Sharon Miller
COMM 5080
9/24/01
State of the Field Report
1. Research area: interpersonal
communication
2. Research questions
Marriage and communication offers a
vast number of problems to be investigated. What may be perhaps the largest
area of interest in the study of marriage and interpersonal communication is
the study of the characteristics of marital communication. Sillars and Shellen
(1997) conducted their study in order to determine the linguistic
characteristics of marital communication. Pollock and Die (1990) set out to
discover the set of communication characteristics of egalitarian couples.
Another study asked if communication skills would be better between couples who
cohabitated before marriage or between those who did not cohabitate before marriage
(Gorrell, 2000). Klinetob and Smith (1996) looked for characteristics of
demand-withdraw communication between couples. Many characteristics of marital
communication vary according to situation or subject, which provides a dense
field of topics to study.
Many researchers have studied marital distress and its effect on communication.
Burleson and Denton (1997) studied what effect marital distress had on
communication and as a result, on marital satisfaction. Researchers have also
included in their studies other factors that affect communication and marital
distress or that are results of marital distress. Questions posed have included
determining such factors as the differences between cultures, the effect of
motivation and intention, and perceptions of distancing behaviors in marriage
(Halford & Hahlweg, 1990; Denton & Burleson, 1994; Roberts, 2000.) Each
of these studies looked at intricate processes of marital communication and
distress.
Relationship maintenance and dissolution are interesting areas of study and
have been looked at individually as well as in conjunction with each other.
Weigel and Ballard-Reisch (1999) studied the elements of relationship
maintenance communication in marriages. Cupach and Metts (1986) studied the
process of relationship dissolution with the goal of identifying each of its
components. Stanley and Markman (1995) studied both maintenance and dissolution
in terms of finding out what factors could predict divorce and what methods
could prevent divorce. Examining both maintenance and dissolution in marriages
allows for seeing the bigger picture, but focusing on just one or the other
provides a more in-depth analysis of the situation.
Another question researchers ask is how husbands' and wives' perceptions of
communication are linked to other aspects of their communication. Fitzpatric
and Indvik (1982) wanted to know how one mate's gender affected his or her own
perception of his or her mate's gender. Houk and Daniel (1994) studied how
married couples perceived their daily communication. The idea that perception
plays an important role in communication creates a multitude of questions.
How couples negotiate power is often of interest to researchers. Aida (1993)
analyzed how power strategies and communication apprehension were used in
marital conversations. Landhrinrichsen-Rohling and Smutzler (1994) also looked
at power, but focused on to what extent positivity in marriage affects physical
aggression. Power can be studied by observing behaviors that often typify or display
power in a relationship.
Additional topics of study within marriage and interpersonal communication are
numerous. Cutrona and Suhr (1992) studied the extent to which stressful events
affected marital support. Honeycutt and Wiemann (1999) looked at how self-talk
affected marital communication. Krokoff (1990) asked how hidden agendas
represented communication problems within a marriage. Although countless
studies have been completed in the area of marriage and interpersonal
communication, every finding is a starting point for yet another study.
3. Methodology
Within
the topic of marriage and interpersonal communication researchers use methods
which are qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of the two. One of the
most popular methods of conducting research is to study the results of
questionnaires completed separately by each spouse and use those results to
better understand qualitative information gathered from interactions with the
couple. Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Smutzler's (1994) qualitative assessment
consisted of interviewing each spouse individually. Sillars and Shellen (1997)
used transcripts of actual previous communication episodes. Most qualitative
methods, however, consisted of communication exercises for the couple (Burleson
& Denton, 1997; Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999; Klinetob & Smith, 1996;
Pollock & Die, 1990).
A second very common way of studying marital communication is through the use
of quantitative methods alone. Many researchers simply administered
questionnaires to the couples (Houck & Daniel, 1994; Cupach & Metts,
1986; Fitzpatric & Indvik, 1982). The administration of some questionnaires
ensured that the husband and wife completed them separately (Aida, 1993; Weigel
& Ballard-Reisch, 1999). Roberts (2000) went beyond separately administered
questionnaires and recontacted each couple three years later to provide even
more information. Some of these studies mentioned created their own
questionnaires, while others used tools already in existence.
A few researchers used qualitative measures only. Cutrona and Suhr (1992) asked
married subjects to role-play stressful situations in communication. Other
researchers used problem-solving exercises (Halford & Hahlweg, 1990;
Gorrell, 2000). For instances such as these, researchers generally had the
couples choose relevant topics so that interactions would be more realistic.
Although less common than other types of study, a few researchers used
extensive methods. In addition to having the couple complete questionnaires,
Krokoff (1990) had the subjects of the study audiotaped at home during typical
communication events. Stanley and Markman (1995) studied their couples about
every year and a half for approximately fifteen years, during which the couples
were studied using a variety of measures and tools. In all, the methods used
depended on the problem to be investigated as well as on the time commitment
necessary.
References
Aida,Y. (1993).
Communication apprehension and power strategies in marital relationships.
Communication Reports, 5, 116-122.
Burleson, B. R., &
Denton, W. H. (1997). The relationship between relationship skill and marital
satisfaction: Some moderating effects. Journal of
Marriage & the Family, 59, 884-903.
Cupach, W. R., &
Metts, S. (1986). Accounts of relational dissolution: A comparison of marital
and non-marital relationships. Communication Monographs,
53, 311-334.
Cutrona, C. E., &
Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with
spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19,
154-175.
Denton, W. H., & Burleson, B. R.
(1994). Motivation in marital communication: Comparison of
distressed and nondistressed husbands and wives. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 17-27.
Fitzpatric, M. A.,
& Indvik, J. (1982). Implicit theories in enduring relationships:
Psychological
gender differences in perceptions of one's mate. The
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 311-325.
Gorrell, C. (2000).
Live-in and learn. Psychology Today, 33, 16.
Halford, W. K, &
Hahlweg, K. (1990). The cross-cultural consistency of marital communication
associated with marital distress. Journal of Marriage
& the Family, 52, 487-501.
Honeycutt, J. M.,
& Wiemann, J. M. (1999). Analysis of functions of talk and reports of
imagined interactions (IIs) during engagement and marriage. Human
Communication Research, 25, 399-420.
Houck, J.W., &
Daniel, R. W. (1994). Husbands' and wives' views of the communication in
their marriages. Journal of Humanistic Counseling,
Education & Development, 33, 21-32.
Klinetob, N. A., &
Smith, D. A. (1996). Demand-withdraw communication in marital
interaction: Tests of interspousal contingency and gender
role hypotheses. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 58, 945-958.
Krokoff, L. J. (1990).
Hidden agendas in marriage. Communication Research, 17, 483-500.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling,
J., & Smutzler, N. (1994). Positivity in marriage: The role of discord
and physical aggression against wives. Journal of
Marriage & the Family, 56, 69-80.
Pollock, A. D., &
Die, A. H. (1990). Relationship of communication style to egalitarian marital
role expectations. Journal of Social Psychology, 130,
619-625.
Roberts, L. J. (2000).
Fire and ice in marital communication: Hostile and distancing behaviors as
predictors of marital distress. Journal of Marriage &
the Family, 62, 693-712.
Sillars, A., &
Shellen, W. (1997). Relational characteristics of language: Elaboration and
differentiation in marital conversations. Western Journal
of Communication, 61, 403-423.
Stanley, S. M., &
Markman, H. J. (1995). Strengthening marriages and preventing divorce: New
directions in prevention research. Family Relations, 44,
392-402.
Weigel, D. J., &
Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). The influence of marital duration on the use of
relationship maintenance behaviors. Communication
Reports, 12, 59-70.