Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contribitors
- Introduction
- SECTION ONE THE EFFECT OF COGNITION ON INTERACTION PATTERNS
- SECTION TWO UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF POSITIVE INTERACTION
- SECTION THREE COPING WITH DISAPPOINTMENT, CRITICISM, AND BETRAYAL
- SECTION FOUR POWER, CONFLICT, AND VIOLENCE IN MARITAL INTERACTION
- Introduction to Section Four
- 11 Demand-Withdraw Communication during Couple Conflict: A Review and Analysis
- 12 Approaches to the Study of Power in Violent and Nonviolent Marriages, and in Gay Male and Lesbian Cohabiting Relationships
- 13 The Communication of Couples in Violent and Nonviolent Relationships: Temporal Associations with Own and Partners' Anxiety Arousal and Behavior
- Marital interaction at important transition periods
- SECTION SIX Interventions for strengthening relationships
- Conclusions
- Index
- References
12 - Approaches to the Study of Power in Violent and Nonviolent Marriages, and in Gay Male and Lesbian Cohabiting Relationships
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 July 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contribitors
- Introduction
- SECTION ONE THE EFFECT OF COGNITION ON INTERACTION PATTERNS
- SECTION TWO UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF POSITIVE INTERACTION
- SECTION THREE COPING WITH DISAPPOINTMENT, CRITICISM, AND BETRAYAL
- SECTION FOUR POWER, CONFLICT, AND VIOLENCE IN MARITAL INTERACTION
- Introduction to Section Four
- 11 Demand-Withdraw Communication during Couple Conflict: A Review and Analysis
- 12 Approaches to the Study of Power in Violent and Nonviolent Marriages, and in Gay Male and Lesbian Cohabiting Relationships
- 13 The Communication of Couples in Violent and Nonviolent Relationships: Temporal Associations with Own and Partners' Anxiety Arousal and Behavior
- Marital interaction at important transition periods
- SECTION SIX Interventions for strengthening relationships
- Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
To the outsider, mathematics is a strange, abstract world of horrendous technicality, full of symbols and complicated procedures, an impenetrable language and a black art. To the scientist, mathematics is the guarantor of precision and objectivity. It is also, astonishingly, the language of nature itself. No one who is closed off from mathematics can ever grasp the full significance of the natural order that is woven so deeply into the fabric of physical reality.
—Paul Davies, The Mind of God, 1992, p. 93THE STUDY OF POWER
In the 1950s Fred Strodtbeck's research on marriages in three cultures made the study of power look easy (Strodtbeck, 1951). He drove a van through the Western United States and asked Mormon (patriarchal), Navajo (matriarchal), and Anglo Texan (supposedly egalitarian) married couples to go into the back of his van, and gossip about families the couple thought were raising their kids poorly or well (something that couples in all three cultures found it easy and natural to discuss) and have some structured marital disputes. The marital disputes involved having each spouse fill out a questionnaire indicating personal preferences (like what kind of car to buy, what to order for dinner), and then the couple doing this task again by discussion. The more powerful person was defined as the person who was closer to the joint decision on his or her personal preferences.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Understanding MarriageDevelopments in the Study of Couple Interaction, pp. 323 - 347Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2002
References
, , , & (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns power discrepancies and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press
, , & (1995). Who's got the power? Gender differences in partner's perception of influence during marital problem-solving discussions. Family Process, 34, 303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioural Science, 1, 251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: William Morrow and Co
Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother-infant interaction. In M. Lewis & L. Rosenbum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 49–76). New York: Wiley
Broderick, C. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
, & (1992). Social influence, marriage, and the heart: Cardiovascular consequences of interpersonal control in husbands and wives. Health Psychology, 11, 88–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand&withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , & (1997). Battering and the male rejection of influence from women. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 375–3883.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , & (1995). Mathematics of marital conflict: Qualitative dynamic modeling of marital interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 110–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Coie, L., & Coie, J. D. (1978). Becoming a family: The impact of the first child's birth on the couple's relationship. In W. B. Miller & L. F. Newman (Eds.), The first child and family formation. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (l978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Gianino, A., & Tronick, E. Z. (1988). The mutual regulation model: The infant's self and interactive regulation and coping and defensive capacities. In T. M. Field, P. M. McCabe, & N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress and coping across development (pp. 47–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Gottman, J. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press
Gottman, J., Murray, J., Swanson, C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. (in press). The mathematics of marriage: Formal models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
(1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, or avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Gottman, J. M. (Ed.). (1996). What predicts divorce: The measures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, issociates
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic. New York: W. W. Norton
, , , & (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221–233CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottman, J. M., McCoy, K., Coan, J., & Collier, H. (1996). The specific affect coding system (SPAFF) for observing emotional communication in marital and family interaction. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), What predicts divorce? The measures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
, , & (1999). The mathematics of marital conflict: Dynamic mathematical nonlinear modeling of newlywed marital interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1982). Marital quality and power processes among black couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1996). Marital power, marital adjustment, and therapy outcome. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 513–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , & (1997). Comparing the social support behaviors of violent and non-violent husbands during discussions of wife personal problems. Personal Relationships, 4, 395–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women. New York: Simon & Schuster
, , , , & (1996). Psychological factors in the longitudinal course of battering: When do the couples split up? When does the abuse decrease? Violence and Victims, 11, 371–392Google ScholarPubMed
, , & (1989). Validation of a rapid couples interaction scoring system. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 65–79Google Scholar
(1992). Relationship stability and relationship satisfaction in cohabiting gay and lesbian couples: A prospective longitudinal test of the contextual and interdependence models. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2001). Maritally violent men's heart rate reactivity to marital interactions: A failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 394–408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, J. D. (1989). Mathematical biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
, , & (1993). Perceptions of marital interactions among black and white newlyweds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 494–511CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (1970). Inventory of marital conflicts (IMC): And experimental interaction procedure. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 443–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1998). Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 219–230CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rapoport, A. (1960). Fights, games, and debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Rapoport, A. (1972). The uses of mathematical isomorphism in general systems theory. In G. J. Klir (Ed.), Trends in general systems theory (pp. 42–77). New York: Wiley Interscience
Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, conflict, and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
(1992) A power&interactional model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217–244Google Scholar
, & (1980). Pleasurable behavior in marital interaction: An observational study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 117–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblatt, P. C. (1994). Metaphors of family systems theory. New York: Guilford
Rushe, R. H. (1995). Tactics of power and influence in violent marriages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington
(1979). Measuring interfamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, M., & Tallman, I. (1971). SIMFAM: A technique for observational measurement and experimental study of families. In J. Aldous, T. Condon, R. Hill, M. Straus, & I. Tallman (Eds.), Family problem solving (pp. 379–438). Himsdale, IL: Dryden
(1951). Husband-wife interaction over revealed differences. American Sociological Review, 16, 468–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szinovacz, M. E. (1987). Family power. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 651–694). New York: PlenumCrossRef
Waite, L. (2000). The case for marriage. New York: Doubleday
Weiss, R. L., Hops, H., & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualizing marital conflict. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Marsh (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice (pp. 309–342). Champaign, IL: Research Press
(1989). Gender differences in marital communication patterns. Family Process, 28, 89–106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 8
- Cited by