Relative contributions of relationship distress and depression to communication patterns in couples

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 6, 2007, pp. 689-707

RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF RELATIONSHIPDISTRESS AND DEPRESSION TOCOMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN COUPLES

BRIAN BAUCOMUniversity of California, Los Angeles

KATHLEEN ELDRIDGEPepperdine University

JANICE JONES, MIA SEVIERUniversity of California, Los Angeles

MARI CLEMENTSFuller Theological Seminary

HOWARD MARKMAN, SCOTT STANLEYUniversity of Denver

STEVEN L. SAYERS

University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center

TAMARASHERIllinois Institute of Technology

ANDREW CHRISTENSENUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Researchers have long been interested in the relationship between marital distressand depression. Empirical findings from investigations into the relative contribu-tions of marital distress and depression to marital communication have been in-consistent, and some communication behaviors, such as the demand/withdrawinteraction pattern, have yet to be examined. The ability of depression to predictmajor types of communication (positive communication, negative communica-tion, problem-solving, and demand/withdraw) was analyzed after controlling for

Address correspondence to Brian Baucom, M.A., UCLA Department of Psychology,1285 Franz Hall, Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563. E-mail: [email protected]

689

690 BAUCOM ET AL.

the shared variance between marital distress and depression. Across two studies ofcouples beginning therapy and one study of couples beginning an enhancementprogram, results failed to provide support for a unique contribution of depression to

couples' communication behaviors.

Numerous studies have found a relationship between marital distressand depression. A meta-analysis of over thirty different studies found aconsistent, moderate sized correlation, r (approx.) - .4, between maritaldistress and depression for men and women in cross-sectional studiesthat have measured depression categorically as well as continuously(Whisman, 2001). A relationship between marital distress and depres-sion of approximately the same size as reported by Whisman (2001) hasalso been found in treatment studies of depressed psychiatric inpatientsand outpatients (e.g. Coleman & Miller, 1975), marital therapy treatmentstudies of both newl3rwed and well-established couples (e.g. Davila,Bradbury, Cohan, & Tochluk, 1997), treatment studies of specificallydistressed and depressed couples (e.g. Beach & O'Leary, 1992), and de-scriptive studies of community samples both in the United States as wellas in other countries, such as Sweden (Freden, 1982).

Studies have also shown both marital distress and depression affectmarital communication. Although communication has been categorizedusing different taxonomies by couples researchers and depression re-searchers, empirical results from the two separate literatures suggestthat both marital distress and depression play an important role in theway that couples communicate.

Distressed couples have been found to communicate differently fromtheir non-distressed counterparts along several dimensions (see Weiss& Heyman, 1997 for a review). Relative to non-distressed couples, dis-tressed couples generally display increased levels of negativity and de-creased levels of positivity in their every day interactions as well as inproblem solving attempts (e.g., Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977;Julien, Markman, & Lindahl, 1989).

In addition to increased levels of negativity, decreased levels ofpositivity, and impaired problem-solving, distressed spouses tend tointeract with one another using the demand/withdraw pattern. The de-mand/withdraw pattern occurs when one spouse makes a complaint orrequest for a change and the other spouse avoids or withdraws from thediscussion, presumably to avoid an argument or having to make the re-quested change (Christensen, 1988). In conflicted couples wives most of-ten assume the demanding role and husbands assume the withdrawingrole, particularly when discussing changes that the wife would like inthe relationship (Christensen & Heavey, 1990). The demand/withdraw

RELATIONSHIP DISTRESS AND DEPRESSION 691

pattern has been linked to marital distress in numerous investigations(see Eldridge & Christensen, 2002 for a review), including a recentcross-cultural study (Christensen, Eldridge, Catta-Preta, Lim, &Santagata, 2006). In particular, wife demand/husband withdraw ap-pears to be strongly associated with relationship distress (Christensen &Heavey, 1990); there is also self-report evidence that withdrawal ten-dencies in either the husband or wife are associated with marital distress(Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002).

Similar to relationship distress, depression has been found to impactnumerous aspects of interpersonal commmucation (see Tse & Bond,2004 for a review). Depressed individuals have been found to engage inhigher levels of reassurance seeking and negative feedback seekingGoiner, Alfano, & Metalsky, 1993; Joiner & Metalsky, 1995; Joiner,Metalsky, Katz, & Beach, 1999), to be more self-purutive in their inter-personal behavior (Blumberg & Hokanson, 1983), restricted, passive,and underresponsive in their interpersonal behaviors (Coyne, Aldwin,& Lazarus, 1981; Lewinsohn & Shafer, 1971), and helpless, sad, pessi-mistic, vulnerable, and generally negative in the content of their state-ments (Blumberg & Hokanson, 1983; Coyne et al., 1981; Gotlib & Robin-son, 1982) relative to non-depressed individuals. These results havebeen found for self-report instruments, interaction partner reports, andobjective observer reports (Gotlib & Robinson, 1982).

Existing efforts to merge these two lines of research have resulted ininconsistent findings. Several studies have found that the presence of adepressed partner increases the level of destructive communication pat-terns found in the interactions of distressed couples. Distressed coupleswith a depressed partner have been found generally to interact morenegatively and less positively (Hautzinger, Linden, & Hoffman, 1982;Sher & Baucom, 1993; Sher, Baucom, & Larus, 1990; Johnson & Jacob,2000; Johnson & Jacob, 1997), to exhibit more aggressiveness (Biglan,'Hops, Sherman, Friedman, Arthur, & Osteen, 1985), and to exhibit fewerproblem-solving behaviors and to be less effective problem-solvers(Basco, Prager, Pita, Tamir, & Stephens, 1992; Christian, O'Leary, &Vivian, 1994) than distressed couples without a depressed partner.

While the bulk of the studies that have looked at the interaction pat-terns of distressed depressed couples have found differences in commu-rrication that are attributable to depression, there are a smaller numberof studies that have failed to find such differences. Both Nelson andBeach (1990) and Schmaling and Jacobson (1990) attempted to replicateand to extend the findings of Biglan et al.'s (1985) earlier work. TheBiglan et al. (1985) study had compared distressed couples with a de-pressed partner, non-maritally distressed couples without a depressedpartner, and non-maritally distressed couples with a depressed partner.

692 BAUCOM ET AL.

but had failed to include maritally distressed couples without a de-pressed partner in their design. Both of the replication efforts includedmaritally distressed couples without a depressed partner and failed tofind any significant differences in interaction patterns that wereuniquely attributable to depression (Nelson & Beach, 1990; Schmaling &Jacobson, 1990). Additionally, studies examining the relative contribu-tions of relationship distress and depression to self-reported de-mand/withdraw communication have failed to find a unique effect fordepression (Byrne, Carr, & Clark, 2004). The failure to find an associa-tion between depression and demand/withdraw is particularly surpris-ing given the similarities between the interpersonal model of depression(Coyne, 1976) and the pattern of behavior in demand/withdraw(Christensen, 1988). Both the demand/withdraw pattern and the inter-personal model of depression describe efforts by one partner to engagethe other in a discussion and a reaction by the other partner to quicklyterminate the discussion. This constellation of results has led someresearchers to conclude that, "behaviors in depressed couples do notdiffer from other distressed couples" (Weiss & Heyman, 1997, p. 28).

As a result of these conflicting findings, there is disagreement aboutwhether depression uniquely contributes to the interaction patterns ofdistressed couples beyond its relationship with marital distress. This pa-per will attempt to clarify and to extend previous findings by looking atthe relationship between marital distress, depression, and communica-tion. This paper differs from previous research in several importantways. First, it includes couples in widely varying stages of their relation-ships and in widely varying levels of marital distress recruited for par-ticipation in both treatment and prevention studies. Most existing stud-ies recruited distressed couples with well-developed relationships. Thisstudy is imique in its inclusion of satisfied to moderately dissatisfiedcouples planning marriage, moderately to severely distressed couplesseeking marital therapy, and severely and stably distressed couplesseeking marital therapy. Second, most studies have only used symptommeasures of depression. Few studies have used diagnostic measures ofdepression, and, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have includedboth symptom and diagnostic measures. It is possible that important dif-ferences in convmunication only appear in individuals with more severelevels of depression that meet criteria for diagnosis. This study will useboth symptom and diagnostic measures to determine if differences incommunication patterns exist for a range of severity of depressed indi-viduals or if there appears to be a threshold where differences emerge.Finally, depression has been shown to influence a wide variety of com-munication patterns, but current studies of distressed and depressedcouples have reported on a relatively small number of patterns. This


Study includes several observational coding systems that assess a widearray of communication patterns, some of which, such asdemand/withdraw, are likely influenced by depression but have yet tobe addressed in the existing literature.

We hypothesize that for men and women and for symptom and diag-nostic measures of depression in each of the datasets:

Hypothesis 1: Marital satisfaction and depression will be related.Hypothesis 2: Depression will be related to interaction patterns.Hypothesis 3: Marital satisfaction will be related to interaction

patterns.Hypothesis 4: After controlling for marital satisfaction, depression

will uniquely contribute to the prediction of interaction patterns.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sample 1. Participants (n = 132) are a sub-sample of 134 significantlyand stably distressed couples who were recruited for participation in atwo-site study of marital therapy being conducted at the University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles and the University of Washington. Thesub-sample of participants used in this paper completed all measures ofinterest. All measures are taken from an assessment that occurred beforetherapy began. Please see Christensen, Atkins, Berns, Wheeler, Baucom,and Simpson (2004) for a complete description of recruitment proce-dures, inclusion criterion, and study protocol.

Participants in this sample ranged from 22 to 72 years old, with a me-dian age for men of 43 years {SD = 8.8) and a median age for women of 42years {SD = 8.7). They were, on average, college educated (median levelof education for both men and women was 17 years, SD = 3.2) and earn-ing a median annual income of $48,000 for the men and $36,000 for thewomen. Couples were married an average of 10.0 years {SD = 7.7). Thesample was largely Caucasian {77%), with 8% African American, 5%Asian or Pacific Islander, 5% Latino/Latina, 1% Native American, and4% Other.

Sample 2. Participants {n = 59) are a sub-sample of sixty distressedcouples who were seeking couples therapy either on their own or by thereferral of other mental health professionals for marital discord at thePsychology Clinic of the University of North Carolina. The sub-sampleof participants used in this paper completed all measures of interest. Allmeasures are taken from an assessment that occurred before any studyrelated marital therapy began. Please see Baucom, Sayers, and Sher

694 BAUCOM ET AL.

(1990) for a complete description of inclusion criterion and studyprotocol.

Participants in this sample ranged from 24 to 52 years old, with a me-dian age for men of 35 years (SD = 6.7) and a median age for women of 32years (SD - 6.0). They were, on average, college educated (median levelof education for both men and women was 16 years, SD = 3.0 for menand SD = 2.3 for women). Couples were married an average of 8.1 years.The sample was almost exclusively Caucasian (97%) with 3% AfricanAmerican.

Sample 3. Participants (n = 93) are a sub-sample of one hundred andthirty five couples who were planning marriage and were recruited forparticipation in a study of relationship development. The sub-sampleof participants used in this paper completed all measures of interestprior to intervention. Please see Markman, Duncan, Storaash, andHowes (1987) for a complete description of inclusion criterion and studyprotocol.

Participants in this sample ranged from 16 to 35 years old, with a me-dian age for men of 24 years {SD = 4.0) and a median age for women of 22years {SD = 4.0). They were, on average, college educated (median levelof education for both husband and women was 16 years, SD = 1.9 forhusbands and SD = 4.7 for women). The sample was largely Caucasian(76%) with 3% Latino/a, 1% African American, and 20% other orunknown.

MEASURES

DEPRESSION—SYMPTOMATOLOGY

Sample 1. Depressive symptomatology was assessed using the COM-PASS Treatment Assessment System (COMPASS; Howard, Brill,Lueger, O'Mahoney, & Grisson, 1995). The COMPASS uses 57Likert-scale items to assess current well-being, current life functioning,and current symptoms of psychological disorders. The depressionsubscale is comprised of seven items assessing current symptoms. Stan-dard scoring protocol for the depression subscale was used to computet-scores. Chronbach's alpha for the depression subscale in this samplewas .89 for men and .87 for women. Men's t-scores ranged from 33.43 to67.99 (mean = 40.43, SD = 6.70) while women's f-scores ranged from33.43 to 69.07 (mean = 39.65, SD = 6.16).

Sample 2. Depressive symptomatology was assessed using the clinicaldepression scale (scale 2) of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality In-ventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinney, 1942). Standard scoring proto-col was used to compute t-scores. Husband's f-scores ranged from 39 to


92 (mean = 58.68, SD = 12.61) while wive's f-scores ranged from 27 to 96(mean = 59.35, SD = 14.86). Of the 59 husbands, 23 (39%) were in themild range (T < 56), 23 (39%) were in the moderate range (70 > T > 56) and13 (22%) were in the severe range (T > > 70). Of the 59 wives, 29 (49%)were in the mild range (T < 56), 17 (29%) were in the moderate range (70 >T > 56) and 13 (22%) were in the severe range (T > 70).

Sample 3. Depressive symptomatology was assessed us'ing the Symp-tom Checklist-90 (SCL-90; Derogatis, Rickels, & Rock, 1976). Standardscoring protocol was used to create scale scores. Husband's scoresranged from 1 to 47 (mean = 13.15, SD = 7.90) while wive's scores rangedfrom 1 to 40 (mean = 10.76, SD = 7.53).

DEPRESSION—DIAGNOSTIC

Sample 1. Diagnoses of depression were determined using the Struc-tured Clinical Interview-I for DSM-IV (SCID-I; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, &Williams, 1994). For the purposes of this paper, a participant was consid-ered to have an active diagnosis of depression if they met criterion for acurrent depressive spectrum disorder or for a past depressive spectrumdisorder that was not in full remission. Depressive spectrum disordersincluded dysthmia and major depressive disorder. Please seeChristensen et al. (2004) for a description of procedures used to establishreliability for the SCID in this study. Acceptable reliability was found forboth the presence of current (88% overall agreement, kappa = .66, p <.001), and past diagnoses (90% overall agreement, kappa = .75, p < .001)as well as the presence of the specific diagnosis for current (85% agree-ment, kappa = .57, p < .001) and past disorders (90% agreement, kappa =.72, p < .001). Based on this criterion, 19 (14%) men and 15 (11%) womenwere considered to have diagnoses of depression.

Sample 2. Diagnoses of depression were determined using cutoffscores on the MMPI. The depression scale of the MMPI has been found tobe a reliable predictor of clinical diagnoses of depression (Gross, Keyes,& Greene, 2000). For the purposes of this paper, a participant was con-sidered to have an active diagnosis of depression if their depressiont-score was 70 or higher (Lachar, 1974; Sher et al., 1990). Based on thiscriterion, 13 (22%) husbands and 13 (22%) wives were considered tohave diagnoses of depression.

Sample 3. Diagnoses of depression were determined using cutoffscores on the SCL-90. The depression scale of the SCL-90 has been foundto be a reliable predictor of clinical diagnoses of depression (Kennedy,Morris, Pedley, & Schwab, 2001; Wetzler, & Marlowe, 1993). For the pur-poses of this paper, a participant was considered to have an active diag-nosis of depression if his or her depression scale score was equal to or

696 BAUCOM ET AL.

greater thar\ 26 (Kennedy et al., 2001). Based on this criterion, 6 (7%) hus-bands and 7 (8%) wives were considered to have diagnoses ofdepression.

MARITAL SATISFACTION

Sample 1. Marital satisfaction was measured using the Dyadic Adjust-ment Scale, a widely used and well validated self-report measure ofmarital satisfaction (DAS; Spanier, 1976). Standard scoring protocol wasused to create scale scores such that higher scores reflect greater maritalsatisfaction. Cronbach's alpha for this sample was .89 for men and .87 forwomen. Men's scores ranged from 40 to 123 (mean = 84.36, SD - 15.12)while women's scores ranged from 45 to 115 (mean = 84.63, SD -14.05).

Sample 2. Marital satisfaction was measured using the Dyadic Adjust-ment Scale, a widely used and well validated self-report measure ofmarital satisfaction (DAS; Spanier, 1976). Standard scoring protocol wasused to create scale scores. Husband's scores ranged between 49 and 124(mean = 90.8, SD = 17.2) while wive's scores ranged between 24 and 114(mean = 85.8, SD = 17.2)

Sample 3. Marital satisfaction was measured using the Marital Adjust-ment Test, a widely used and well validated self-report measure of mar-ital satisfaction (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959). Standard scoring proto-col was used to create scale scores. Husband's scores ranged between 54and 154 (mean - \1?>.1, SD = 16.1) while wive's scores ranged between 76and 155 (mean = 123.9, SD = 15.5)

COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS

Sample 1. Commurucation patterns were created by combining rat-ings on interactions coded by the Social Support Interaction Rating Sys-tem (SSIRS; Jones & Christensen, 1998) and the Couples Interaction Rat-ing System (CIRS2; Heavey, Gill, & Christensen, 2002). Patternsincluded in this paper are negativity, positivity, problem solving, with-draw, husband demand/wife withdraw, and wife demand/husbandwithdraw. Please see Sevier, Eldridge, Jones, Doss and Christensen (inpress) for a description of how the negativity, positivity, problem-solv-ing, and withdraw scales are created from the SSIRS and the CIRS2. De-mand/withdraw scores were created by averaging blame and pressurefor change for demand, averaging avoidance, withdraw, and reversescored discussion for withdraw and then summing across spouses foreach interaction. All interactions were coded by teams of three or fourimdergraduates. Interobserver cronbach alpha's for this sample were.90 for negativity, .60 for withdraw, .80 for positivity, and .71 for prob-


lem solving for women and .88 for negativity, .65 for withdraw, .78 forpositivity, and .80 for problem solving for men; demand/withdrawinterobserver cronbach alpha's were calculated across spouses and were91 for demand and .82 for withdraw.

Sample 2. Communication patterns were coded using the Marital In-teraction Coding System, Version III (MICS III; Weiss & Summers, 1983).Four patterns were used in this paper: avoidance, problem-solving,facilitative communication, and nonconstructive communication.Please see Baucom, Sayers, and Sher (1990) for a complete description ofcoding reliability in this sample.

Sample 3. Communication patterns were coded using the Interacts Di-mension Coding System, (IDCS; Julien, Markman, & Lindahl, 1989).Two patterns were created using combinations of the rune categories ofthe IDCS: global positive (communication skills + problem-solvingskills + support/validation + positive affect), and global negative (con-fUct + dominance + denial + negative affect). Please see Markman,Renick, Eloyd, Stanley, and Clements (1993) for a description of codingreliability in this sample.

RESULTS

All regression analyses were run using Stata, version 9 (StataCorp,2005). Clustered robust standard errors were used to correct for thenonindependence of husband and wife data. Random intercepts wereused to model couple level differences in all analyses predicting com-munication behaviors. An alpha level of .05 was used to determine sig-nificance of all analyses.

HYPOTHESIS 1

Marital satisfaction and depression will be negatively related.Hypothesis 1 was tested using sex, marital satisfaction, and the inter-

action between sex and marital satisfaction as predictors of depressivesymptomatology in a simultaneous linear regression and as predictorsof diagnostic depression in a logistic regression.

Sample 1. Contrary to predictions, marital satisfaction was not di-rectly related to depressive symptomatology or to diagnostic depres-sion. There was a significant interaction between sex and marital satis-faction (p = -.24, p < .04) in predicting depressive symptomatology.Post-hoc analyses revealed that a significant relationship between mari-tal satisfaction and depression occurred only for men (r = -22, p < .02; forwomen, p < .74).

Sample 2. As predicted, marital satisfaction was negatively related to

698 BAUCOM ET AL.

depressive symptomatology (p = -.27, p < .03). Contrary to predictions,marital satisfaction was not related to diagnostic depression {p < .06).

Sample 3. As predicted, marital satisfaction was negatively related todepressive symptomatology {^- -.28, p < .01). Contrary to predictions,marital satisfaction was not related to diagnostic depression {p < .09).

HYPOTHESIS 2

Depression will be related to interaction patterns.Hypothesis 2 was tested using simultaneous linear regressions with

sex, depression and the interaction between sex and depression re-gressed on each commvmication behavior.

Sample 1. Contrary to the hypothesis, neither symptomatic depres-sion nor diagnostic depression were related to any other communicationbehaviors (belligerence, withdraw, positivity, husband demand/wifewithdraw, and wife demand/husband withdraw).

Sample 2. Contrary to predictions, neither depressive symptoma-tology nor diagnostic depression were directly related to any communi-cation behaviors (facilitative communication, non-constructive com-munication, avoidance, and problem-solving). However, theinteractions between sex and depressive symptomatology and diagnos-tic depression were significantly related to avoidance (P = .406, p < .03; P= .877, p < .05). Inspection of the coefficients reveals that the effect of de-pression on avoidance is higher for women than for men.

Sample 3. Contrary to predictions, neither depressive symptoma-tology nor diagnostic depression were significantly related to any com-munication behaviors (withdraw, global positive, and global negative).

HYPOTHESIS 3

Marital satisfaction will be related to interaction patterns.Hypothesis 3 was tested using simultaneous regressions with sex,

marital satisfaction and the interaction between sex and marital satisfac-tion regressed on each communication behavior.

Sample 1. As predicted, marital satisfaction was significantly, posi-tively related to positivity (P = .254, p < .01) and significantly, negativelyrelated to negativity (p = -.376, p < .001), and wife demand/husbandwithdraw (P - -.266, p < .001). Contrary to predictions, marital satisfac-tion was not related to withdraw, problem-solving, or husbanddemand/wife withdraw.

Sample 2. Contrary to predictions, marital satisfaction was negativelyrelated to problem-solving (p = -.338, p < .005) and was not related to


facilitative communication, nonconstructive communication, oravoidance.

Sample 3. As predicted, marital satisfaction was significantly, nega-tively related to global negative (P = -.184, p < .05). Contrary to predic-tions, marital satisfaction was not related to withdraw {p < .45) or globalpositive ip < .45).

HYPOTHESIS 4

After controlling for marital satisfaction, depression will uniquely con-tribute to the prediction of interaction patterns.

Hypothesis 4 was tested using hierarchical regressions with commu-nication patterns being predicted by sex, marital satisfaction, and the in-teraction between sex and marital satisfaction entered in the first step,and depression (either depressive symptomatology or diagnostic de-pression) and the interaction between depression and sex entered in thesecond step. Thus, the second step included marital satisfaction, depres-sion, as well as sex and the interactions of sex with marital satisfactionand depression, as simultaneous predictors of communication patterns.Results from regressions for hypothesis 4, based on depressivesymptomatology, are presented in tables 1 through 4.

Sample 1. Contrary to predictions, neither diagnostic depression nordepressive symptomatology was significantly related to any communi-cation pattern after controlling for marital satisfaction. The interactionbetween sex and diagnostic depression (p = -.600, p < .05) significantlyadded to the prediction of wife demand/husband withdraw after con-trolling for marital satisfaction. Inspection of the coefficients reveals thatthe effect of depression on wife demand/husband withdraw is higherfor women than for men.

Sample 2. Consistent with predictions, depressive symptomatologywas found to be significantly related to avoidance (P = -.291, p < .05) aftercontrolling for marital satisfaction. Contrary to predictions, neither de-pressive symptomatology nor diagnostic depression was significantlyrelated to any communication pattern after controlling for maritalsatisfaction.

Sample 3. Contrary to predictions, neither depressive symptoma-tology nor diagnostic depression was significantly related to any com-munication pattern after controlling for marital satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

This study sought to clarify the unique contribution of depression to theinteraction patterns of couples after controlling for marital satisfaction.

_oore

OQ.E

Q.

Q

BU

E

oU

>tnS

I-IEU

1- >.

l lis

O COPI n-iO O

O^ " ^ CNO CN LDCN O O

o .— mCO n-i (ViO • - O

C O T - ; T-^

fN

re

o X re X

S- ,5 I t?

Tf .— tNm cTt voI- q r- q q

T— tN tjl tNt^i " ^ Ln COO O O O

fN 1 ^O O O O

O T.- '.D CO COCO - ^ tN !-n tN

o .- o o o

oo

p-l

'-;

-.0

or

q tN or

fNorq

COp-lrnfN

o-l•nrx

fNfN

q

q

fN

q

oo

r

ro

p-l

fN

r

tNfN

q

q

tctN

q

vO

81

q

o

r

u-1

q

q

V

tN

cx

o

II

<

u-io

Va

.01

V

a

s 'I -5 &••^ X !i- X

1 cu ^ oj2 tyi D t/1

•isE <^

700

oQ.

>

a(UQ

"g

o•>

a]

U

'c

Eou

00

o

o

IS

r—

COfN

LO

m

or-~

r

fN

rsi

m

LO

CO

r

*mro

1

mi n

,—

fN

-10

CO'—

1

fNO

Oi n

-.0

t n

r

tNenO

vO

O

r

*en

1

o

o

fN

fN1

cou

IBS |B

Mai

tNT

1

COtNo

rn

-.0

tn

8

O

oq

TftN.—

tN

O

OCOO

co

;fad

tT3

ital

mar

X fN

Sex

Ste

p

0^fN

1—

CO

tN

r

Ln

oi n

i*tNr%rn

1

vO

f»1OS

CO

CO1

Sex

1—

1

tNO

CO

o

r

ofN

r

m

O

m

or

COI \tvl

1

oino

tN

fN1

C

ou

al s

al

1

CO

1

o

tNo

r

CTItnq

t ^

o

CO

q

r—

tN.—

o

o

c.2

.a

a

ital

mar

X

Sex

CTI

c

t n

o

CTI

q

tN

r

tN

O

tNCOor

o

fN

o

cOjS

Sc

Q.tu

Q

tntno

fN

o

COfN

q

COr -

O

o

q

mtNO

1

CTI

,—

mO1

c

;ioi

a)

depi

X

Sex

J

ithdr:

>

c-t•5

"reS

•D

Witf

,

Ste

p

| \fNm

i n

^

tNCOt n

t n0

q

TfLO

CTi

0

( \CTi

*

btnm

COTf

t n

rn

Sex

CO0

00

0q

Tf0

r

0

tN0

r

0

01

rn

0

LO00

r

c0

act

al s

at

1

CO0

1

fN

0

00

r

0fN

r

0

0

T—

r

S1

0

, _

0

r

cgto

a

ital

man

X tN

Sex

Ste

p

rntNm

~

0

tN

0

q

tN

Tf

1^tN

-10.

#

tNtn

t^-i

mtN

rnTfCOLn

Sex

tN

.—

OS00

0

q

COtN

r

Tf

0

CTIvD0

r

tN

01

rn

0

LO00

r

c0

u

isf;

al s

atit.

Mar

m1—

1

0

-.0

fNat0

r

0

0t o0

r

TftNtN

1

CO

0

t orn0

r

c0

;fact

a

tal

mari

X

Sex

tN

=0

0

q

*CT^

r

00

K

1—

r

rOi n0

0

0

q

?ssi

oiD

ep

fOrnfN

r

0

CO

-.0.

t n

rn

,—

TftN

tn

1

0

rn

0

r

0

ess

Jdap

X

Sex

i 3 <

a y 0) *(^ c > ^~O i 'ra 9^ 0 = 0

•fr 2 ^ V

DO(U

ccXj

1.

lei

V

Q-

lcon

0c0 0

'6

en p

re2

wh

hen

tuQ .

E

2). I

nl

V

(N

Si

qII

701

702

TABLE 3. Problem-Solving Predicted

Step 1

Sex

Marital satisfaction

Sex X marital satisfaction

Step 2

Sex



Depression

Sex X depression

BAUCOM

by Marital Satisfactionand Depressive Symptomatology

Sample 1Problem-Solving

B

-1.749

.035

.018

-.869

.034

.019

.023

-.022

SEB

2.762

.024

.032

4.268

.024

.033

.055

2.95

P

-.050

.129

.069

-.052

.128

.069

.038

-.037

Sample 2

ETAL.

Problem-SolvingB

-19.409

-.303

.202

-28.254

-.308

.234

-.038

.104

SEB

9.968

.098

.111

18.602

.102

.124

.132

.187

P

-.099

-.338**

.225

-.096

-.342***

.260

-.034

.092

Note. In Sample 1, R = .03 for Step 1; A /? = .00 for Step 2 (ps < .91). In Sample 2,1^ = .05 for Step 1; A R= .01 for Step 2 (ps < .83). *p < .05, **p < .01, * " p < .005.

Three different samples of couples in widely differing relationshipswere analyzed using symptom and diagnostic measures of depression,marital satisfaction measures, and observationally coded interaction be-haviors. Results failed to support hypotheses that depression uniquelycontributes to the communication behaviors of couples in general. De-pressive symptomatology was found to uniquely contribute to avoid-ance in sample 2. This result should be interpreted with caution as it didnot replicate in the other samples. Results also failed to replicate existingfindings of relationships between communication behaviors (such asproblem-solving behavior) and depression. Very limited evidence wasfound to suggest that depressive symptoms or diagnoses of depressioncontribute to macro level interaction behaviors of couples aftercontrolling for marital satisfaction.

Diagnostic depression was found to uniquely contribute to wife de-mand/husband withdraw for men in sample 1. This result is consistentwith predictions (Coyne, 1976) and prior research (e.g., Biglan et al.,1985; Johnson & Jacob, 2000) which suggests that depression contributesto destructive sequences of interaction behaviors in distressed couples.While this result must be interpreted with caution as it did not replicatewith the measure of depressive symptomatology, it sheds light on thepotential impact of depression on a sequential interaction patternknown to be characteristic of distressed couples.

Several limitations are important to note when considering the results


TABLE 4. Demand-Withdraw Predicted by Marital Satisfactionand Depressive Symptomatology

Sample 1 Sample 2Husband demand/ Wife demand/

wife withdraw husband withdraw

Step 1

Sex



Step 2

Sex



Depression

Sex X depression

B

3.891

-.035

-.011

9.879

-.035

-.018

.051

-.134

SEB

2.562

.023

.030

4.416

.023

.031

.049

.069

3

.654'**

-.111

-.036

.657***

-.114

-.059

.073

-.191

B

-6.114

-.098

.033

-3.671

-.097

.023

-.058

-.039

SEB

2.994

.030

.036

4.635

.030

.036

.068

.082

3

-.624***

-.266***

.089

-.613***

-.264**

.062

-.070

-.046

No(es. When predicting husband demand, wife withdraw, R^ = .\2 for Step 1; AR^ = .01 forStep2(ps<.17); when predicting wife demand, husband withdraw, R^ = .13 for Step 1; A/?^ = .01 for Step 2 (ps<.12). *p < .05, **p < .01, ' " p < .005.

of this study. The level of depression experienced by participants in thisstudy was generally in the mild to moderate range. It is possible that de-pression is related to interaction behaviors with spouses but only when aspouse is experiencing a more severe level of depression.

In two of the three studies, diagnostic depression was determined us-ing measures (SCL-90 and MMPI) that are designed to be descriptive in-struments rather than diagnostic tools, both of which have been foimd tobe reliable predictors of depressive diagnoses (Gross et al., 2000; Ken-nedy et al., 2001; Wetzler & Marlowe, 1993). It is possible that an instru-ment designed specifically for diagnosis might have provided a moreaccurate test of the hypotheses in these two studies. Such a difference isnot likely to be dramatic as demonstrated by the use of the SCID in sam-ple 1, which did not produce differing results from samples 2 and 3.

All couples in this study were recruited for participation in a form ofpsychological counseling or therapy for marital concems. This strategymay have limited the range of satisfaction scores in each of the samples.While there was considerable variability in marital satisfaction scores ineach of the samples, the generalizability of the results of this study tocouples drawn from a community sample is limited.

Interaction behaviors were analyzed using coding schemes derivedby researchers interested in couple interaction behaviors. It is possible

704 BAUCOM ET AL.

that the coding schemes used in this study were not sensitive to behav-iors that are related to depression. For example, Sher and Baucom (1993)found that distressed couples with a depressed partner had greater diffi-culty understanding the meaning that each partner was attempting toconvey relative to distressed couples without a depressed partner.

The setting and nature of the coded interactions may also have con-tributed to the null findings of this study. All interactions were con-ducted in a laboratory setting. Previous observational research withcouples has found differences in interaction patterns due to level of dis-tress to be suppressed in laboratory tasks as compared to interactions innaturalistic settings (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Additionally, all of theobservational interactions were problem-solving discussions. Existingfindings suggest that depression significantly impacts positive interac-tion behaviors during positive interactions Qohnson & Jacob, 2000; Jacob& Johnson, 2001). Relationships between depression and interaction be-haviors may have been suppressed due to the setting of the interactiontasks in this study.

Future studies could advance the understanding of the impact of de-pression on the interactions of distressed couples by focusing on addi-tional problematic communication sequences and by replicating theunique contribution of depression to the demand/withdraw interactionpattern after controlling for marital distress. In seeking to determinewhat kinds of sequences should be examined, it may be of particularbenefit to test the components of the Coyne's interpersonal model of de-pression (Coyne, 1976). The use of interaction tasks that are not predeter-mined in length, naturalistic settings, interactional tasks that focus ontopics other than problems (e.g., social support discussions), coding sys-tems that measure a wider range of interaction behaviors, and sampleswith wider ranges of depression and marital satisfaction would allowfor important analyses of the components of the interpersonal model ofdepression to be performed.

REFERENCES

Basco, M., Prager, K., Pita, J., Tamir, L., & Stephens, J. (1992). Communication and intimacyin the marriages of depressed patients. Journal of Family Psychology, 6,184-194.

Baucom, D. H., Sayers, S. L., & Sher, T. G. (1990). Supplementing behavioral marital ther-apy with cognitive restructuring and emotional expressiveness training: An out-come investigation. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 58,636-645.

Beach, S., & O'Leary, K. (1992). Treating depression Ln the context of marital discord: Out-come and predictors of response for marital therapy vs. cognitive therapy. BehaviorTherapy, 23,507-528.

Biglan, A., Hops, H., Sherman, L., Friedman, L., Arthur, J., & Osteen, V. (1985). Prob-


lem-solving interactions of depressed women and their husbands. Behavior Ther-apy, 16,431-451.

Blumberg, S., & Hokanson, J. (1983). The effects of another person's response style on inter-personal behavior in depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 9,196-209.

Byrne, M., Carr, A., & Clark, M. (2004). Power in relationships of women v/ith depression.Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 407-429.

Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller & M.Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31-52). Clevedon, Avon,England; Multilingual Matters.

Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C, Bems, S., Wheeler, J., Baucom, D. H., & Simpson, L. E. (2004).Traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy for significantly andchronically distressed married couples. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology,71,176-191.

Christensen, A., Eldridge, K., Catta-Preta, A. B., Lim, V. R., & Santagata, R. (2006).Cross-cultural consistency of the demand/withdraw interaction in couples. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 68,1029-1044.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/with-draw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,73-81.

Christian, J., O'Leary, K., & Vivian, D. (1994). Depressive symptomatology in maritally dis-cordant women and men: The role of individual and relationship variables. Journalof Family Psychology, 8,32-42.

Coleman, R., & Miller, A. (1975). The relationship between depression and marital malad-justment in a clinic population: A multitrait-multimethod study. Journal of Consult-ing and Clinical Psychology, 43,647-651.

Coyne, J. (1976). Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85,186-193.

Coyne, J., Aldwin, C, & Lazarus, R. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful episodes.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90,439-447.

Davila, J., Bradbury, T., Cohan, C, & Tochluk, S. (1997). Marital functioning and depres-sive symptoms: Evidence for a stress generation model. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 73, 849-861.

Derogatis, L. R., Rickels, K., & Rock, A. F. (1976). The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A step in thevalidation of a new self-report scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128,280-289.

Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communication during cou-ple conflict: A review and analysis. In P. Noller, & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understandingmarriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction, advances in personal relation-ships; Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction, (pp.289-322). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferster, C. (1973). A functional analysis of depression. American Psychologist, 28,857-870.First, M.B., Spitzer, R.L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J.B.W. (1994). Structured clinical interview

for Axis IDSM-IV Disorders—Patient Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiat-ric Press.

Freden, L. (1982). Psychosocial aspects of depression: No way out? Chichester, England: JohnWiley.

Gotlib, I., & Robinson, L. (1982). Responses to depressed individuals: Discrepancies be-tween self-report and observer-rated behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91,231-240.

Gottman, J.M., & Krokoff, L.J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinalview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57 (1), 47-52

Gottman, J., Markman, H., & Notarius, C. (1977). The topography of marital conflict: A se-

706 BAUCOM ET AL.

quential analysis of verbal and non-verbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-ily, 39,461-477.

Gross, K., Keyes, M. D., & Greene, R. L. (2000). Assessing depression with the MMPI andMMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, ^(A-A77.

Hathaway, S., cSc McKinney, J. (1942). Minnesota muitiphasic personality inventory manual.New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Hautzinger, M., Linden, M., & Hoffman, N. (1982). Distressed couples with and without adepressed partner: An analysis of their verbal interaction. Journal of Behavior Therapyand Experimental Psychiatry, 13,307-314.

Heavey, C, Gill, D., & Christensen, A., (2002). Couples Interaction Rating System 2(CIRS2). Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Los Angeles.

Howard, K. I., Brill, P., Lueger, R. J., O'Mahoney, M., & Grissom, G.R. (1995). Integra outpa-tient tracking assessment. Philadelphia: COMPASS Information Services.

Jacob, T., & Johnson, S.L. (2001). Sequential interactions in the parent-child communica-tions of depressed fathers and depressed mothers. Journal of Family Psychology,35(1), 38-52.

Johnson, S., & Jacob, T. (1997). Marital interactions of depressed men and women. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 65,15-23.

Johnson, S., & Jacob, T. (2000). Sequential interactions in the marital communication of de-pressed men and women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,4-12.

Joiner, T., Alfano, M., & Metalsky, G. (1993). Caught in the crossfire: Depression, self-con-sistency, self-enhancement, and the response of others. Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, 12,113-134.

Joiner, T., & Metalsky, G. (1995). A prospective test of an integrative interpersonal theory ofdepression: A naturalistic study of college roommates. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 69, 778-788.

Joiner, T., Metalsky, G., Katz, J., & Beach, S. (1999). Depression and excessive reassur-ance-seeking. Psychological Inquiry, 10,269-278.

Jones, J., & Christensen, A. (1998). Couples interaction study: Social support interactionrating system. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Los Angeles.

Julien, D., Markman, H.J., & Lindahl, K.M. (1989). A comparison of a global and amicroanalytic coding system: Implications for future trends in studying interac-tions. Behavioral Assessment, 11,81-100.

Kennedy, B. L., Morris, R. L., Pedley, L. L., & Schwab, J. J. (2001). The ability of the symptomchecklist SCL-90 to differentiate various anxiety and depressive disorders. Psychi-atric Quarterly, 72,277-288.

Kowalik, D., & Gotlib, I. (1987). Depression and marital interaction: Concordance betweenintent and perception of communication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96,127-134.

Lachar, D. (1974). The MMPI: Clinical assessment and automated interpretation. Los Angeles:Western Psychological Services.

Lewinsohn, P. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression. In R. Friedman & M. Katz(Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. New York:Winston/Wiley.

Lewinsohn, P., & Shafer, M. (1971). Use of home observations as an integral part of thetreatment of depression: Preliminary report and case studies. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 37,87-94.

Locke, H.J., & Wallace, K.M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Theirreliability and validity. Marriage & Family Living, 21,251-255.

Markman, H. J., Duncan, W., Storaasli, R. D., & Howes, P. W. (1987). The prediction andprevention of marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. In K. Hahlweg, & M. J.


Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorder: The contribution of family inter-action research, the family process press monograph series; Understanding major mentaldisorder: The contribution of family interaction research (pp. 266-289). New York:Family Process Press.

Markman, H. ]., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Clements, M. (1993). Preventingmarital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4—and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 61,70-77.

Nelson, G., & Beach, S. (1990). Sequential interaction in depression: Effects of depressivebehavior on spousal aggression. Behavior Therapy, 21,167-182.

Sevier, M., Eldridge, K., Jones, J., Doss, B., & Christensen, A. (in press). Are Communica-tion Changes Associated with Relationship Satisfaction Changes? The impact ofTraditional and Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy on Relationship and Per-sonal Problem Discussions.

Schmaling, K., & Jacobson, N. (1990). Marital interaction and depression, journal of Abnor-mal Psychology, 99,229-236.

Sher, T., & Baucom, D. (1993). Marital communication: Differences among maritally dis-tressed, depressed, and nondistressed-nondepressed couples. Journal of Family Psy-chology, 7,148-153.

Sher, T., Baucom, D., & Larus, J. (1990). Communication patterns and response to treatmentamong depressed and nondepressed maritally distressed couples. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 4,63-79.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality ofmarriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 38,15-28.

Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J., & Whitton, S. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commit-ment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey.Family Process, 41, 659-675.

StataCorp (2005). Stata statistical software: Release 9. College Station, TX: StataCorp L.P.Tse, W., & Bond, A. (2004). The impact of depression on social skills. The Journal of Nervous

and Mental Disease, 192,260-268.Weiss, R., & Heyman, R. (1997). A clinical-research overview of couples interactions. In W.

Halford and H. Markman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interven-tions (pp. 13-41). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Weiss, R., & Summers, K. (1983). Marital interaction coding system-III. In E.E. Filsinger(Ed), Marriage and family assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy (pp. 85-115).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wetzler, S., & Marlowe, D. B. (1993). The diagnosis and assessment of depression, mania,and psychosis by self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60,1-31.

Whisman, M. (2001). The association between depression and marital distress. In S. Beach(Ed.), Marital and family processes in depression: A scientific foundation for clinical prac-tice (pp. 3-24). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Relative contributions of relationship distress and depression to communication patterns in couples

Documents