972). These focus on the process of problem solving rather than problem solving efficacy. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a measure of the efficacy of marital problem solving. Successful solutions to marital problems tend to be specific and detailed in nature (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979). The ease of implementing a solution is thought to be related to the articulation of each component behavior. Low levels of ambiguity and inference are viewed as limiting the range of possible competing interpretations, and reducing the probability of conflict from disagreement. “Mutuality” also appears important to successful problem resolution (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979; Bornstein & Bornstein, 1986). A relatively equal distribution of the burden of behavior change may be critical to keeping a couple focused on changing the relationship. This avoids exclusive blaming of one partner or the other for relationship-damaging behavior. Problem solution detail and mutuality have not been empirically evaluated in marital research. An additional dimension of problem solving content that has not been independently investigated is the feasibility or extent to which a solution can be implemented successfully. This was suggested by Miller, Lefcourt, Holmes, Ware and Saleh (1986), who examined couples’ interactions *To whom
requests
for reprints
should
be addressed. 159
160
DAVID R. WINEMILLER and M. ELLEN MITCHELL
and found that coders’ ratings of solution quality were positively correlated with ratings of engagement behaviors and negatively correlated with the frequency of destructive behaviors. Ratings of solution quality were negatively correlated with marital satisfaction scores. The present coding scheme, the Marital Analysis Efficacy Coding System, was designed to assess the efficacy of marital problem solving plans. Plans were conceptualized as a series of ‘means’. The Marital Efficacy Coding System primarily considers the number of discrete problem solving means. A ‘mean’ is a discrete step leading toward either the resolution of a problem, or the overcoming of an obstacle to the resolution of a problem (Platt & Spivack, 1975). The amount of time required for implementation and recognition of potential obstacles was also considered but eventually dropped due to psychometric instability. The Marital Efficacy Coding System, was based on the Means-Ends Problems Solving Procedure (Platt & Spivack, 1975), which is a performance measure of general problem solving. It consists of a series of scenarios depicting a protagonist, a social problem, and a resolution of that problem. The S is required to supply the means, or specific steps, by which the protagonist arrives at the problem resolution. This measure has an advantage over questionnaire measures of problem solving because it is a direct assessment of a S’s ability to engage in problem solving processes (D’Zurilla, 1986). The Means Ends Problem Solving procedure was modified to be applicable to marital problem solving by replacing the original scenarios with ones depicting marital conflict. Rubin (1977) effectively used marital problem scenarios and problem solving responses to distinguish between couples’ high and low marital satisfaction. In relation to the present study, a limitation of Rubin’s (1977) method lay in the fact that the scenarios only presented a single perspective. Thus, Rubin’s scenarios were modified to provide each S with a clear perspective of both partner’s views.
METHOD
Subjects Participants volunteered or were recruited through marital therapists, divorce support groups in the Chicago area, and printed solicitations. The sample consisted of 45 individuals; 5 Hispanic and 40 Caucasian. Twenty seven participants were female, and 18 male. Eleven of the 45 participants had been in marital therapy. Ss had an average age of 37.9 years, an average length of marriage of 8.6 years, and 21 had completed a college degree. Six were divorced or separated and 39 were married at the time of participation in the study. Seven couples participated in the study (14 of the 45 participants). These included participants in the nontherapy group (6 couples) and 1 couple in the therapy group.
The study was explained to individual participants and conducted in the participants’ homes after consent was obtained. Members of the 7 couples were seen separately. A demographic information sheet, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS, Spanier, 1976), and a response rating sheet were administered to each participant. The DAS is a 32 item self-report questionnaire designed to assess perceptions of relationship quality. Divorced or separated participants were asked to complete the DAS based on their relationship prior to divorce. The Marital Efhcacy Coding System contained three marital scenarios that were presented by audiotape. Using their own relationships as a reference point, participants were asked to develop means for resolving the scenario problems. In their responses, Ss were asked to provide a detailed step-by-step explanation indicating how each member of the couple would resolve the problem. After listening to each problem scenario, Ss were presented with a response rating sheet that contained two 5-point rating scales assessing how often the situations depicted in marital problem scenarios were a problem in the Ss relationship, and how typical the generated means were of those actually used by the couple. The scenarios concerned: (a) sex, (b) in-laws, and (c) children, and provided the S with the perspective of both spouses. The scenario with the sex related problem centered around one partner wanting to be intimate while the other expressed desire to complete a project. The scenario about
Marital efficacy coding
161
an in-law problem focused on one partner wanting to visit in-laws while the other viewing those in-laws as belittling and the spouse as unsupportive. The child related scenario depicted one partner as feeling that more understanding was needed to manage a child rearing matter while the other partner believing that more discipline was needed. There were four age-adjusted child scenarios to reflect issues relevant for participants: the decision to have children; discipline of young children; discipline of adolescents; and, problems with adult children. These were selected in accordance with their relevance to individual participants. All scenarios were counterbalanced for males and females in each role. Standardized instructions and an example of solution means were provided via audiotape and participants were given the opportunity to ask questions. A second audiotape recorder was utilized to record responses and participants were instructed to begin. No time limits were imposed. When the S finished each scenario they were presented with the response rating sheet. This process was repeated for each of the three scenarios for each individual S. Coding The audiotapes of S’s problem solving plans were transcribed for coding. The unit of analysis selected for coding was the “thought unit” (Gottman, 1979, p. 49), defined as meaningful parts of a verbalization that are grammatically separated by commas, ands, buts, and periods. Coders rated the extent to which the proposed means could be effectively executed. Efficacy ratings were assigned on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = likely to succeed; 5 = likely to fail). Again using a 5-point Likert scale, coders rated the extent to which the means required a relatively equal amount of effort or behavioral change from each spouse (1 = wife entirely responsible for change; 5 = husband entirely responsible for change). An efficiency index was computed to determine the efficiency with which participants conveyed their problem solving plans. This index was derived by dividing the number of means coded by the number of thought units produced by the S. Higher scores indicated greater efficiency. Transcripts were coded for discrete problem solving steps or ‘means’ adapted from Platt and Spivack (1975) utilizing five categories as follows: (1) Means (M) were defined as a step which moves the couple toward a resolution, detail/clarification of a step, or overcoming an obstacle preventing resolution. (2) Residuals (R) were defined as steps not effective within the context of the scenario, repetition or rewording of the scenario, a simple value judgement, or failure to respond to a particular scenario. (3) Obstacles (0) was defined as any difficulty mentioned in reaching the goal, or a clarification/enlargement of a previously mentioned obstacle. (4) Instantaneous Solutions (IS), was defined as resolutions through an accidental, miracle solution, or failure to specify in sufficient detail how a goal is reached (e.g. a simple statement of outcome). (5) Time (T) was defined as the mention of time passage during the course of resolution. Training of coders followed a modification of Hartmann and Wood’s (1982) procedure. Three undergraduate and two graduate student coders were given brief instruction on the social learning theory model of marital interaction to establish a minimum level of knowledge about relationships consistent with the conceptual framework of this research, and for each code trained to a 72% level of interrder agreement on a set of training transcripts. Random accuracy checks were conducted during the actual data coding in order to control for deterioration in accuracy over time. Coders were blind to categorical data regarding participants (e.g. divorced, in treatment, etc.). Agreement between coders was established using Foster and Cone’s (1980) overall percent of agreement, which produces a more conservative estimate of agreement than formulae that consider both target and nontarget agreement or disagreement (e.g. Rabin, Blechman, Kahn & Carel, 1985).
RESULTS The coding system produced a 73.4% categories, and scenarios. A couples factor came from both members of a couple was was small (7), and the number of couples was not possible to do so or to enter this
level of agreement, averaged across coders, coding that would take into account the reality that some data considered. However, since the total number of couples per cell even smaller (e.g. 1) for group comparisons, it factor as a covariate. Separate analyses were computed
DAVIDR. WINEMILLER and M. ELLEN MITCHELL
162 Table
I. Comparison
Mean/SD Equality
DAS: rating
Efficacy rating Typicality
rating
Frequency
rating
Number
of means
Thought
units
Efficiency index Aereement:
of means and standard deviations of distressed tressed Ss, and coder agreement Distressed
Nondistressed
3.2 (0.38) 2.6 (0.67) 1.5 (0.52) 4.5 (0.85) 9.2 (4.35) 15.0 (7.12) 0.64 (0.19) 74. I %
SD = standard deviation; DAS = Dyadic Whitney U; NS = nonsignificant.
Analyses u = P < u= P < (I =
2.9 (0.67) 3.2 (0.60) 2.2 (0.91) 3.8 (1.07) 8.8 (3.75) 6.3 (8.38) 0.60 (0.24) 72.2% Adjustment
Score:
and nondis-
151.5 0.055 115.5 0.006 121.5 P < 0.007 c/ = 122.0 P < 0.009 NS NS NS NS
u
refers to Mann-
for each of the coding categories because the factors were thought to be reasonably independent and the study was exploratory, not confirmatory (Huberty & Morris, 1989). Correlations were computed between coding variables. A significant relationship (r = 0.71, P < 0.001) was found between number of means and number of thought units. Significant correlations were also found between coders efficacy ratings and the following variables: typicality ratings (r = 0.38, P < O.Ol), number of means (r = -0.46, P < 0.01) and efficiency index scores (r = -0.40, P < 0.01). The number of thought units and efficiency index scores were also correlated (r = 0.38, P < 0.01). All other correlations were small (I = 0.33, P < 0.01) suggesting that most categories were not redundant with one another. Ss were divided into two groups: high marital satisfaction (DAS > 96) and low marital satisfaction (DAS < 96). The cutoff represents one standard deviation below the mean of the DAS normative samples (Spanier, 1976). because of the small cell sizes, nonparametric Mann-Whitney analyses were considered appropriate and utilized to assess between group differences. The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 1. The table shows that Ss with low marital satisfaction had higher problem frequencies, lower solution typicality ratings, and lower solution efficacy. The groups did not differ significantly on the other variables. Regression and discriminant analyses were computed to determine the strength and accuracy of prediction. Problem frequency, solution typicality, and solution efficacy ratings were significant predictors of DAS scores and together accounted for 50.8% of the variance [F(3, 44) = 14.08, P -c0.051. Problem frequency entered the equation first and accounted for 29.4% of the variance. Solution typicality entered second accounting for an additional 15.9% of the variance, and solution efficacy contributed the final 5.5% of variance accounted. Discriminant analyses showed that 77.8% of the cases (high vs low DAS scores) could be classified accurately using these variables.
DISCUSSION Criterion validity is suggested by the ability of Marital Efficacy Coding System variables to account for 50.8% of the variance in DAS scores. The significant predictors were participants’ ratings of problem frequency, typicality of the proposal solution, and coders efficacy ratings. Thus, marital satisfaction is related to how frequently problems are experienced, how faithful to real life situations the participants were in their response, and the extent to which their solutions were judged to be effective. While it is not surprising that the frequency of problems is associated with marital satisfaction, it is noteworthy that maritally dissatisfied participants’ solutions were judged to be less effective. Further research needs to examine these two variables to evaluate interaction effects. These variables provided 77.8% correct classification of group membership. A significant negative correlation between efficacy ratings and number of means suggests that simple solutions are more effective. The efficiency index was also significantly negatively correlated with efficacy ratings. This suggests that excessive detail may dilute problem solving effectiveness. This relationship is further illustrated by the significant correlation between number of means coded
Marital efficacy coding
163
and number of thought units. The relationship of these two variables, which comprise the efficiency index, indicate that longer responses contained redundant information. Solution proposals short in length and free of excessive or tangential detail are most likely to result in successful resolutions and require a highly structured format. This supports Jacobson and Margolin’s (1979) contention that problem solving agreements should be, “very specific” and “spelled out in clear, descriptive behavioral terms” (pp. 248). An admonition to create brie5 well thought out, solutions could be added to this. Hence, additional structure or limits for couples may have utility for research and intervention on marital problem solving. Participants with higher marital satisfaction rated problems as less frequent and solutions more typical than low marital satisfaction participants. Additionally, high marital satisfaction participants’ responses were rated by coders as more likely to succeed than low marital satisfaction participants’ responses. Similar findings were obtained when comparing the nondistressed and clinical groups. This represents further evidence of the validity of the Marital Efficacy Coding System. It is unclear why the categories of number of means, equality, length of response, and efficiency failed to differentiate satisfied and nonsatisfied couples. In the case of the equality rating, which approached significance, the sample size may have been a factor. Among less satisfied couples, the trend was to place greater responsibility for change on the husband, and for the satisfied couples, put greater responsibility for change on the woman. It is possibie that these measures require refinement or that these factors are simply less important. Future investigation of problem solving proposals should focus on unique aspects of the Marital Efficacy Coding System including efficacy, frequency, and typicality. The concept of efficacy appears to play a critical role in problem solving and marital satisfaction and could be studied by examining its relationship to interactive process variables and S’s ratings of effectiveness during problem solving discussions and implementations. A study of the concordance between spouses on problem solving in relationship to marital satisfaction would also contribute significantly to this literature. Not addressed in this preliminary study are questions regarding the nature of problem solutions with respect to how much change they require on the part of the partner, the ability of individuaIs to generate solutions in z&o, the ability of individuals to implement the strategies they may generate, and the pattern of solution generation and satisfaction. The latter point refers to the sequence of solution generation: good solutions that give way to poorer solutions; poorer solutions that with time shift to more efficacious solutions; consistent quality of solution; etc. These patterns might suggest response styles that may typify satisfied or distressed couples and could be the basis of future research and intervention strategies.
REFERENCES Billings, A. (1979). Conflict resolution in distressed and nondistressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
47, 368-376.
Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L. & Vincent, J. P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Jburnal of Personality and Social Psychology, I, 349-360.
Bornstein, P. H. & Bornstein, M. T. (I986). Marital therapy: A beh~ioral-communjcatjo~ opproaeh. New York: Fergamon. D’Zurilla, T. 1. (1986). Problem-solu~~g rherapy. New York: Satinner. Floyd, F. J. & Markman, H. J. (1984).-An economical observational measure of couples’ co~unication skill. Journal of Consulting and CIinical Psychology, 52, 97-103. Floyd, F. J., O’Farrell, T. J. & Goldberg, M. (1987). Comparison of marital observational measures: The Marital Interaction Coding System and the Communication Skills Test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 423429.
Foster, S. L. & Cone, J. D. (1980). Current issues in direct observation. Behooioral Assessment, 2, 313-338. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations, New York: Academic. Hartmann. D. P. L Wood, D. D. (1982). Observational methods. In Bellack, A. S., Hersen, M. & Kazdin, A. E. (Eds). Inrernurional handbook of behavior modI~cat~on and therapy. New York: Plenum. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior: An exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-606. HOPS, H., Wills, T. A., Patterson, G. R. & Weiss, R. L. (1972). Mar&al interaction Cod&g System. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon and Oregon Research Institute. Huberty, C. L. & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis vs multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308.
164
DAVIDR. WINEMILLER and M. ELLENMITCHELL
Jacobson, N. S. & Margohn, G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principals. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Miller, P. C., Lefcourt, H. M., Holmes, J. G., Ware, E. E. & Saleh, W. E. (1986). Marital locus of control and marital problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 161-169. Platt, J. J. & Spivack, G. (1975). Means-ends Problem Solving Procedure Manual (1975 revision). Philadelphia, PA: Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital. Rabin, C., Blechman, E. A., Kahn, D. & Care], C. A. (1985). Refocusing from child to marital problems using the marriage contract game. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, II, 75-85. Rubin, M. E. (1977). Differences between distressed and nondistressed couples in verbal and nonverbal communication codes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington. 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.
Stuart, R. B. (1969). Operant-interpersonal
treatment for marital discord. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
33, 675682.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The socialpsychology of groups. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Vincent. J. P.. Weiss. R. L. & Birchler. G. R. (1975). A behavioral analysis of problem solving in distressed and _ non&stressed married and stranger dyads. Behavior ‘Therapy, 6, 475487.. Weiss, R. L., Hops, H. & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualizing marital conflict, technology for altering it, some data for evaluating it. In L. A. Hammerlynck, L. A., Handy, L. C. & Mash, E. J. (Eds), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice (pp. 309-342). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
OC05-7967/94 $6.00 + 0.00 Copyright 0 1993 PergamonPressLtd
1994
DEVELOPMENT OF A CODING SYSTEM FOR MARITAL PROBLEM SOLVING EFFICACY DAVID R. WINEMILLER and M. ELLEN MITCHELL* Illinois Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, IIT Center, Chicago, IL 60616, U.S.A. (Received 9 September 1992) Summary-Efficacy in marital problem solving has received little attention, and work on general problem solving efficacy does not address marital issues. This study examined the ability to discriminate between groups and criterion validity of an efficacy-focused marital problem solving measurement method, the Marital Efficacy Coding System, which combines marital problem scenarios with general social problem solving assessment procedures. This system was administered to nondistressed married subjects, participants in marital therapy, and divorced or separated individuals. Participants were asked to develop a set of discrete steps or ‘means’ as solutions to marital problem scenarios. The content was coded by a number of means, participants’ ratings of problem frequency and typicality of response, and coders’ ratings of efficacy and equality. Overall percentage agreement between coders was 73.4%. Marital Efficacy Coding System variables, including problem frequency, solution typicality, and solution efficacy, were shown to significantly differentiate between participants high and low in marital satisfaction and to possess significant predictive ability.
INTRODUCTION
The social learning conceptualization of marital relationships borrows from social psychological exchange theories of interpersonal behavior (Homans, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and behaviorally-based theories of dyadic adjustment (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979; Stuart, 1969). Marital satisfaction is assumed to be determined by a couple’s rate and valence of behavioral exchanges. Exchanges, in turn, are thought to be determined by relationship skills (Billings, 1979; Birchler, Weiss & Vincent, 1975; Floyd, O’Farrell & Goldberg, 1987; Vincent, Weiss & Birchler, 1975). One critical relationship skill is problem solving. In this context, problem solving refers to purposeful attempts by members of a dyad to resolve troublesome relationship issues. Little is known about problem solving abilities or skills and their relationship to marital satisfaction. The ability to generate effective solutions to marital problems may prove to be an important contributor to marital satisfaction. Marital problem solving has been studied using interaction coding systems. There are several coding systems that are applicable to marital problem solving (e.g. Floyd & Markman, 1984; Gottman, 1979; Hops, Wills, Patterson & Weiss, 1972). These focus on the process of problem solving rather than problem solving efficacy. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a measure of the efficacy of marital problem solving. Successful solutions to marital problems tend to be specific and detailed in nature (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979). The ease of implementing a solution is thought to be related to the articulation of each component behavior. Low levels of ambiguity and inference are viewed as limiting the range of possible competing interpretations, and reducing the probability of conflict from disagreement. “Mutuality” also appears important to successful problem resolution (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979; Bornstein & Bornstein, 1986). A relatively equal distribution of the burden of behavior change may be critical to keeping a couple focused on changing the relationship. This avoids exclusive blaming of one partner or the other for relationship-damaging behavior. Problem solution detail and mutuality have not been empirically evaluated in marital research. An additional dimension of problem solving content that has not been independently investigated is the feasibility or extent to which a solution can be implemented successfully. This was suggested by Miller, Lefcourt, Holmes, Ware and Saleh (1986), who examined couples’ interactions *To whom
requests
for reprints
should
be addressed. 159
160
DAVID R. WINEMILLER and M. ELLEN MITCHELL
and found that coders’ ratings of solution quality were positively correlated with ratings of engagement behaviors and negatively correlated with the frequency of destructive behaviors. Ratings of solution quality were negatively correlated with marital satisfaction scores. The present coding scheme, the Marital Analysis Efficacy Coding System, was designed to assess the efficacy of marital problem solving plans. Plans were conceptualized as a series of ‘means’. The Marital Efficacy Coding System primarily considers the number of discrete problem solving means. A ‘mean’ is a discrete step leading toward either the resolution of a problem, or the overcoming of an obstacle to the resolution of a problem (Platt & Spivack, 1975). The amount of time required for implementation and recognition of potential obstacles was also considered but eventually dropped due to psychometric instability. The Marital Efficacy Coding System, was based on the Means-Ends Problems Solving Procedure (Platt & Spivack, 1975), which is a performance measure of general problem solving. It consists of a series of scenarios depicting a protagonist, a social problem, and a resolution of that problem. The S is required to supply the means, or specific steps, by which the protagonist arrives at the problem resolution. This measure has an advantage over questionnaire measures of problem solving because it is a direct assessment of a S’s ability to engage in problem solving processes (D’Zurilla, 1986). The Means Ends Problem Solving procedure was modified to be applicable to marital problem solving by replacing the original scenarios with ones depicting marital conflict. Rubin (1977) effectively used marital problem scenarios and problem solving responses to distinguish between couples’ high and low marital satisfaction. In relation to the present study, a limitation of Rubin’s (1977) method lay in the fact that the scenarios only presented a single perspective. Thus, Rubin’s scenarios were modified to provide each S with a clear perspective of both partner’s views.
METHOD
Subjects Participants volunteered or were recruited through marital therapists, divorce support groups in the Chicago area, and printed solicitations. The sample consisted of 45 individuals; 5 Hispanic and 40 Caucasian. Twenty seven participants were female, and 18 male. Eleven of the 45 participants had been in marital therapy. Ss had an average age of 37.9 years, an average length of marriage of 8.6 years, and 21 had completed a college degree. Six were divorced or separated and 39 were married at the time of participation in the study. Seven couples participated in the study (14 of the 45 participants). These included participants in the nontherapy group (6 couples) and 1 couple in the therapy group.
The study was explained to individual participants and conducted in the participants’ homes after consent was obtained. Members of the 7 couples were seen separately. A demographic information sheet, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS, Spanier, 1976), and a response rating sheet were administered to each participant. The DAS is a 32 item self-report questionnaire designed to assess perceptions of relationship quality. Divorced or separated participants were asked to complete the DAS based on their relationship prior to divorce. The Marital Efhcacy Coding System contained three marital scenarios that were presented by audiotape. Using their own relationships as a reference point, participants were asked to develop means for resolving the scenario problems. In their responses, Ss were asked to provide a detailed step-by-step explanation indicating how each member of the couple would resolve the problem. After listening to each problem scenario, Ss were presented with a response rating sheet that contained two 5-point rating scales assessing how often the situations depicted in marital problem scenarios were a problem in the Ss relationship, and how typical the generated means were of those actually used by the couple. The scenarios concerned: (a) sex, (b) in-laws, and (c) children, and provided the S with the perspective of both spouses. The scenario with the sex related problem centered around one partner wanting to be intimate while the other expressed desire to complete a project. The scenario about
Marital efficacy coding
161
an in-law problem focused on one partner wanting to visit in-laws while the other viewing those in-laws as belittling and the spouse as unsupportive. The child related scenario depicted one partner as feeling that more understanding was needed to manage a child rearing matter while the other partner believing that more discipline was needed. There were four age-adjusted child scenarios to reflect issues relevant for participants: the decision to have children; discipline of young children; discipline of adolescents; and, problems with adult children. These were selected in accordance with their relevance to individual participants. All scenarios were counterbalanced for males and females in each role. Standardized instructions and an example of solution means were provided via audiotape and participants were given the opportunity to ask questions. A second audiotape recorder was utilized to record responses and participants were instructed to begin. No time limits were imposed. When the S finished each scenario they were presented with the response rating sheet. This process was repeated for each of the three scenarios for each individual S. Coding The audiotapes of S’s problem solving plans were transcribed for coding. The unit of analysis selected for coding was the “thought unit” (Gottman, 1979, p. 49), defined as meaningful parts of a verbalization that are grammatically separated by commas, ands, buts, and periods. Coders rated the extent to which the proposed means could be effectively executed. Efficacy ratings were assigned on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = likely to succeed; 5 = likely to fail). Again using a 5-point Likert scale, coders rated the extent to which the means required a relatively equal amount of effort or behavioral change from each spouse (1 = wife entirely responsible for change; 5 = husband entirely responsible for change). An efficiency index was computed to determine the efficiency with which participants conveyed their problem solving plans. This index was derived by dividing the number of means coded by the number of thought units produced by the S. Higher scores indicated greater efficiency. Transcripts were coded for discrete problem solving steps or ‘means’ adapted from Platt and Spivack (1975) utilizing five categories as follows: (1) Means (M) were defined as a step which moves the couple toward a resolution, detail/clarification of a step, or overcoming an obstacle preventing resolution. (2) Residuals (R) were defined as steps not effective within the context of the scenario, repetition or rewording of the scenario, a simple value judgement, or failure to respond to a particular scenario. (3) Obstacles (0) was defined as any difficulty mentioned in reaching the goal, or a clarification/enlargement of a previously mentioned obstacle. (4) Instantaneous Solutions (IS), was defined as resolutions through an accidental, miracle solution, or failure to specify in sufficient detail how a goal is reached (e.g. a simple statement of outcome). (5) Time (T) was defined as the mention of time passage during the course of resolution. Training of coders followed a modification of Hartmann and Wood’s (1982) procedure. Three undergraduate and two graduate student coders were given brief instruction on the social learning theory model of marital interaction to establish a minimum level of knowledge about relationships consistent with the conceptual framework of this research, and for each code trained to a 72% level of interrder agreement on a set of training transcripts. Random accuracy checks were conducted during the actual data coding in order to control for deterioration in accuracy over time. Coders were blind to categorical data regarding participants (e.g. divorced, in treatment, etc.). Agreement between coders was established using Foster and Cone’s (1980) overall percent of agreement, which produces a more conservative estimate of agreement than formulae that consider both target and nontarget agreement or disagreement (e.g. Rabin, Blechman, Kahn & Carel, 1985).
RESULTS The coding system produced a 73.4% categories, and scenarios. A couples factor came from both members of a couple was was small (7), and the number of couples was not possible to do so or to enter this
level of agreement, averaged across coders, coding that would take into account the reality that some data considered. However, since the total number of couples per cell even smaller (e.g. 1) for group comparisons, it factor as a covariate. Separate analyses were computed
DAVIDR. WINEMILLER and M. ELLEN MITCHELL
162 Table
I. Comparison
Mean/SD Equality
DAS: rating
Efficacy rating Typicality
rating
Frequency
rating
Number
of means
Thought
units
Efficiency index Aereement:
of means and standard deviations of distressed tressed Ss, and coder agreement Distressed
Nondistressed
3.2 (0.38) 2.6 (0.67) 1.5 (0.52) 4.5 (0.85) 9.2 (4.35) 15.0 (7.12) 0.64 (0.19) 74. I %
SD = standard deviation; DAS = Dyadic Whitney U; NS = nonsignificant.
Analyses u = P < u= P < (I =
2.9 (0.67) 3.2 (0.60) 2.2 (0.91) 3.8 (1.07) 8.8 (3.75) 6.3 (8.38) 0.60 (0.24) 72.2% Adjustment
Score:
and nondis-
151.5 0.055 115.5 0.006 121.5 P < 0.007 c/ = 122.0 P < 0.009 NS NS NS NS
u
refers to Mann-
for each of the coding categories because the factors were thought to be reasonably independent and the study was exploratory, not confirmatory (Huberty & Morris, 1989). Correlations were computed between coding variables. A significant relationship (r = 0.71, P < 0.001) was found between number of means and number of thought units. Significant correlations were also found between coders efficacy ratings and the following variables: typicality ratings (r = 0.38, P < O.Ol), number of means (r = -0.46, P < 0.01) and efficiency index scores (r = -0.40, P < 0.01). The number of thought units and efficiency index scores were also correlated (r = 0.38, P < 0.01). All other correlations were small (I = 0.33, P < 0.01) suggesting that most categories were not redundant with one another. Ss were divided into two groups: high marital satisfaction (DAS > 96) and low marital satisfaction (DAS < 96). The cutoff represents one standard deviation below the mean of the DAS normative samples (Spanier, 1976). because of the small cell sizes, nonparametric Mann-Whitney analyses were considered appropriate and utilized to assess between group differences. The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 1. The table shows that Ss with low marital satisfaction had higher problem frequencies, lower solution typicality ratings, and lower solution efficacy. The groups did not differ significantly on the other variables. Regression and discriminant analyses were computed to determine the strength and accuracy of prediction. Problem frequency, solution typicality, and solution efficacy ratings were significant predictors of DAS scores and together accounted for 50.8% of the variance [F(3, 44) = 14.08, P -c0.051. Problem frequency entered the equation first and accounted for 29.4% of the variance. Solution typicality entered second accounting for an additional 15.9% of the variance, and solution efficacy contributed the final 5.5% of variance accounted. Discriminant analyses showed that 77.8% of the cases (high vs low DAS scores) could be classified accurately using these variables.
DISCUSSION Criterion validity is suggested by the ability of Marital Efficacy Coding System variables to account for 50.8% of the variance in DAS scores. The significant predictors were participants’ ratings of problem frequency, typicality of the proposal solution, and coders efficacy ratings. Thus, marital satisfaction is related to how frequently problems are experienced, how faithful to real life situations the participants were in their response, and the extent to which their solutions were judged to be effective. While it is not surprising that the frequency of problems is associated with marital satisfaction, it is noteworthy that maritally dissatisfied participants’ solutions were judged to be less effective. Further research needs to examine these two variables to evaluate interaction effects. These variables provided 77.8% correct classification of group membership. A significant negative correlation between efficacy ratings and number of means suggests that simple solutions are more effective. The efficiency index was also significantly negatively correlated with efficacy ratings. This suggests that excessive detail may dilute problem solving effectiveness. This relationship is further illustrated by the significant correlation between number of means coded
Marital efficacy coding
163
and number of thought units. The relationship of these two variables, which comprise the efficiency index, indicate that longer responses contained redundant information. Solution proposals short in length and free of excessive or tangential detail are most likely to result in successful resolutions and require a highly structured format. This supports Jacobson and Margolin’s (1979) contention that problem solving agreements should be, “very specific” and “spelled out in clear, descriptive behavioral terms” (pp. 248). An admonition to create brie5 well thought out, solutions could be added to this. Hence, additional structure or limits for couples may have utility for research and intervention on marital problem solving. Participants with higher marital satisfaction rated problems as less frequent and solutions more typical than low marital satisfaction participants. Additionally, high marital satisfaction participants’ responses were rated by coders as more likely to succeed than low marital satisfaction participants’ responses. Similar findings were obtained when comparing the nondistressed and clinical groups. This represents further evidence of the validity of the Marital Efficacy Coding System. It is unclear why the categories of number of means, equality, length of response, and efficiency failed to differentiate satisfied and nonsatisfied couples. In the case of the equality rating, which approached significance, the sample size may have been a factor. Among less satisfied couples, the trend was to place greater responsibility for change on the husband, and for the satisfied couples, put greater responsibility for change on the woman. It is possibie that these measures require refinement or that these factors are simply less important. Future investigation of problem solving proposals should focus on unique aspects of the Marital Efficacy Coding System including efficacy, frequency, and typicality. The concept of efficacy appears to play a critical role in problem solving and marital satisfaction and could be studied by examining its relationship to interactive process variables and S’s ratings of effectiveness during problem solving discussions and implementations. A study of the concordance between spouses on problem solving in relationship to marital satisfaction would also contribute significantly to this literature. Not addressed in this preliminary study are questions regarding the nature of problem solutions with respect to how much change they require on the part of the partner, the ability of individuaIs to generate solutions in z&o, the ability of individuals to implement the strategies they may generate, and the pattern of solution generation and satisfaction. The latter point refers to the sequence of solution generation: good solutions that give way to poorer solutions; poorer solutions that with time shift to more efficacious solutions; consistent quality of solution; etc. These patterns might suggest response styles that may typify satisfied or distressed couples and could be the basis of future research and intervention strategies.
REFERENCES Billings, A. (1979). Conflict resolution in distressed and nondistressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
47, 368-376.
Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L. & Vincent, J. P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Jburnal of Personality and Social Psychology, I, 349-360.
Bornstein, P. H. & Bornstein, M. T. (I986). Marital therapy: A beh~ioral-communjcatjo~ opproaeh. New York: Fergamon. D’Zurilla, T. 1. (1986). Problem-solu~~g rherapy. New York: Satinner. Floyd, F. J. & Markman, H. J. (1984).-An economical observational measure of couples’ co~unication skill. Journal of Consulting and CIinical Psychology, 52, 97-103. Floyd, F. J., O’Farrell, T. J. & Goldberg, M. (1987). Comparison of marital observational measures: The Marital Interaction Coding System and the Communication Skills Test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 423429.
Foster, S. L. & Cone, J. D. (1980). Current issues in direct observation. Behooioral Assessment, 2, 313-338. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations, New York: Academic. Hartmann. D. P. L Wood, D. D. (1982). Observational methods. In Bellack, A. S., Hersen, M. & Kazdin, A. E. (Eds). Inrernurional handbook of behavior modI~cat~on and therapy. New York: Plenum. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior: An exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-606. HOPS, H., Wills, T. A., Patterson, G. R. & Weiss, R. L. (1972). Mar&al interaction Cod&g System. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon and Oregon Research Institute. Huberty, C. L. & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis vs multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308.
164
DAVIDR. WINEMILLER and M. ELLENMITCHELL
Jacobson, N. S. & Margohn, G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principals. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Miller, P. C., Lefcourt, H. M., Holmes, J. G., Ware, E. E. & Saleh, W. E. (1986). Marital locus of control and marital problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 161-169. Platt, J. J. & Spivack, G. (1975). Means-ends Problem Solving Procedure Manual (1975 revision). Philadelphia, PA: Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital. Rabin, C., Blechman, E. A., Kahn, D. & Care], C. A. (1985). Refocusing from child to marital problems using the marriage contract game. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, II, 75-85. Rubin, M. E. (1977). Differences between distressed and nondistressed couples in verbal and nonverbal communication codes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington. 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.
Stuart, R. B. (1969). Operant-interpersonal
treatment for marital discord. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
33, 675682.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The socialpsychology of groups. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Vincent. J. P.. Weiss. R. L. & Birchler. G. R. (1975). A behavioral analysis of problem solving in distressed and _ non&stressed married and stranger dyads. Behavior ‘Therapy, 6, 475487.. Weiss, R. L., Hops, H. & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualizing marital conflict, technology for altering it, some data for evaluating it. In L. A. Hammerlynck, L. A., Handy, L. C. & Mash, E. J. (Eds), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice (pp. 309-342). Champaign, IL: Research Press.