Fam Proc 5:30-42, 1966

Married Couples' Responses to DisagreementROBERT G. RYDER, PH.D.

D. WELLS GOODRICH, M.D.a

aRobert G. Ryder, Ph.D., is Chief, Section of Family Development, Child Research Branch, National Institute of Mental Health,Bethesda, Maryland. D. Wells Goodrich, M.D. is Chief, Child Research Branch of that institute. This study is part of a programassessing stability or change in marital interaction patterns during the early stages of family development. The program explores therelationship between styles of marital communication and modes of responding to a variety of developmental situations includingcourtship, the first pregnancy and the management of the firstborn infant.

Marriage research seems to have emphasized a two dimensional view of married life. The literature reviewed by Tharp(14) seems largely to differentiate marriages in terms of satisfaction (or adequacy, or solidarity). There are "good"marriages (husbands and wives report themselves satisfied) and "bad" marriages (spouses get divorced, or at least reportthemselves dissatisfied) and points between. The second popular mode of differentiation concerns power, with marriagesvarying from autocratic to syncratic, for instance, Herbst (7); or in terms of husband versus wife power, for example, Heer(5, 6), Blood (2), Hoffman (8). The present research is an attempt toward constructing a somewhat fuller dimensionalframework, with the restriction that dimensions should be well measured. One notable earlier effort is Tharp's (15) factoranalysis of Kelly's (10) data. Whereas Tharp considered reported role enactments and expectations, the present analysis isbased on observations of the different ways couples discuss, argue, fight or otherwise respond to differences of opinion.

These particular differences of opinion were generated by Goodrich and Boomer's (4) Color Matching Test (CMT).Unlike Strodtbeck's revealed differences technique (12, 13) which exploits previously existing disagreements, the CMT,along with the similar Stereognosis Test of Flint and Ryder (3), generates new disagreements by using deception, andtherefore achieves close control over the disagreements' content and past history. The price paid for content control is thatcouples discuss mattersnamely distinctions among patches of colored paperthat are somewhat removed from theircustomary concerns.

METHODThe Color Matching Test was administered to 49 white, middle class couples each of whom had been married 3 to 4

months. Couples were paid volunteers whose names had been obtained from the marriage records of the District ofColumbia. Husbands ranged in age from 20 to 27, and wives were between 18 and 25. Prior to the CMT, each couple hadreceived one joint interview in their home. The interview inquired about the spouses' backgrounds and the background oftheir marriage. Two individual interviews, a second joint interview, six questionnaires and other procedures wereadministered after the CMT was completed. The interviewers were two experienced male social workers. Thequestionnaires primarily dealt with husband and wife participation and decision-making, and with the relative salience ofseven content areas: parenthood, relatives, friends, sex, occupation, food and housekeeping. Interviewers' ratings andquestionnaire variables will be indicated briefly as they relate to Color Matching Test findings.

For this 15-minute procedure husband and wife are seated opposite one another with a large two-sided easel betweenthem. Ostensibly the subjects' ability to discriminate among the slight gradations of colors on the easel is being tested.Following each of 20 color matching tasks the experimenter demands that the couple discuss their choices and arrive at anagreement as to the "best possible match," stressing that "only your agreements count toward your score in this experiment."In half of the series, however, the couple is deceived; in these instances the colors are so arranged that no agreement ispossible. The data consists of the couples' discussion as they search for a mutually acceptable solution for each of thetwenty color matching tasks.

All CMT administrations were tape recorded and subsequently typed. Typescripts were independently checked by twopersons, who then prepared final corrected typescripts. The final corrected typescripts were coded independently for 47variables by two other persons.1 The two raters then rerated each case after at least a three day wait, and all four sets ofratings were pooled. Most codings apply to individual statements by the spouses, the others referring to the outcomes ofindividual disagreements. Median corrected rating reliability was .96 and the mean was .84. Median corrected split-halfreliability was .59 and the mean was .48. For present purposes, variables were selected and combined, yielding the 17 finalvariables described below. For the 28 original variables from which these 17 final variables were constructed, median andmean corrected rating reliabilities were .97 and .93. Median and mean corrected split-half reliabilities were .57 and .51.

The 17 variables on which present analyses were based are as follows:1. Statements is the total number of statements made by a couple in the course of Color Matching Test administration.

An individual statement is defined as any utterance by a spouse that was made between the time any other person stopped

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1

talking and the time any other person again began to speak.2. Husband Initiation is the number of trials on which the husband rather than the wife made the first statement, plus the

number of trials on which the husband rather than the wife was first to announce his individual color choice. It is, in otherwords, an index of the husband rather than the wife tending to speak first.

3. Husband Dominance is an additive compound of three variables, weighted roughly by their variabilities. First is thepercentage of disagreements where the husband's initial color choice, rather than the wife's, is the one finally agreed on.Second is the mean rating of the wife's degree of "submission" on disagreements where she concedes to her husband. Third,with a negative weighting, is the husband's mean "submission" rating. The percentage of cases where the husband's viewprevails is combined with two other variables rather than kept by itself because of its low (.12) split-half reliability.

4 and 5. Pre-Errors is scored for husband and wife separately, hence provides two variables. On each trial, each spousechooses a color. If a person announces his choice before he hears what the other spouse has chosen, and makes a mistake,this is called an e1 error. On the other hand if he waits for the other spouse to state his choice first, and then announces hischoice and makes a mistake, this is called an e2 error. The e1 errors are made without knowledge of the other spouse'schoice, and e2 errors are made with this knowledge. Pre-Errors as used here is the total number of e1 errors made by aspouse.

6 and 7. Eliminating Disagreements by Error (EDE) is also scored for the two spouses separately and is derived frome2 errors. If, say, a husband has heard his wife's color choice, he may make the same choice and thereby guarantee theabsence of any disagreement. If in so doing he makes an erroneous choice, his mistake is called an e2- error. The husbandmay also make a mistake which involves a choice that is different from his wife's, thereby guaranteeing the existence of adisagreement. Such an erroneous choice would be called an e2+ error. Eliminating Disagreements by Error is the number ofe2- errors minus the number of e2+ errors.

8 and 9. Task DiscussionIntensity (TDI) for each spouse is the percentage of statements that include attempts toresolve disagreements by mentioning the intensity (lightness or darkness) of one or more colors. Responses of this kindadhere literally to the perceptual differences presented in the experimental task.

10 and 11. Task DiscussionQualitative or Metaphoric (TDQ, M) is like TDI except that scored statements mustinclude qualitative description of a color, e.g., "It's Chinese red," or metaphoric denotation, as "It's the same color as ourliving room rug." TDQ, M thus measures the extent of more articulate color description than does TDI and takes account ofa somewhat more generous frame of reference than the specific matching task construed literally.

12 and 13. Disapproval of Spouse (DSP) is the percentage of statements where a subject makes critical, disapproving,hostile or otherwise negative remarks about his spouse. DSP is scored for husband and wife separately.

14 and 15. Laughter (L) is the percentage of statements including an audible laugh. L is scored for husband and wifeseparately.

16 and 17. Avoiding Structure (AS) is the percentage of statements where a spouse questions the test structure, forinstance by discussing possible trickery; or takes, or offers to take some arbitrary way out of a disagreement, such asflipping a coin, or suggesting that the couple is simply unable to resolve a disagreement. This is scored for husbands andwives separately.

Means of some of these variables were examined to get at possible husband-wife differences in interaction style, andcorrelations among all 17 variables were computed. Principal components were computed from the correlation matrix, andthe first four components, or factors, were moderately interpretable and therefore retained. Unities were left as diagonalelements in the correlation matrix, and the resulting factors were not rotated. Factor scores were to be computed from thesefactors. The complications in factor scoring which result from using communalities and from rotating have been shown byseveral writers.

Finally, factor scores and the 17 variables were correlated with data from questionnaires and interviewer's ratings ofthese couples.

RESULTS

MeansThere may be a cultural ethic that men make decisions, or that "ladies go first"; but if so, neither of these prescriptions

was reflected in average couple behavior. The percentage of disagreements where the husband's view prevailed was closeto 50 (mean = 46.8, t = .939). This is consistent with Strodtbeck's (11) finding with the revealed differences technique that,while Navaho wives and Mormon husbands tended to win in disagreements with their spouses, Texan couples wereequalitarian in the distribution of disagreement outcomes. Husband Initiation was also not significantly different from 50%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2

(mean, expressed as percentage of trials = 48.1, t = .896).To get at some idea of the differing styles of men and women in this situation, husbands and wives were compared on

those variables where each spouse was scored separately. As can be seen from Table I, wives tended to use a richervocabulary in describing colors (Task DiscussionQualitative or Metaphoric), and laughed more. Husbands, on the otherhand, were apparently more likely than wives to break away from the test structure.

Table IHusband-Wife Comparisons

Variable Husband Mean Wife Mean rHW tHW

Pre-Errors 1.08 .67 .02 1.546

Eliminating Disagreements By Error 1.45 1.43 -.13 .045

Task DiscussionIntensity 2.40 2.70 .30* .830

Task DiscussionQualitative orMetaphoric

2.75 3.37 .79** 2.217*

Disapproval of Spouse .82 1.05 .18 .887

Laughter 3.58 5.76 .38** 3.991***

Avoiding Structure .18 .13 .44** 2.488*

*P < .05

**P < .01

***P < .001

One finding of particular interest concerns Eliminating Disagreements by Error (EDE). If errors are unrelated to whatone knows about his spouse's color choice, they should create disagreements (e2+ errors) as often as they eliminate them(e2- errors). Specifically, average EDE should be about zero. If people tend to create conflicts by changing their colorchoices, then there should be more e2+ errors than e2- errors, and average EDE should be negative. There is a strikingtendency to distort or alter choices in order to avoid disagreements, as mean EDE was positive, and to a highly significantdegree; t for husbands was 4.43 (P < .001, two tail), and t for wives was 5.22 (P < .001, two tail). The extent of thetendency to distort one's way out of disagreements might be better appreciated by noting that 25 husbands made one ormore e2- errors, while only 3 made e2+ errors. The corresponding figures for wives are 24 and 3. One is tempted to inferthat lying may be a popular way of maintaining marital harmony.2

Factor AnalysisCorrelations among the 17 factor analyzed variables are given in Table II. Loadings for the first four unrotated principal

components are given in Table III. Considering the present small sample size, sampling stability of the obtained factors isuncertain. Their usefulness is therefore not in revealing some presumed underlying basis for the correlations in Table II, butmainly in suggesting interesting dimensions for describing couple interaction process.

Table IICorrelations among Variables Used in Factor Analysisa

1) Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 162) H Initiation -023) H Dominance 04 -024) H Pre-Errors 00 08 105) W Pre-Errors -19 -30 22 026) H EliminatingDisagreements byError

-26 06 -42 -17 05

7) W EliminatingDisagreements byError

-17 27 -18 -04 -13 -13

8) H Task 13 -23 26 -11 10 -07 -28

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3

Discussion-Intensity9) W TaskDiscussion-Intensity

06 -04 14 07 -08 -25 -18 32

10) H TaskDiscussion-Qualitative or Metaphoric

53 -13 33 -13 02 -25 -12 43 16

11) W TaskDiscussionQualitative orMetaphoric

51 -10 25 -01 -19 -20 -21 40 42 79

12) H Disapproval ofSpouse

36 -04 -17 -06 -12 -07 -04 -02 -12 03 00

13) W Disapproval ofSpouse

26 02 -23 31 -05 01 -03 -28 -22 -17 -17 17

14) H Laughter 24 03 -17 16 -08 -11 -22 -30 -19 -14 -13 38 3915) W Laughter 25 03 -16 19 -24 -16 11 -24 -03 -08 -16 10 29 3716) H AvoidingStructure

25 -05 02 -01 -2 -15 -03 -08 20 12 00 -06 03 30 17

17) W AvoidingStructure

39 -18 -16 04 -09 22 -08 -09 -30 11 09 09 20 16 36 44

a Decimals omitted. N = 49

Table IIIPrincipal Component Factor Loadings1

Factor

1 2 3 4

1) Statements 24 83 02 15

2) H Initiation -23 -11 54 36

3) H Dominance 57 -05 18 -41

4) H Pre-Errors -16 16 38 -54

5) W Pre-Errors 12 -28 -43 -57

6) H Eliminating Disagreements byError

-31 -29 -58 35

7) W Eliminating Disagreements byError

-28 -20 40 40

8) H Task Discussion-Intensity 70 00 -21 00

9) W Task Discussion-Intensity 54 -05 38 -08

10) H Task Discussion-Qualitative orMetaphoric

72 44 -06 18

11) W Task Discussion-Qualitative orMetaphoric

75 42 08 23

12) H Disapproval of Spouse -15 42 -02 09

13) W Disapproval of Spouse -50 41 05 -22

14) H Laughter -44 55 04 -31

15) W Laughter -39 50 25 -06

16) H Avoiding Structure -11 46 -20 -04

17) W Avoiding Structure -21 58 -46 16

Cumulative percent variance 18.8 35.0 44.8 53.51 Decimals omitted.

Factor 1 runs from affectivity (wife Disapproval of Spouse, husband Laughter, wife Laughter) to rationality (husband and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4

wife Task DiscussionIntensity and Task DiscussionQualitative or Metaphoric).Couples at one end apparently try to reason their way out of Color Matching Test disagreements, while those at the other

end are more likely to proceed by means of disapproval and laughter. Factor 2 is clearly a verbal fluency measure. It loadshigh on Statements and on all variables which indicate that utterances tend to be contentful. Task DiscussionIntensity isthus assumed to reflect a rather minimal kind of statement content. Factor 3 suggests a dimension of husband versus wifeleading or assertive behavior. At one end, husbands seemingly leap in first with their color choices, make higher Pre-Errorsscores in so doing, and are followed by wives who make erroneous color choices in order to agree with them (EliminatingDisagreements by Error). At the other end, the reverse of these several statements seems true. Note from Table 2 that thispattern of loadings is not obviously due to direct correlations between Husband Initiation and the four error variables,which suggest that the pattern may not be a mere artifact, due to a circumstance of spouses who make their color choicesfirst having relatively greater opportunity for e1 errors, and less opportunity for e2 errors. Factor 4 seems mostly to reflectstyle of error making, with Pre-Errors variables loading at one end and EDE at the other.

The two Avoiding Structure (AS) variables do not seem to be in the main conceptual trends of any factors. They show uphowever as one aspect of verbal fluency, and wife Avoiding Structure seems high for wives who are high on leadingbehavior (the negative end of factor 3). Loadings for Husband Dominance are hard to interpret because of the conceptuallymixed construction of this variable. It does seem related however to the rationality end of factor 1, and, for what it is worth,to the Pre-Errors end of factor 4.

Correlations with Other VariablesClearly, if dimensions derived from the Color Matching Test are to be of any use, the CMT must have some relationship

with behavior occurring elsewhere. To investigate this matter, factor scores, the 17 variables used in the factor analysis, andthe three variables put together as Husband Dominance (percentage of husband wins, husband "submission" and wife"submission") were correlated with a set of 50 variables derived from questionnaires and ratings by interviewers.Considering the dubious value of significance levels with this many correlations, the entire procedure must be consideredtentative and exploratory, and only particularly suggestive relationships will be touched on at this time. All told, 82correlations were significant at the .05 level, while .05 of all correlations computed would have yielded 60 significantcorrelations.

Interviewer Ratings Wives who were apparently retiring and unassertive on the Color Matching Test tended to receive amore positive evaluation by interviewers. Concretely, wives who tended to receive positive interviewer ratings woninfrequently in CMT disagreements with their husbands, had higher "submission" scores, and had higher EliminatingDisagreements by Error scores. Also, where wives were high on EDE, both husbands and wives reported themselves asmore satisfied with their marriages.

On the other hand, it might be inferred that the interviewers preferred humorous husbands. Positive interviewer ratingsof husbands tended to be correlated with wife CMT laughter.

Factors None of the four factors was clearly related to overall evaluation by interviewers, but factor scores andconceptually important high loading variables did have a pattern of relationships with questionnaire variables andinterviewer ratings which tended to make sense. Factor 1, for example, was associated with questionnaire variablespurporting to measure conventionality, non-impulsiveness, and reasonableness in the face of disagreements.3

Consideration of the correlations with factor 2 and its highly loaded variable, Statements, suggest that taking a long timeto resolve CMT disagreements was related to a general tendency toward non-acquiescent behavior, particularly on the partof the husband. Correlations with rated wife need for support, and with reported wife dissatisfaction with her marriage,suggest that a high factor 2 syndrome included some difficulties for the wife.

Factor 3 seems to have been related to husband impulsivity, as well it might, and also to rated wife empathy and todifferentiation of household roles between the two spouses. The high loading variable, Husband Initiation was significantlycorrelated with extent of premarital sexual activity between the two spouses (as reported by both husband and wife).Correlates of wife EDE have already been mentioned. Husband's Eliminating Disagreements by Error score had nosignificant correlates.

Factor 4 had no clearly interpretable correlates.

DISCUSSIONThe present paper is a way-station between the origin of a technique and the eventual combining of dimensions that

derive from a variety of techniques and methods, not to mention samples of subjects. Three issues suggest themselves. Firstand foremost, can interesting dimensions be measured by the Color Matching Test? Second, are there threads ofcommonality between CMT behavior and behavior elsewhere? Finally, we are interested in how the CMT itself has so farinformed us about central tendencies in couples' reactions to disagreements.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5

Can interesting dimensions be measured by the CMT? The most we can do is point to several apparently measurabledimensions which interest us. Also, "dimension" is not necessarily synonymous with "factor." A factor analysis was done inthe hope that it might suggest dimensions of interest, and indicate what sort of dimensions can be well measured; not in theexpectation that it would reveal some kind of alleged underlying truth and hence directly indicate the dimensions we seek.

In this spirit then Rationality versus Affectivity is one dimension suggested by the present results. It is a potentialmeasure of stylistic differences between couples that is certainly measurable, coming as it seems to so close to the firstprincipal axis of the scored variables. A similar factor was also found by Flint and Ryder (3) using Flint's Stereognosis testwith some of the same couples, but after they had been married about a year. The content of this possible dimensionsuggests a relationship with personality measures of extraversion, or perhaps with social attitudes of romanticism ormaterialism. Data already in hand suggest a relationship with social conventionality.

Length of Disagreements also comes close to being a factor and is easily measurable. As noted earlier, questionnairecorrelates suggest this variable is not merely idiosyncratic to the CMT situation, but may have to do with the degree towhich spouses (at least husbands) generally maintain their own positions in the face of disagreement.

Husband (versus wife) Leading Behavior, and Eliminating Disagreements by Error are other measures of interest. Thesuggestion in factor 3 of some possible functional equivalence between these two variables warrants further exploration.

With regard to the second question, threads of commonality between Color Matching Test performance and behaviorelsewhere were indeed found, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The number of nonindependent correlations wassuch that significant relationships must be treated with extreme caution, but it does seem true that each of the first threefactors was sensibly related to outside measures. Also, there was a coherent cluster of individual variables which tied inwith positive interviewer judgments. One might tentatively conclude then that there are some nonchance connectionsbetween CMT variables and behavior as otherwise measured.

What about the third question: How has the Color Matching Test informed us regarding central tendencies of couples'reactions to disagreement? If we take the results at face value and assume couples may approach other disagreements asthey do those generated by the CMT, which of course may not be true, there is one main phenomenon we might notpreviously have guessed. This is the striking tendency of our subjects to avoid conflicts by giving wrong answers. Perhapsdisagreement resolution in marriage is sometimes a special case of the social influence effect studied by Asch (1), andothers. Something akin to conscious or unconscious denial, distortion, misperception or lying seems to be a common way toeliminate disagreements. A similar effect, call it denial of disagreement, has been noted informally by Moss4 at the ChildResearch Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, and by Strodtbeck (11) in studying revealed differences betweenspouses. That is, when spouses were faced with apparent discrepancies between answers, they tended to reinterpret theiranswers in order to demonstrate that there was "really" no disagreement. The apparent popularity of denying disagreementsmay be deplorable but has, as far as present data reveals, no untoward effects. In fact, wife Eliminating Disagreements byError is related to positive interviewer ratings and self reports of high marriage satisfaction. It will be interesting to see ifthese findings hold up when the couples are no longer newlyweds.

In summary then, we have Rationality versus Affectivity, and Length of Disagreements as dimensions suggested bypresent data, and the possibility of adumbrating one or two dimensions incorporating husband Leading Behavior andEliminating Disagreement by Error. We tentatively conclude that Color Matching Test variables relate to behavior ininterviews and on questionnaires. Finally, the main interesting central tendency was the maintaining of interspouse harmonyby making incorrect statements.

REFERENCES

1. Asch, S. E., (1958) "Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," in Maccoby,E. E., Newcomb, T. M., & Hartley, E. L. (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York, Holt, Rinehart& Winston, 174-183 pp.

2. Blood, R. O., Jr., (1963) "The Measurement and Bases of Family Power: a Rejoinder," Marr. and Fam. Liv., 25,475-478.

3. Flint, A. A. and Ryder, R. G., (1963) "Interpersonal Disagreements in Marriage: the Stereognosis Test,"Unpublished paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

4. Goodrich, D. W. and Boomer, D. S., (1963) "Experimental Assessment of Modes of Conflict Resolution," FamilyProcess, 2, 15-24.

5. Heer, D. M., (1963) "The Measurement and Bases of Family Power: an Over-view," Mart. and Fam. Liv., 25,133-139.

6. Heer, D. M., (1963) "Reply," to Blood R. O. Jr., "The Measurement and Bases of Family Power: a Rejoinder."Marr. and Fam. Liv., 25, 477-478.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6

7. Herbst, P. G., (1952) "The Measurement of Family Relationships," Human Relations, 5, 3-35. 8. Hoffman, Lois W., (1960) "Effects of the Employment of Mothers on Parental Power Relations and the Division of

Household Tasks," Mart. and Fam. Liv., 22, 27-35. 9. Kanfer, F. H., Bass, B. M. and Guyett, I., (1963) "Dyadic Speech Patterns, Orientation and Social Reinforcement,"

J. consult. Psychol., 27, 199-205. 10. Kelly, E. L., (1955) "Consistency of the Adult Personality," Amer. Psychologist, 10, 659-681. 11. Strodtbeck, F. L., (1951) "Husband-Wife Interaction Over Revealed Differences," Amer. Sociological Rev., 16,

46-473. 12. Strodtbeck, F. L., (1954) "The Family as a Three Person Group," Amer. Sociological Rev., 19, 23-29. 13. Strodtbeck, F. L., (1958) "Family Interaction Values and Achievement,"in McClelland D.C., et al., (Eds.) Talent

and Society, Princeton N.J., Van Nostrand, 1958, 177-178 pp. 14. Tharp, R. G., (1963) "Psychological Patterning in Marriage," Psychol. Bull., 60, 97-117. 15. Tharp, R. G., (1963) "Dimensions of Marriage Roles," Mawr. and Faro. Liv., 25, 389-404.

1A scoring manual, 10 scored protocols, and more detailed information regarding standard test administration procedure areavailable from the authors.

2A check was made on the possibility that the tendency toward Eliminating Disagreements by Error, was due to peculiarities inthe arrangement of colors, such that it was physically easier to make errors which were likely to eliminate disagreements, than itwas to make errors which were likely to create disagreements. The check consisted of scoring each e1 error as if it were an e2 errorand thus giving each spouse two EDE scores. One score was based on errors wihch were actually e2's, and the other score wasbased on e1's, on the pretense that these were e2's True EDE should have been greater than the score based on e1 errors if and and

only if it had something to do with making the second color choice, and not if it were only due to attributes of the physical display.True EDE was significantly greater than the score based on e1 errors for both husbands (t = 3.45; P < .01, two-tail) and wives (t =3.80; P < .001, two-tail).

3Nothing in these relationships suggested that high scoring factor 1 couples were truly more reasonable, only that they tended touse "reasons" more. "Rationality" as tapped by factor 1 seems to reflect a style of interaction, not its adequacy in any sense.

4Personal communication from Howard Moss.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7