Lawrence Erlbaum - Relational Communication - An Interactional Perspective To The Study of Proces

RELATIONAL
COMMUNICATION
An Interactional Perspective to the Study of Process and Form
Edited by
L. Edna Rogers Valentin Escudero
RELATIONAL
COMMUNICATION
LEAs Series on Personal Relationships

Steve Duck, Series Editor
Bennett Time and Intimacy: A New Science of Personal Relationships
Canary/Dainton Maintaining Relationships Through Communication:
Relational, Contextual, and Cultural Variations
Christopher To Dance the Dance: A Symbolic Interactional Exploration
of Premarital Sexuality
Goodwin/Cramer Inappropriate Relationships: The Unconventional, the
Disapproved, and the Forbidden
Honeycutt/Cantrill Cognition, Communication, and Romantic
Relationships
Miller/Alberts/Hecht/Trost/Krizek Adolescent Relationships and Drug
Use
Monsour Women and Men as Friends: Relationships Across the Life
Span in the 21st Century
Rogers/Escudero Relational Communication: An Interactional
Perspective to the Study of Process and Form
RELATIONAL
COMMUNICATION
An Interactional Perspective
to the Study
of Process and Form
Edited by
L. Edna Rogers
University of Utah
Valentn Escudero
University of La Corua
2004
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

Mahwah, New Jersey
London
Copyright 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other
means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
Cover Art: Awakening by Carl B. Gacono, Ph.D., Austin, Texas
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Relational communication : an interactional perspective to the study of process and form /
edited by L. Edna Rogers, Valentn Escudero.
p. cm. (LEAs series on personal relationships)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 0-8058-3712-4 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Interpersonal relations. 2. Interpersonal communication. 3. Interpersonal
communicationResearch. I. Rogers, Lilian Edna, 1933 II. Escudero, Valentn, 1961
III. Series.
HM1106.R375 2004
302dc22
2003060163
CIP
Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acid-free paper,

and their bindings are chosen for strength and durability.
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Series Foreword
Steve Duck
vii
Foreword
Janet Beavin Bavelas
ix
Preface
xiii
About the Authors
xvii
PART I: RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PERSPECTIVE
Theoretical Foundations
L. Edna Rogers and Valentn Escudero
Observing Relational Communication

Valentn Escudero and L. Edna Rogers
23
Analyzing Relational Communication

Valentn Escudero and L. Edna Rogers
51
PART II: RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH CONTEXTS
Relational Communication Patterns in Marital Interaction

83
v
vi
CONTENTS
From Dyads to Triads, and Beyond: Relational Control

in Individual and Family Therapy
Laurie Heatherington and Myrna L. Friedlander
103
Relational Research in Brief Family Therapy:

Clinical Implications
Jos Luis Rodrguez-Arias
131
Expressed Emotion and Interpersonal Control

in Families of Persons With Mental Illness
Anne K. Wuerker
149
Relational Control in PhysicianPatient Interaction

Denise Wigginton Cecil and Marlene M. von Friederichs-Fitzwater
Organizational Relational Control Research:

Problems and Possibilities
Gail T. Fairhurst
179
197
PART III: REFLECTIONS ON THE RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
10
Overview and Future Directions

219
Author Index
237
Subject Index
245
Series Foreword
Steve Duck, Series Editor
University of Iowa
This series from Lawrence Erlbaum is intended to review the progress in

the academic work on relationships with respect to a broad array of issues
and to do so in an accessible manner that also illustrates its practical value.
The LEA series includes books intended to pass on the accumulated scholarship to the next generation of students and to those who deal with relationship issues in the broader world beyond the academy. The series thus
not only comprises monographs and other academic resources exemplifying the multidisciplinary nature of this area, but also, in the future, textbooks suitable for use in the growing numbers of courses on relationships.
The series has the goal of providing a comprehensive and current survey of theory and research in personal relationship through the careful
analysis of the problems encountered and solved in research, yet it also
considers the systematic application of that work in a practical context.
These resources not only are intended to be comprehensive assessments
of progress on particular hot and relevant topics, but will be significant influences on the future directions and development of the study of personal
relationships. Although each volume is focused and centered, authors all
attempt to place the respective topics in the broader context of other research on relationships and within a range of wider disciplinary traditions.
The series already offers incisive and forward-looking reviews and also
demonstrates the broader theoretical implications of relationships for the
range of disciplines from which the research originates. Present and future
volumes include original studies, reviews of relevant theory and research,
vii
viii
SERIES FOREWORD
and new theories oriented toward the understanding of personal relationships both in themselves and within the context of broader theories of family process, social psychology, and communication.
Reflecting the diverse composition of personal relationship study, readers in numerous disciplinessocial psychology, communication, sociology,
family studies, developmental psychology, clinical psychology, personality,
counseling, womens studies, gerontology, and otherswill find valuable
and insightful perspectives in the series.
Apart from the academic scholars who research the dynamics and processes of relationships, there are many other people whose work takes them
up against the operation of relationships in the real world. For such people
as nurses, the police, teachers, therapists, lawyers, drug and alcohol counselors, marital counselors, and those who take care of the elderly, a number of issues routinely arise concerning the ways in which relationships affect the people whom they serve. Examples are the role of loneliness in
illness and the ways to circumvent it, the complex impact of family and
peer relationships upon a drug-dependents attempts to give up the drug,
the role of playground unpopularity on a childs learning, the issues involved in dealing with the relational side of chronic illness, the management of conflict in marriage, the establishment of good rapport between
physicians and seriously ill patients, the support of the bereaved, and the
correction of violent styles of behavior in dating or marriage. Each of these
is a problem that may confront some of the aforementioned professionals
as part of their daily concerns and each demonstrates the far-reaching influences of relationship processes on much else in life that is presently theorized independently of relationship considerations.
The present volume is a good example of the series concerns, as it attends to a particular approach to relationships that has been systematically
outlined and developed over a number of years by a group of dedicated researchers who deal comprehensively with the approach and demonstrate
its potential. The theoretical perspective of the approach is well developed
in the opening chapter and the methods that support the approach are
clearly depicted in later chapters, some dedicated to the overall approach
and some depicting its specific application to areas such as marital relationships or the therapeutic interactions where it is particularly useful, such as
work with families or in organizations.
The strength of systematic research within a particular paradigm in approaching relationships is one of the ways in which research can contribute
substantially to an understanding of relationship processes. For theorists,
therapists, and the rest of us, this theme is of immense significance and the
present collection of thinking on the topic represents one of the best collections to date.
Foreword
Janet Beavin Bavelas
University of Victoria
With this book, Rogers and Escudero have provided the field of relational
communication with its first full primary resource, that is, a single, comprehensive text covering the past, present, and promising future of the relational communication approach to the study of relationship. Even readers
who work in the field may be surprised by the wide range of relationships
and contexts appearing in the studies that are included and integrated
here, from organizational to medical to counseling settings.
Because of my particular background and involvement, I would also like
to emphasize the unique balance of continuity and change in this program
of research. The fundamental ideas and principles that gave rise to relational communication research are preserved here, not by rigid or literal
repetition, but instead by growth and development. The best way to honor
the past is to select and remain true to its most promising ideas while at the
same time transforming them in fruitful ways.
PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

The present book reflects an enduring commitment to three crucial elements introduced by Batesons Naven in 1936. These contributions of the
original work remain novel today and hold great promise for the future of
the field. The first and most obvious continuity is a focus on the interaction
patterns Bateson discovered and called symmetrical (based on similarity or
ix
FOREWORD
mirroring) and complementary (based on interdependent differences). Primarily because of the long-term program of research summarized here,
these relational terms have become not only familiar but highly useful for
the study of interaction in many diverse settings. Moreover, new dimensions have been added and refined, which should encourage young researchers to carry on even further.
Second and even more important is the fact that these relational terms
have remained firmly located in the observation of moment-by-moment interaction. Thus, like Bateson (1936) when he described systems of relationship (p. 176), these contemporary researchers are not making global or
vague inferences (much less relying on what individuals report about their
relationships). Instead, relational communication researchers derive generalizations by observing the specific, sequential reactions of one individual
to another, and the theory and terminology remain firmly anchored at this
immediate level of interaction. This firm anchoring is one that I find most intellectually and aesthetically satisfying. In my view, an inductive, bottom-up
(and thus well grounded) progress from data to abstraction is the essence
of the scientific approach, rather than the deductive, top-down approach
that characterizes so much of social scienceand is often premature.
The third crucial element in the work described here could easily be
overlooked, in part because of the infelicitous and forgettable term
Bateson originally chose to describe it: schismogenesis, which is a process of differentiation in the norms of individual behavior resulting from
cumulative interaction between individuals (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967, p. 67, italics omitted). Yet in many ways this is the most important proposition, because it still goes against the grain of typical contemporary work on social interaction (including many relationship
studies). As Rogers and Escudero point out, Batesons approach was fundamentally relational, not individualistic. Indeed, when one re-reads the
definition of schismogenesis, it is clear that Bateson was saying that the
behaviors of individuals derived from the interactionnot the reverse.
Yet, ironically, the individual remains a focus and basic unit in many contemporary studies of social interaction, often because of a misinterpretation of the principle of reductionism, which assumes that social interaction can be additively derived from individual behaviors or even selfreports (Bavelas, in press). In my view, the best way to learn what relational ultimately means is to do truly relational research.
Thus, this collection has not only procedural but broad heuristic value
that can take the study of relationships beyond the study of individual actions or self-reports. Too often, 20th-century communication and research
remained shaped by a 19th-century psychology of individuals. It is timely to
begin the 21st century with a clearly realized vision of an alternative.
FOREWORD
xi
REFERENCES
Bateson, G. (1936). Naven. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bavelas, J. B. (in press). The two solitudes: Reconciling social psychology and language and social interaction. In K. Fitch & R. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York:
Norton.
Preface
The study of relationships has long held a fascination for scholars across
the social sciences, and this is increasingly so in the area of interpersonal
studies. In recent years, not only have relationships become a prominent
focus of study, but there is also a growing recognition of the intrinsic, interrelatedness of communication and relationships, such that relationships
are seen as being creatively performed and shaped through the dynamic interplay of the members communicative processes. As the title of the book
indicates, the study of process and form is central to the relational communication perspective for understanding interpersonal relationships. Thus, a
primary focus and theme of the present volume centers on the interactive,
constitutive nature of communication as it impacts our relational lives.
In the development of the relational communication perspective, the interconnection between communication and relationships has been a basic
premise. From the beginning, the goal of this approach to the study of relationships was to focus on the formative, relational level qualities of the
communicative process of interrelating with others, guided by the proposition that the mutually produced, interactional patterns of relationships do
not lie within individual interactors, but rather exist between them (Rogers
& Farace, 1975, p. 222). As later expressed by Sigman (1988), in emphasizing
the consequentiality of communication, A relationship is, thus, not an entity from which communication emanates, but a location in the ongoing behavioral stream. It is communication that produces and sustains a relationship (p. 52).
xiii
xiv
PREFACE
To clarify the relational position, it is important to note that it does not

negate the study of the interactor, but rather provides a different locus of
attention. It represents a conceptual shift in thinking from the study of action to the study of interaction, from the study of individual members to the
study of their jointly constructed relationship. The relational communication perspective recognizes the importance of the members actions, interpretations, cognitive meanings and emotions, and the insights they provide,
but it represents a different focus of analysis, with the potential of differing
levels of analysis lending a more comprehensive view of interpersonal relations. Given the different approaches for studying relationships, note that
relational communication is used here as it was originally to refer to the
perspective taken in this book.
In the field of communication in the 1960s, it was a time of waning satisfaction with the traditional, monadic models of communication and in turn,
a time of searching for more process-oriented, system-based models. Fortunately, the influential writings of the members of the Palo Alto Mental Research Institution articulating the interactional view of communication appeared in print during this time. In particular, the work of Sluzki and Beavin
(1965) and Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) opened the window of
ideas emphasizing process, pattern, and context that laid the foundation for
the relational communication approach, the development of the interaction
coding protocol, and the subsequent program of collaborative research.
From these beginnings, the relation communication paradigm forged a
network of scholars and research efforts that over time has resulted in a cumulative series of cross-discipline and cross-cultural relationship studies. In
view of these multiple lines of relational research, we felt it was time to
bring these research efforts together into one volume. Thus, although the
relational perspective has generated notable research attention, both
within and outside the communication discipline and the United States, until now no single organizing text on the perspective existed. The goal of the
present volume is to fill this void by offering a comprehensive treatment of
the relational communication perspective and its research application.
In planning this project, our main considerations were to give a full and
accessible reading on the perspectives conceptual and methodological approach, to draw together in one resource a review of the major programs of
relational communication research, along with suggested future directions.
Furthermore, by including specific procedural descriptions and illustrative
examples, it was also our attempt to provide a practical guide for those interested in carrying out this type of research. In line with these concerns,
the content of the book is organized into three major parts, with each part
designed to provide a systematic unfolding of the relational communication
perspective. Part I of the book opens with a discussion of the theoretical
foundation and epistemological grounding of the perspective, first by pre-
PREFACE
xv
senting a contextual, historical backdrop to relational thinking and second,

by giving a closer description of the conceptual evolution of ideas and influences on the development of the perspective. The discussion then moves
to the observational research methods involved in applying the perspectives interactional approach. Detailed descriptions of the relational coding
system, coding procedures, reliability and validity, and related issues are
followed by a discussion of the techniques for describing and analyzing interaction data and relational level patterns, based on the application of sequential data analysis procedures.
Part II presents a set of programmatic research exemplars that describe
the application of the relational communication approach in different relational contexts, from marital to organizational settings. Each of the chapters in this section are written by prominent researchers in their field who
have been engaged in sustained programs of relational research. Through
their contributions, the conceptual and methodological aspects of the perspective come alive; in addition, the analytical procedures and extensions
described in these research efforts lend further to the development and
utility of the research perspective.
Part III offers a reflective overview of the research perspective. In this final section of the text, the contributions and challenges of the relational approach are considered with a view toward future research directions for expanding this approach.
With the completion of this volume, we are particularly indebted to the
authors of the contributed chapters whose research forms an essential and
substantive part of the book. We also wish to express our intellectual indebtedness to Janet Bavelas, and our appreciation for her willingness to
write the foreword to the book. In moving this volume to publication, the
generous support and editorial guidance of Linda Bathgate are most genuinely and warmly acknowledged. We extend our appreciation to Vincen
Quera for his analytical consultation. In additional, the support provided by
the research grants from each of our universities, the University of Utah
and the Universidad de La Corua, for the completion of this volume is
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222239.
Sigman, S. J. (1998). Relationships and communication: A social communication and strongly
consequential view. In R. L. Conville & L. E. Rogers (Eds.), The meaning of relationship in interpersonal communication (pp. 4767). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sluzki, C. E., & Beavin, J. (1965). Simetria y complementaridad: Una definicion operacional y una
tipologia de parejas. Acta Psiquiatrica y Psicologica de America Latina, 11, 321330.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York:
Norton.
About the Authors
Janet Beavin Bavelas (PhD, Stanford University) is Professor of Psychology at the University of Victoria. She has authored or coauthored three
books, including Pragmatics of Human Communication (Norton, 1967) and
Equivocal Communication (Sage, 1990), and numerous articles and chapters,
primarily on interpersonal communication and research methods. She was
previously a research associate at the Mental Research Institute in Palo
Alto, California.
Denise Wigginton Cecil (PhD, University of Utah) has held research and
teaching positions at Wichita State University. The areas of health communication and physician-patient interaction represent her primary research interests. Her research has been published in communication and medical
journals. She is currently an instructor at Flathead Valley Community College
in Kalispell, Montana, and a health communication research consultant.
Valentn Escudero (Doctorate, University of Santiago) is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Family Intervention Masters Program at the University of La Corua (Spain). His research interests focus on interaction analysis, family communication systems, and family therapy process. His work
has been published in European and international journals in the areas of
counseling, family therapy, marital interaction, and research methods.
Gail T. Fairhurst (PhD, University of Oregon) is Professor of Communication at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include organizaxvii
xviii
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
tional leadership, lanaguage analysis, and downsizing. Her work has appeared in the major journals and handbooks in the areas of communication,
management, and organization. She coauthored The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership (Jossey-Bass, 1996), which received the
1997 National Communication Association Organizational Division Book of
the Year Award.
Myrna L. Friedlander (PhD, Ohio State University) is Professor of Counseling Psychology and Director of Doctoral Training at the State University
of New York at Albany, where she recently received the Presidents Award
for Excellence in Research. Her research on the process of counseling and
psychotherapy has appeared in numerous journals in counseling psychology and family therapy. She has served as clinician, educator, supervisor,
and consultant in a variety of schools, counseling centers, hospitals, and
community agencies, as well as on several journal editorial boards. She was
the 20012002 recipient of the Distinguished Psychologist Award from the
Psychological Association of Northeastern New York.
Laurie Heatherington (PhD, University of Connecticut) is Professor of Psychology at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts. Her research
and clinical interests include family therapy and psychotherapy processoutcome research with a recent focus on the process and measurement of
change in clients cognitive constructions about family problems. She has
served on several journal editorial boards and has published extensively in
the areas of clinical psychology, counseling, and family therapy.
Jos Luis Rodrguez-Arias (Doctorate, University of Salamanca) is presently a clinical psychologist at the Mental Health Unit of the Virxe
Xunqueira Hospital of Spain. He was previously an associate professor of
Psychology and founder of the Family Therapy Clinic at the University of
Salamanca. His research interest and publications have focused on interaction processes and clinical outcomes in brief family therapy.
L. Edna Rogers (PhD, Michigan State University) is Professor of Communication at the University of Utah, and a past president of the International
Communication Association. Her research has centered on the interactional study of marital and family relationships. She has received several
awards including the National Communication Association Woolbert Research Award and Distinguished Faculty Awards from Cleveland State University and the University of Utah. She has served on various communication and relationship journal editorial boards, and co-edited The Meaning of
Relationship in Interpersonal Communication (Praeger, 1998).
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
xix
Marlene M. von Friederichs-Fitzwater (PhD, University of Utah) is Professor

of Communication Studies at California State University, Sacramento. She is
also on the faculty of the Center for Medical Informatics and clinical professor in the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, and is the
founder and CEO of Health Communication Research Institute, Inc. Her teaching and research activities are related to the delivery and outcome of health
care through improved health care communication. She has published in the
area of health communication and has presented her research at national
and international medical meetings in Europe and Canada.
Anne K. Wuerker (PhD, University of Maryland) is Professor of Nursing at
the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests in family interaction are integrated with her background in psychiatric nursing, professional experience as a family therapist, and social science analyst with the
National Institute of Mental Health. She has published extensively in the areas of family therapy and mental health on relational interaction processes
of families in therapy and families with a mentally troubled member.
P A R T
I
RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION
PERSPECTIVE
C H A P T E R
1
Theoretical Foundations
L. Edna Rogers
University of Utah
Valentn Escudero
Social relationships lie at the heart of our humanness, and in turn, communication lies at the heart of our relationships. In constructing the social
worlds we inhabit, there is an intimate tie between communication and relationship, with each interwoven in the other. This interconnection represents an underlying premise of the relational communication perspective.
Thus, while it is assumed that our relationships contextualize and influence
our lives, it is also assumed that our relationships are constituted and
shaped through our communication processes.
Communication is seen as the life-giving, social-sustaining essence of relationships, the interactive process by which relationships come into being,
take shape, are built up or torn down in the ongoing ebb and flow of their
evolutionary course. Viewed from this perspective, communication is not of
a singular nature, but a joint, social adventure, with relationships continually in process, malleable and changeable, tranquil at times, and at times,
tenuous. Negotiating relationships, as McCall and Simmons (1966) suggested, is often a hazardous gamble (p. 201), with the making and unmaking of relationships in the handsand heartsof the makers. Relationships
form the bedrock of our social existence, yet rest on the shifting sands
of our communicative behaviors.
The basic, constitutive nature of communication was captured, some
years ago, in a statement by Duncan (1967), We do not relate and then talk,
but we relate in talk (p. 249). More recently, Shotter (1993) expanded the
idea that our ways of talking are formative of social relations (p. 10) by
3
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
noting the inherent contingencies of the communicative process when he

stated, to talk in new ways, is to construct new forms of social relation,
and, to construct new forms of social relation . . . is to construct new ways
of being (p. 9). Not only do our relationships, but the very essence of our being, lie within our ways of talking. Among relational scholars, even though
guided by different perspectives, there is a growing consensus on the constitutive quality of communication and the social implications of our talk.
The once, somewhat radical notion expressed by Berger and Kellner
(1964) that in a fundamental sense it can be said that one converses ones
way through life (p. 4) such that relationships can be viewed as ongoing
conversations (p. 3), has increasingly gained acceptance in contemporary
studies of relationships. From the beginning, this idea has been central in
the formation of the relational communication perspective. Rooted within
the influence of system and cybernetic principles, relational communication, both conceptually and empirically, has focused on the formative, consequential processes of communication. As the name implies, relational
communication represents a communication-based, interactional approach
to the study of personal and social relationships.
The relational perspective, also known as the pragmatic (Fisher, 1978) or
interactional (Watzlawick & Weakland, 1977) perspective of human communication, is grounded within an epistemology that places primary importance on the study of interaction, or in the words of Bateson (1979), on the
pattern which connects (p. 8). The relational approach represents a conceptual and analytical shift from the study of individual acts, per se, to the
study of system-level qualities of interactions that evolve from ongoing combinations of communicative behaviors into transactional patterns that in
turn, combine into larger patterns of relational form.
With this perspective, relationships are viewed as the emergent social
structurings that are created and defined by the relational members communication patterns with one another. Through the process of message exchange, system members reciprocally define self in relation to other, and simultaneously, define the interactive nature of their relationship. In playing
out these everyday social dramas of relationships, offered definitions can
be resisted, modified, accepted, or ignored. Thus, each member is seen as a
necessary part of the whole, actively influencing one another with their individual lines of action, yet the socialness of the drama resides in the mutually constructed patterns of relationship.
Elaborating on this view, relationships are visualized as unfolding, moving art forms, analogous to a relational dance, creatively shaped by the
temporal patterning of the participants as they flow in and around, toward
and against and away from one another via their communicative behaviors.
When we think of relationships, we think of a coming together, of interrelating, of acting in awareness of one another. We often speak of being in-
1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
volved, of connecting with others, developing common threads, forming social bonds, of being tied to one anotherof being in a relationship, such that
a social unity or wholeness is formed that lies beyond the individual members.
In line with these common ways of speaking, the language of relationships from an interactional perspective is a language of connectedness,
temporalness, patternedness, and embeddedness. The inherent connective principle of relationships rests on the interdependency of the relational members and their behaviors, such that each simultaneously influences and is influenced by the other. Whether fleeting or long-term, the
members interrelatedness is instantiated in the temporal, unfolding flow
of communication. The jointly produced and reproduced patterns formed
in the ongoing interactional processes characterize and define the members relationship. Enactments of the present merge into more encompassing, contextualizing patterns of relationship that influence future enactments, as well as, remembered pasts. Thus, relationships are continually
contextualized by multiple levels of ecological embeddedness of patterns
within patterns, which are further embedded within and influenced by the
sociocultural contexts in which they take place. Grounded within this language of relationships, the relational communication perspective gives primary attention to the connective principles of process, pattern, and form.
This introductory statement on relational communication gives an initial
flavor of the perspectives epistemological stance and sets the scene for the
extended discussions of the conceptual and methodological focus of the
perspective in the chapters to come. In the present chapter, historical influences and conceptual underpinnings prominent in the development of the
relational approach are considered, first, within the broad strokes of related social thought, and second, within the finer drawn lines of the founding legacy of relational communication.
RELATIONAL THINKING: A BROAD VIEW

The theoretical foundations of the relational communication perspective are
most clearly linked to the writings of Bateson and those of the early members of the Mental Research Institute (MRI), Jackson, Watzlawick, Weakland,
Bavelas, Sluzki, and others, comprising what became commonly known as
the Palo Alto Group. However, before turning to these writings, a limited but
illustrative selection of earlier work providing a general backdrop to relational thinking, is considered. Thus, this section presents a broad overview
within which to situate more contemporary thinking about relationships.
In a recent essay reviewing historical frames of relational thought, Stewart (1998) suggested a philosophical foregrounding of relational thinking is
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
evident in the (5th century B.C.) ontological claims of the sophists in contrast with those of the more established and long privileged, Aristotelean
view. This contrast may have provided one of the earliest clashes between
viewing reality as constructed, relative, and changeable versus objective,
ordered, and absolute. These fundamental differences, as Stewart and others point out, are still evident in current communication research and continue to form the basis of contemporary metatheoretical and methodological debates.
However, in tracing a less distant past of socially oriented thought, we
move much further up in history (and perhaps, more familiar territory) to
Feuerbachs (1843) philosophical view of the essential socialness of human
experience. In his critique of Hegelian idealism which held that the mind or
spirit (Geist) was the only true reality, Feuerbach turned Hegels ontology of
ascending stages of self-consciousness on its head by arguing that the essence of our humanness lies not in the idealistic, higher realm of absolute
reason, but in the lived, social relationships of man-to-man. Although
Feuerbachs argument was also subject to criticism (most notably by Marx,
1845, who argued that Feuerbach did not take the thrust of his critique far
enough), Feuerbachs philosophical views represented a pivotal move toward a human experience-based, social ontology (Theunissen, 1984). In opposition to the prevailing one-sided orientation, Feuerbach argued the alienating nature and meaninglessness of the socially separated self, and in
doing so, emphasized the fundamental emptiness of the concept of self
without the complementary other.
The social, relationally bound orientation expressed by Feuerbach, implicating the necessary inclusion of the other, has been elaborated and
extended in a number of later writings, including Bubers philosophical development of the construct of the between. Rejecting the traditional onefold view, Buber (1958) saw the human world as twofold, of being-inrelation with other. He further saw the twofold, human interconnection
being located in talk, in word pairs, and argued that language, conceived of
as dialogue, is the locus of human reality. In his view, the inherent one
with the other quality of dialogue, rests not in one, nor in the other, but in
the between (Buber, 1965, p. 203). Bubers view is in close concert with
the recently discovered translinguistic or dialogic ideas of Bakhtin (1986)
and Volosinov (1973), in that words express the one in relation to the
other much like a bridge thrown between oneself and the other (p. 86).
Through dialogue, a one-with-other unity of differentiated self and other is
simultaneously formed.
Both of these lines of thought place dialogue at the center of our interhuman relations with others. Each emphasizes the co-constructed, connective qualities of language. Similar to Buber, Volosinov (1973) clarified the
significance of language by stating that it is not found in the abstract sys-
tem of linguistic forms, not the isolated monologic utterance, and not the
psychophysiological act of its implementation, but the social event of verbal interaction implemented in an utterance or utterances (p. 94), which
form the reciprocal relationship between speaker and listener (p. 85). The
turn toward viewing communication as dialogue is increasingly evident in
contemporary work (e.g., Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Cronen, 1995; Rawlins, 1992; Shotter, 1993).
The foregoing ideas flow easily into those of Simmel (1950) and his
overriding focus on the communicative forms of sociation (p. 41). For
Simmel, all social phenomena find their moorings in the emergent structuring of everyday social interaction, whether taking the form of social
play, aesthetics, conflict, group cohesion, or institutional ritual. And at the
most general level, Simmel (1950) likewise asserts, it is only through the
interactions with others that society itself is possible. Based on this view,
Simmel argued that the description of the forms of interaction is the science of society in its strictest and most essential sense (pp. 2122); thus,
interaction was seen as the basis of social order and the legitimate arena
for the study of social relations.
Simmels wide ranging analysis of social life was marked by a keen sensitivity of the less obvious, yet observable interaction forms which constituted principles of social unity. To capture these principles, Simmel analytically distinguished forms of sociation (interaction) from the content of the
interaction. Their complementary nature was clear, but so to was the observation that interaction always presents itself in some form, whereas a particular form can be enacted in any number of ways of specific content.
Thus, in order to develop conceptual level descriptions on which to construct theories of social relationships, Simmel argued the necessity of analytically focusing on the forms of sociation.
Not only did Simmels distinction between content and form prefigure
Batesons duality of message level meaning, but importantly, Simmel (writing in the late 1800s, early 1900s) recognized the cybernetic principles of the
recursive, multiple-leveled features of interaction. He spoke of the circularity of social life in his descriptions of the simultaneous interdependency of
the visible and invisible threads that are woven between persons in the interaction process. In his words, relationships develop upon the basis of reciprocal knowledge and this knowledge upon the basis of the actual relations [interactions] (1950, p. 309). Simmel (1950) saw this unity into which
both elements fuse as one of the deep-lying circuits of intellectual life
where an element presupposes a second element which yet, in turn, presupposes the first. In their alternation, interaction is revealed as where
being and conceiving make their mysterious unity empirically felt (p. 309).
Simmels approach is not centered on the individual, yet takes into account the invisible threads, pictures of each in the other, that arise out of
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
and influence the interaction, nor centered on the heavy hand of society, although its spatialtemporal influence is recognized, but rather on the socially formed qualities of the interactive processes. And for Simmel, these
forms are mutually constructed in the most common manner of all social
life, in conversation. Thus, similar to Buber (a student of Simmels), the focal point of Simmels work, forms of sociation, resides in the social unity of
the between.
Simmels influence has been extensive, both in Europe and the early development of American sociology and the Chicago School. In particular, his
ideas were evident in the work of the Schools early founders, Park, Burgess, Thomas, and Mead, among others, and their theories of human conduct, urban ecology, family relations, and notably, symbolic interaction
with the locus of the self rooted in interaction. As articulated by Mead
(1934), selves must be accounted for in terms of the social process, and in
terms of communication (p. 49). Further, Simmels insights into the dynamics of relationshipsdyadic, triadic, and larger group differences, the
unique vulnerability of intimate relations, the strain toward totality, coalition formation, to name but a fewhave also found a prominent place in
later work, including Goffmans (1959, 1967) interaction studies of social order, McCall and Simmons (1966) role-identity model, Cosers (1956) theory
of conflict, Caplows (1968) coalition analysis, and as well, relational communication.
While recognizing the breadth of social thought that could be called
upon to exemplify relational thinking, for this overview, a final consideration of earlier work is Webers classic delineation of the basic elements of
social relationships, stemming from his distinction between social action
and social interaction. Weber (1947), a contemporary of Simmel, who at
times, was both an advocate and critic of Simmel, but nevertheless influenced by him, defined the term social relationship as:
the behavior of a plurality of actors in so far as . . . the actions of each takes
account of that of the others; the social relationship thus consists entirely and
exclusively in the existence of a probability that there will be, in some meaningfully understandable sense, a course of social action. (p. 118)
In Webers view, the defining criteria for speaking of a social relationship require at least a minimum of mutual orientation between the actors which
can and usually will have consequences for the course of action and the
form of the relationship, and a probability of continuing social interaction,
which constitutes the existence of the social relationship (p. 119).
McCall (1970), in his work on relationships, drew specifically on Webers
definition in stating that a relationship is at base, the existence of a substantial probability of interaction between two persons (p. 4), with the
type of social bonds uniting the members influencing the form the interaction will likely assume (p. 4). McCall (1970, 1988) and McCall and Simmons
(1991) viewed relationships as forms of social organization and argue the
necessity (and difficulty) of taking into account the multiple levels of analysis in studying relationships. In their role-identity model (McCall & Simmons, 1966), they include both interpretive and behavioral dimensions in
explicating the negotiated, interactional dynamics of relationships.
Although Weber is typically not cited, contemporary studies that provide
a definition of relationship (which is somewhat rare) commonly include definitional features outlined by Weber. For instance, Hinde (1997) described a
relationship as involving a series of interactions between two people, involving interchanges over an extended period of time which involve some degree of mutuality, in the sense that the behaviour of each takes some account
of the behaviour of the other and there is some degree of continuity between the successive interactions (pp. 3738). A relationship is not a static
entity but a process in continuous creation through time (Hinde, 1987, p. 38).
Hinde (1997) distinguished, as did Weber, a fleeting, singular encounter from
a relationship which is based on a series of interactions. A relationship exists only when the probable course of future interactions between the participants differs from that between strangers (p. 38).
As additional definitional illustrations, Kelley et al. (1983) defined close
relationships as the interconnections between two peoples interactions
that are based on strong, frequent, and diverse interdependence that lasts
over a considerable period of time (p. 38). In contrast, weakly connected,
infrequent, limited and fleeting interactions characterize distant relationships. Wilmots (1995) description of a relationship builds on, at base, a mutual recognition of being perceived (Level I) to the cumulative interactions
of the participants (Level II) which shape future interactions. In Wilmots
words, A relationship emerges from its history and continually reemerges
and transforms over time . . . (p. 3). Or more simply put, Gottman (1982)
stated, a relationship consists of the temporal forms that are created when
two people are together (p. 943). Although phrased differently, core definitional features identified by Weber are evident in these more contemporary, conceptual definitions of relationships.
By taking a broad view, we find, with even this brief excursion into past
lines of social thought, a history of relational thinking that has been longer
in the making than often realized, and one that richly contexualizes and in
many ways complements, present relational views. Much of the work cited
has had its particular influence felt in our thinking about how to study relationships relationally. Clearly, ideas rarely, if ever, stand alone, but are embedded within other ideas. With this thought, and a broader historical view
as background, we now turn to a more closely tied set of influences on the
development of the relational communication perspective.
10
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION: A CLOSER VIEW

The legacy on which the relational communication perspective rests is the
movement from an epistemology of objects to an epistemology of pattern,
from a focus on things, to a focus on relationships. This paradigmatic shift
has been the result of multiple, evolving lines of influence. To borrow from
the title of Batesons 1972 volume, slightly rephrased, this movement represents steps to an ecology of form, with each of the steps representing a
recalibration of thinking, based in large part on a stream of ideas brought
into awareness with the advent of general systems theory, information theory, and cybernetics.
Traditionally, theoretical concerns and research practices in communication were firmly entrenched within the established epistemology of objects, a way of knowing which accords primary importance to the study of
singular events or individual entities. In the interpersonal area of study this
was notably the case with many of the early communication models borrowed from psychology. In contrast, the relational perspective is founded
on an epistemology of form, an approach that gives prominence to interaction patterns over individual acts, and interrelationships over unilateral
cause. In describing these differences, Dell (1983) noted that with a shift in
attention to shapes, forms and relations (p. 251), objects become inseparable from the pattern within which they are embedded, and thus, of secondary interest while pattern becomes primary. Dell also points out that
the word real, rooted in the Latin word res meaning thing, is commonly associated with an object-focused perspective, such as the idea of a real reality. Again in contrast, with a relational perspective realities are seen as
punctuated and constructed, and when viewed within different frames,
readily changeable. In title and text, Watzlawicks (1976) book, How Real Is
Real?, underscored the idea of multiple realities, and cautions against the
common delusion that there is only one reality (p. xi).
The development of a relational view necessitated not simply a modification of traditional modes of thought, but a fully reformulated line of
thought. Bateson (1972), early on criticized the behavioral sciences for being tied far too long to the wrong half of the ancient substanceform dichotomy. In modeling classical physics, the central focus of study has been on
substance, but in Batesons view mental process, ideas, communication,
organization, differentiation, pattern and so on, are matters of form rather
than substance (p. xxv). Thus, Bateson (1951) argued that a reversal in
thinking was necessary for a new order of communication to emerge (p.
209). With a focus on form, emphasis is placed on the centrality of communication behavior, interactive processes, emergent patterns and evolving,
multileveled orders of pattern. An ecology of form based on patterns that
11
connect was fundamental to what Bateson (1972) termed ecological wisdom, knowledge of the larger interactive system (p. 433).
Within this epistemological frame, a relationship is seen, in the most primary sense, as a connective principle (Ellis, 1981, p. 220), based on the interrelatedness of difference. Differences come into being by drawing distinctions (Spencer-Brown, 1973); relationships come into being by drawing
distinctions together. Only in terms of how distinctions stand in relation
to one another, can we speak of relationship. The relationship lies in the
connection. Systemic thinking which underlies an epistemology of form, is
premised upon the differentiation and interaction of parts (Bateson, 1979,
p. 100). Thus, by drawing communicative enactments together in more encompassing patterns, more of the holistic quality of the relationship comes
into being.
What Bateson (1979) labeled double description, he saw as necessary
for depicting relational pattern. In typical style (or perhaps this is a pattern), Bateson by analogy illustrates this process.
It is correct (and a great improvement) to begin to think of the two parties to
the interaction as two eyes, each giving a monocular view of what goes on
and, together giving a binocular view in depth. This double description is the
relationship. (p. 142)
As two eyes in combination generate a binocular view, combined actions

generate pattern and relationship. Double description involves the combining of a unit of action or interaction with another unit to form a more encompassing unit of pattern description. With the interweaving of successive
levels of double description, more global patterns evolve.
The formulation of the basic constructs of symmetry and complementarity by Bateson in the early 1930s, were based on double descriptions of
interaction. Batesons early career was spent doing anthropological field
work among the Iatmul and Balinese on a research project investigating culture contact and change. From the beginning, Bateson resisted the accepted research strategy of the time of using a priori categories for describing culture in terms of basic social institutions. He sought a more grounded
approach based on diachronic behavioral descriptions of cultural practices
as an alternative to the procedures outlined by the research granting committee. His 1935 writing of Culture Contact and Schismogenesis represents
an interesting mix of a younger scholars deference and yet fully articulated
resistance to the sponsoring Social Science Research Councils approach.
Batesons suggestion was to study the problem (of acculturation) first,
since the problem itself remains vague (p. 178), and then attempt a reasoned answer based on the conceptual schemes that emerge from detailed
12
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
behavioral observations, rather than apply a predetermined framework

onto behaviors. Bateson (1935) pointed out that a priori strategies overlook
the holistic, overlapping nature of cultural systems; he argued the questionable, if not fallacious, assumption that cultural traits can be classified under
a single social institutional category, as indicated in the following quote.
our categories religious, economic, etc, are not real subdivisions which are
present in the cultures which we study, but are merely abstractions which we
make for our own convenience when we set out to describe cultures. . . . In
handling such abstractions we must be careful to avoid Whiteheads fallacy
of misplaced concreteness . . . (p. 179)
It was in this 1935 article that Bateson first described the process of
schismogenesis and the concepts of symmetry and complementarity as a
way of differentiating behavior patterns within and between culture groups.
With the publication of Naven (1936), Batesons analytical attention moved
away from group-based differentiation of cultural configurations toward a
more dyadic application of these concepts focused on the reactions of individuals to the reactions of other individuals, with schismogenesis referring to the potential process of increased differentiation resulting from cumulative interaction between individuals (1936, p. 175). (See Rogers, 1981,
for details on the evolution of these concepts.) Bateson (1979) identified
symmetry as those forms of interaction that could be described in terms of
competition, rivalry, mutual emulation, and so on, and complementarity as
interactional sequences in which the actions of A and B were different but
mutually fitted each other (e.g. dominance-submission, exhibition-spectatorship, dependence-nurturance) (p. 208). In depicting symmetrical patterns the participants communicative behaviors mirror one another, such
as in exchanges of boasting/boasting, opposing/opposing, agreeing/agreeing. With complementary patterns, the participants behaviors are maximally different, for example, assertion/submission, question/answer, giving/
receiving, and so on.
In these early writings, Bateson also introduced the initial idea of
higher orders of pattern by combining patterns with patterns, as illustrated with his application of the concept of reciprocity. One form of reciprocity, termed reciprocal complementarity, refers to the sequential reversal of the participants position in a complementary pattern; another form
described by Bateson, refers to the pattern combination of symmetry and
complementarity which Lederer and Jackson (1968) later termed a parallel pattern of relationship. In either case, Bateson (1935) indicated that a
pattern of reciprocity checks the progressive tendency toward schismogenesis by being compensated and balanced within itself (p. 182). Keeney
13
(1983) cited an analogy given by Bateson using the marital system as an example of this self-regulating process in which Bateson suggested:
If the marriage becomes too complementary, you can put them on a tennis
court and theyll feel better. Or if it becomes too symmetrical or rivalrous,
you just wait for one of them to sprain an ankle and then theyll both feel
better. (p. 40)
Although Batesons original formulation of these interaction concepts

was at a time prior to the onset of the cybernetic revolution, his processbased analysis of pattern was in that direction; as Bateson (1972) reflected,
The writing of Naven had brought me to the very edge of what later became cybernetics (p. x). Bateson credited the series of Macy Conferences
held during the 1940s and early 1950s on cybernetics as being highly influential on his subsequent thinking (Bateson & Mead, 1976).
The period following World War II was a time when the influx of ideas
from cybernetics, along with information theory and general systems theory was being felt across the sciences, from biology to mathematics, and as
well, in communication. The confluence of these related perspectives ushered in a heightened period of paradigmatic rethinking of prior modes of
thought. The fundamental reordering of conceptual and analytical concern
was the movement from substance to organization, from energy to information. Systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968) provided a general set of organizing principles which could be applied to any system including social systems. These principles centered on the integration of interdependent
component parts into patterns of multileveled, unified wholes, which cannot be reduced to, nor explained by the separate, individual parts. Systemic
thinking views the world in terms of relationship and integration (Capra,
1982, p. 266), where form becomes associated with process, interrelation
with interaction, and opposites are unified through oscillation (p. 267).
From cybernetics (Wiener, 1948) and information theory (Shannon &
Weaver, 1949) came new insights into how information processing occurs
within systems, and importantly, their implications for human communication systems. The cybernetic principle of self-organizing processes immanent in maintaining system wholeness rests on the ongoing oscillations of
stability and change, a dialectic of oppositions in which each promotes the
other, creating a potential state of system flux. The interplay of these system dynamics are governed through the flow of feedback information occurring within the system. Thus, in terms of the cybernetic processes of
self-regulation, a system is continually informing itself about itself through
recursively ordered, feedback loops of messages-in-circuit between and
among the system components. As with systems theory, the generalized nature of cybernetic principles allows their application across systems.
14
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
For instance, in the study of family systems, Jackson (1965) saw the value
of a cybernetic approach and proposed that the family be viewed as a
self-regulating system guided by family rules. Kantor and Lehr (1975) in
their conceptual model of the family, described the family as primarily an
information processing system with distance regulation being the basic
information processed. In their view, families, as all social systems, are continually informing their members through the communicative process of interaction as to what constitutes a proper and optimal distance (p. 222)
both within and outside the family boundaries, along a multiple of relational dimensions, emotional, ideological, spatial, temporal, power, etc. The
application of a systemiccybernetic approach significantly alters the modeling of communication processes, with unidirectional causeeffect models
replaced by cyclic models of patterned interaction. With this reframing, different types of questions arise, such as those suggested by Bavelas and
Segal (1982) which ask: What circles are happening in this family? Are
there behaviors that lead to other behaviors that lead back to themselves?
(pp. 103104).
The contributions of information theory are readily apparent in the development of communication technology (Rogers, 1994) and early message
models (Berlo, 1960), but as well in other developments in communication.
Building off the concept of entropy (uncertainty), information theory (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) is noted for the mathematically derived method of measuring the amount of information of a given message in relation to the level of
redundancy within the communication system. Redundancy is equated with
the degree of organization (i.e., predictability) exhibited in the system. By
considering the level of redundancy of a system over time, information theory provided a basic approach for analyzing communication systems as stochastic processes in terms of the probability of a system moving to a given
state (pattern) from a prior state (Parks, Farace, Rogers, Albrecht, & Abbot,
1976). The utility of the Markov chain model of analysis is demonstrated in
the research chapters in Part II. The sequential analysis of interaction, critical for describing relational patterning, was a formidable challenge in the
1970s when few options existed. Fortunately, a number of techniques for analyzing sequentially ordered data have since been developed (see chap. 3).
An additional aspect of the work on information theory, although perhaps less well recognized, is that it provided the context for Batesons formulation of levels of message meaning. Based on the type of information
(data) utilized by different computer systems, communication engineers
distinguished three types of information transformation, identified as digital, analogic, and formal relation codifications. The levels of abstraction inherent in these distinctions promoted a clearer recognition of the different
forms and functions of message behavior, and importantly, that messages
simultaneously give off meaning at multiple levels.
15
In terms of these codified differences, Bateson (1951) shaped his conceptual distinctions of message meaning levels. In Batesons words, Whatever
communication we consider, be it the transmission of impulses in a neural
system or the transmission of words in a conversation, it is evident that every message in transit has two sorts of meaning (p. 179). He also introduced the more general, global term of metacommunication, defined as
communication about communication, which he further described as all
the exchanged cues and propositions about (a) codification and (b) relationship between the communicators (p. 209). Using the language of information theory and cybernetics, Bateson referred to the informational or
content meaning of a message as report, and the contexualizing instructional or relational meaning of a message as command. Thus, the report
(content) level of meaning provides representational, digital information
which is simultaneously contextualized by the presentational, analogic
form of information provided by the command (relational) level of meaning.
It is at the higher, meta levels of relational meaning that participants in a
communication system present and negotiate definitions of one another
and their relationship, and where, in interpersonal and intimate relationships, these co-defined patterns matter the most. As Bateson (1972) later
emphasized, what we humans care most about are our patterns of relationship, where we stand in love, hate, dependency, trust, and similar abstractions vis vis somebody else. This is where it hurts us to be put in the
wrong (p. 470).
The concept of relationship implies a meta distinction. Bateson (1972)
drew on Russells theory of logical types to further frame the meaning of
meta level distinctions, which he described as the relation between classes
of different logical type (p. 307). However, rather than viewing logical types
as a discrete hierarchy of classes, Bateson (1979) later and more appropriately referred to logical typing as orders of recursiveness (p. 218). This
view, in line with cybernetic thinking, led to his description of the ecological patterning of communication as a dialectic of process and form, with encompassing levels of pattern emerging from the cyclic movement from
process to form and back to process, creating circling spirals of meta level
patterns. (It should be noted that Bateson did not use the theory of logical
types as an injunction against paradox, as did Russell, but rather built on
the paradoxical nature of communication for developing theories, for example, of play, learning, and double bind.)
Reflecting on his work, Bateson (1979) indicated that my procedures of
inquiry were punctuated by an alternation between classification and the
description of process. I had proceeded, without conscious planning, up an
alternating ladder from description to the vocabulary of typology (p. 209).
He refers to this back and forth movement, from descriptions of process
to classifications of form, as a recursively ordered zigzag ladder, with
16
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
each diagonal step embedded within the ascending levels of description

and classification of process and form. Thus, in the process of communication, descriptions of actions form categories of action, actions combine into
interactions which form patterns (classifications) of interaction, and so on,
with patterns combining into broader descriptions of relational form. Simultaneously, process shapes form and form shapes process. In this manner,
the participants interactions create the defining qualities of their relationship, and these qualities influence the ongoing defining interactional processes in a continuous dialectic of process and form.
From the breadth of ideas put forward by Bateson, the most fundamental
in the development of the relational perspective were: the primary focus
placed on communication, the meta level conceptual distinctions of content
and relational message meaning, the dialectic of process and form, double
description and the formulation of symmetrical and complementary patterns of interaction. Yet, for communication and relational scholars, Batesons ideas remained out of view, and in a sense, lay dormant for many
years. For example, the time lapse between Batesons original formulation
of symmetry and complementarity (which are now common fare in communication texts) and any reference to these constructs by communication researchers was approximately 35 years.
It wasnt until Batesons association with members of the Palo Alto
based Mental Research Institute (MRI) during the 1950s, when working on a
research project in Menlo Park, that his ideas began to receive wider attention among family researchers and therapists, and this awareness came
largely through the writings of members of MRI. (See Wilder-Mott and
Weakland, 1981, for a history of this period.) And it wasnt until the writing
of The Pragmatics of Human Communication by Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) that communication scholars became more aware of these ideas.
The Pragmatics volume has had a pronounced influence not only on interpersonal communication, but on the discipline of communication as a
whole. Since its publication, it has been one of the most widely cited texts
in the field of communication. From the beginning, it served as a catalyst for
a qualitative shift in thinking about communication and relationships. Drawing on a wide range of resources and illustrations in expanding Batesons
work, the authors of Pragmatics provided an accessible, integrated communication perspective for studying human relationships. This text became
and remains the best know treatise on the conceptual foundations of the relational communication perspective.
The pragmatic perspective offered an alternative view of communication
to the one traditionally taken, and that was to focus on communication itself, in other words, to focus on the observable behavioral processes of interaction, rather than on the cognitive, intrapsychic aspects of the individuals involved. The goal was not to supplant the value of individual-based
17
theories, but to treat the interactors behaviors as primary data and the locus of communication-based theories. In actuality, behavior is the basic
source of data. As Sigman (1998) noted, All there really is (for us as humans to experience and for us as researchers to study) is communication
behavior (p. 66). In taking an interactional stance, the perspective proffered a fundamental change in the unit of analysis and thus, the basis of explanation, from the inferred attributes of the individuals to the observable
properties of their interaction. This seemingly simple idea, analogous to a
figure-ground reversal (Bavelas & Segal, 1982) of bringing the relationship
up-front as figure with the individuals receding into the background, was
nevertheless profound in its implications.
The crux of these implications are presented in Watzlawick et al.s (1967)
axiomatic propositions, which form the central core of the pragmatic perspective. Although these were put forward as tentative propositions, in
large part these well-known and oft-cited axioms have stood the test of
time. Perhaps one reading of this is the fact that the axioms continue to
spark debate on fundamental issues, such as the question of communication intentionality (Bavelas, 1990; Motley, 1990), but more solid evidence is
provided by the programs of research described in the second part of the
present volume.
Each of the five axioms involves a contextual frame, and each is interrelated with the others. To review briefly, the first underscores the social context of communication in that not all behavior is communicative in nature,
but behavior in an interactional situation has message value, i.e., is communication, that is, reciprocally influence others (Watzlawick et al., 1967,
pp. 4849). The second axiom refers to the report/command levels of message meaning, in which the meta level of relational meaning contextualizes
the content meaning. In a related manner, the digital/analogical axiom refers to the duality of message codes, such that the digital is always contextualized by the analogical mode. Yet, the complexity is double-fold, in
that the digital mode, while always analogically contextualized, can also
comment on and thus, serve as a meta level contextualization of both the
digital and analogical aspects of messages. The proposition that the nature
of the relationship is contingent on punctuation takes into account that
how an ongoing sequence of communicative behavior is framed or organized influences the message meaning. And the final axiom, proposes that
symmetry and complementarity, based on the similarity or difference of the
communicational interchanges, represent two general patterns of relationship. Through the extended explication and illustration of these basic axioms, the Pragmatics volume provided a window into how one might, research-wise, put a pragmatic, relational perspective into effect.
Based on these conceptual premises, a major part of the early work in relational communication was the development of a transactional language of
18
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
relationship and a methodology for indexing communication processes at

this level. For, as Jackson (1965) stated, It is only when we attend to transactions between individuals as primary data that a qualitative shift in conceptual framework can be achieved (p. 4). The constructs of symmetry and
complementarity, in particular, served as prototypes of the necessary paradigmatic shift from single message variables to transactional level measures. A full explication of these methodological procedures is taken up in
the following chapter.
The main theoretical guide for relational communication research has
been the general principles of systems theory and cybernetics which emphasize the interdependency of relational members and the cyclic informative
processes by which members establish, maintain, modify or redefine their relationship. A major theoretical supposition is the relational functionality of
relatively flexible patterns of interaction which simultaneously rest on and
encourage a dialectic interplay along the various dimensions of interrelating.
Applied to interpersonal relationships, this proposition holds that viable, relations will manifest patterns of communication that offer sufficient confirmation and acceptance of the members reciprocal relational definitions for producing relatively predictable pattern configurations, yet at the same time
allow sufficient pattern modification and alternation to fit fluctuating relational dynamics and changing contexts and circumstances. In contrast, it is
predicted that overly redundant patterns of interaction will contain less potential for negotiating accommodation and change and will be associated
with negative relational evaluations and outcomes. It is also assumed that insufficient patternedness (i.e., chaos) will likewise be related to negative relationship consequences. As Bateson suggests, patterns of extremes are always toxic. Thus, it is proposed that optimal or adequately functioning
systems develop and maintain patterns of connectedness, but not over
amounts of chaotic processes nor interactional redundancy.
Yet there is always present the potential movement toward what Bateson called the tyranny of pattern, as illustrated by patterns of escalating
symmetry and rigid complementarity. Escalating symmetry results in unsettled relational definitions and instability whereas rigid complementarity
leads to oversettled, stifling stability. Relational processes contain within
themselves the potential seeds of their own demise, what builds them up
may come like a cancer to tear them down (Simmel, 1950). Recurring patterns and the resulting cumulative differentiation, as described earlier,
have schismogenetic tendencies (Bateson, 1936). Over time, there is a progressive potential to move toward more of the same (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). This tendency toward more of the same and the difficulty in counterbalancing this process are further projected to be more
likely the more intimate the relationship. Workable relationships are theorized to evidence the dialectic fluidity of self-correcting cybernetic proc-
19
esses that counter the tendencies toward schismogenesis and overly redundant patterns of interaction.
CONCLUSION
The goal of this chapter was to provide an historical and conceptual context within which to place the development of the relational communication
perspective. In tracing the movement of relational thinking, we find in both
earlier and more contemporary thought a decided turn toward a social,
communication-centered approach to the study of human relationships.
The unfolding of the ideas put forward in this review, which form the foundational roots of relational communication, each in their own way say
something about the social, systemic, temporal, circular, reflexive, multileveled complexities of communication. The general confluence, or coming
together of these conceptual influences converge on the central ideas of
process and form.
The relational communication perspective offers an interactional approach for studying these constitutive and formative aspects of relationships. Although it is one thing to argue the importance of studying interaction, it is quite another to put the argument into action. The next two
chapters address the methodological and analytic procedures involved in
putting into action the research application of the relational communication approach.
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Bateson, G. (1935). Culture, contact and schismogenesis. Man, 35, 178183.
Bateson, G. (1951). Information and codification: A philosophical approach. In J. Ruesch & G.
Bateson (Eds.), Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry (pp. 168211). New York:
Norton.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books.
Bateson, G., & Mead, M. (1976). For gods sake, Margaret. Coevolution Quarterly, 10, 3244.
Bavelas, J. B. (1990). Behaving and communicating: A reply to Motley. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 54, 593602.
Bavelas, J. B., & Segal, L. (1982). Family systems theory: Background and implications. Journal of
Communication, 32, 99107.
Baxter, L., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.
Berger, P., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the
microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 46, 125.
20
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
Berlo, D. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Scribners & Sons.
Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.
Caplow, T. (1968). Two against one. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Capra, F. (1982). The turning point: Science, society and the rising culture. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Cronen, V. E. (1995). Coordinated management of meaning: The consequentiality of communication and the recapturing of experience. In S. J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dell, P. (1983). Researching the family theories of schizophrenia: An exercise in epistemological
confusion. In D. Bagarozzi, A. Jurich, & R. Jackson (Eds.), Marital and family therapy: New perspectives in theory, research and practice (pp. 236261). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Duncan, H. D. (1967). The search for a social theory of communication in American sociology. In
F. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory (pp. 236263). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Ellis, D. (1981). The epistemology of form. In C. Wilder-Mott & J. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 215230). New York: Praeger.
Feuerbach, L. (1843). Grundstze der philosophie der zukunft [Principles of the philosophy of the
future]. Zurich: Zurich & Winterthru.
Fisher, B. A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York: Macmillan.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Gottman, J. (1982). Temporal form: Towards a new language for describing relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 943962.
Hinde, R. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Hinde, R. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Jackson, D. D. (1965). The study of the family. Family Process, 4, 120.
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. New York: Harper & Row.
Keeney, B. (1983). Aesthetics of change. New York: Guilford Press.
Kelley, H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., McClintock, E.,
Peplau, L., & Peterson, D. (1983). Close relationships. New York: Freeman.
Lederer, W. J., & Jackson, D. D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New York: Norton.
Marx, K. (1956). Theses on Feuerbach. In T. Bottomore & M. Rubel (Trans.), Karl Marx: Selected
writings in sociology and social philosophy (pp. 6770). London: Watts & Co. (Original work
published in 1845)
McCall, G. (1970). The social organization of relationships. In G. McCall (Ed.), Social relationships
(pp. 334). Chicago: Aldine.
McCall, G. (1988). The organizational life cycle of relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 467484). New York: Wiley.
McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1966). Identities and interaction. New York: Free Press.
McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1991). Levels of analysis: The individual, the dyad and the larger social
group. In B. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 5681). New
York: Guilford Press.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Motley, M. (1990). On whether one can(not) not communicate: An examination via traditional
communication postulates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 120.
Parks, M., Farace, R., Rogers, L. E., Albrecht, T., & Abbot, R. (1976, April). Stochastic process analysis of relational communication in marital dyads. Paper presented at the International Communication Association meetings, Portland, Oregon.
21
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rogers, E. M. (1994). A history of communication study. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, L. E. (1981). Symmetry and complementarity: Evolution and evaluation of an idea. In C.
Wilder-Mott & J. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory
Bateson (pp. 231251). New York: Praeger.
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sigman, S. J. (1998). Relationships and communication: A social communication and strongly
consequential view. In R. L. Conville & L. E. Rogers (Eds.), The meaning of relationship in interpersonal communication (pp. 4767). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. Wolff, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
Spencer-Brown, G. (1973). Laws of form. New York: Bantam Books.
Stewart, J. (1998). Historical frames of relational perspectives. In R. L. Conville & L. E. Rogers
(Eds.), The meaning of relationship in interpersonal communication (pp. 2346). Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Theunissen, M. (1984). The other: Studies in the social ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and
Buber (C. Macann, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Volosinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New
York: Braziller.
Watzlawick, P. (1976). How real is real? New York: Random House.
Norton.
Watzlawick, P., & Weakland, J. (Eds.). (1977). The interactional view. New York: Norton.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. Henderson & T. Parsons,
Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilder-Mott, C., & Weakland, J. (Eds.). (1981). Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of
Gregory Bateson. New York: Praeger.
Wilmot, W. (1995). Relational communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
C H A P T E R
2
Observing Relational
Communication
Valentn Escudero
L. Edna Rogers
University of Utah
The basic issue in implementing the present research program was how to
apply the principles of the pragmatic perspective to the study of human interaction. With a view that communication is much more than a simple exchange of information, that it involves a continuous, interactive process of
defining and redefining relationships, the methodological challenge was
one of transforming these conceptual ideas into a commensurate research
approach. In line with the perspectives emphasis on the formative process
of communication and the guide of earlier work, an interaction-based, observational approach was taken for operationally defining and analyzing
the temporal, relational qualities of communication. In the following sections, we describe the development and application of the Relational Communication Control Coding System (RCCCS), the contributions of other relational researchers, and the issues of reliability and validity.
DEVELOPMENT OF OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
The initial procedures for indexing relational communication were outlined
by Sluzki and Beavin (1965, 1977) in their development of a dyadic typology
based on Batesons (1958) concepts of symmetry and complementarity and
the progressive movement of relationships toward symmetrical or complementary schismogenesis. In this landmark work, Sluzki and Beavin (1977)
formalized a methodology for identifying communicative patterns of interaction, and based on a dyads cumulative, prototypical interaction each
23
24
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
dyad could be classified according to its main (more repetitive) type of interaction (p. 74). Two types of message positions (Haley, 1963) were used
to indicate the relational definitions comprising these patterns; one-up
messages defined the speaker in a position of being in charge in the relationship and one-down messages defined the speaker in a position of submission. With this perspective focused on pattern formation, single message behaviors were viewed as having no relational value individually, but
only acquired relational value in the context of transactions (the relationship between two messages interchanged by the interactors). Hence, Sluzki
and Beavin (1977) established their operational definitions of symmetry and
complementarity according to the structural similarity or dissimilarity (respectively) of the reciprocal communicative behaviors of the members of a
dyadic system (p. 75).
In identifying the structural similarity or difference of message transactions, these authors proposed that contiguous speech turns in a dyadic interaction be analyzed in terms of how the messages are contextually structured
(e.g., affirmations, instructions, negations, extensions, acceptances) and by
their grammatical form (questions, statements, and commands). This initial
set of operational procedures established a solid grounding for the subsequent development of relational coding systems. In later developments, the
original premises that messages take on relational meaning in the sequentially ordered context of message exchange and that the grammatical form
and response modes of the combined messages allow the identification of
different types of transactional patterns, have remained central.
In the evolution of different procedures for indexing relational control,
the direction of these efforts, with each system building on the previous design, has been toward the inclusion of additional coding specifications and
the expansion of the different relational contexts studied. Table 2.1 outlines
the major contributions in the development of relational communication
coding systems.
Utilizing the basic procedures proposed by Sluzki and Beavin, Mark
(1971) elaborated a more structured coding scheme. In this system, each
speech turn is categorized in terms of three aspects: speaker identification,
the grammatical format of the message, and the relational style of response
of the message to the previous message. Based on the possible combinations of formats and response styles, Mark identified three types of messages: one-up, one-down, and symmetrical. Although beneficial in design,
the problematic aspects of this system included a lack of definitional clarity
and exclusivity of the format and response style categories, and the conceptual confusion created by defining individual messages as symmetrical.
The coding system developed by Rogers (1972a), also described in Ericson and Rogers (1973) and Rogers and Farace (1975), synthesized features of
previous systems with added modifications and the addition of a one-across
TABLE 2.1
Salient Contributions in the Development of Relational
Communication Control Coding Procedures
Studies
Sluzki & Beavin (1965)
Mark (1971)
Ericson & Rogers (1973);

Rogers & Farace
(1975)
Ellis et al. (1976)
Folger & Sillars (1980)
Rogers-Millar, Millar
(1979); Rogers,
Courtright, & Millar
(1980); Courtright,
Millar, & Rogers
(1983)
Heatherington &
Friedlander (1987)
Main Contribution
First operational definition of symmetrical and complementary interaction based on grammatical form
and metacommunicative aspects
Creates a formal categorization, defines format and response
mode categories of coding
Relational communication control
coding system (RCCCS). Defines
clear rules of coding, re-defines the
format and response mode dimensions to increase their internal
consistency. Creates new oneacross (g) control code. Defines
clearly the three relational control
directions (h, i, and g) and the
three types of transacts (complementary, symmetrical, and transitional)
Designs a relational control coding
system with 5 control codes: dominance (h+), structuring (h), equivalence (g), deference (i), and submissiveness (i)
Comparing the earlier procedures,
raises useful questions on how
some types of control messages
are perceived by naive observers;
does not offer new coding procedures.
The indexes of domineeringness and
dominance are empirically tested.
A measure of control intensity is
created: intensity values from 1 to
50 are assigned to each type of
control code. A Variation Coefficient (CV) is defined as a standardized index of the overall redundancy of the control pattern.
Expansion of RogersFarace procedures to analyze family interaction
(FRCCCS). Defines procedures to
code triadic sequences as coalitions and other relevant aspects of
indirect communication.
Field of Application
Couples and other
dyadic interaction
Couples interaction
Marital interaction
Small group interactions
Social perception of relational control
Marital interaction
Family therapy process

research
(Continued)
25
26
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

TABLE 2.1
(Continued)
Studies
Wichstrom & Holte
(1988)
Fairhurst (1990)
Siegel, Friedlander, &

Heatherington (1992)
Main Contribution
Field of Application
Modification of earlier coding systems to focus the analysis on

communicational disconfirmations.
Defines a new control code (oneout, f) related with paradoxical
communication.
Modifies specific coding categories to
capture particular aspects of managersubordinate interactions
Adds nonverbal relational control
coding procedures to the FRCCCS
Communication in families with a schizophrenic member
Interpersonal communication in organizational context

Family therapy process
research
control direction for providing a clearer specification of message control implications. Since its development, the Relational Communication Control
Coding System (RCCCS) has been widely utilized in an array of research studies and has been the basis of coding procedure extensions for application in
specific contexts, for example, in family therapy (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987; Wichstrom & Holte, 1988). In the Rogers system (1972b), the coding unit is a speech turn; each speech turn is coded with a three-digit code
which first identifies the speaker of the message, second, the message format
(assertion, question, successful or unsuccessful talk-over, noncomplete and
other), and third, the relational response mode relative to the prior message
in an interaction stream (support, nonsupport, extension, answer, instruction, order, disconfirmation, topic-change, self-instruction and other). With
this system, a speech turn can be double coded when a message has two
well-differentiated relational functions. For example, the same speech turn
may begin with a submissive response to the previous message and end with
a challenging question. In such cases, a double code is applied to index the
different relational implications. The coding systems format and response
mode categories are summarized in Table 2.2.
Based on the three-digit code, each of the possible format and response
mode combinations of a message (e.g., assertion/support, question/extension, etc.) is assigned one of three control codes, according to the relational
definition of the message vis--vis the other interactor. An attempt to assert
a definition of the relationship, represents a one-up movement (h); a request for or acceptance of the others definition of the relationship, indicates a one-down movement (i); a nondemanding, nonaccepting, leastconstraining, leveling movement refers to a one-across maneuver (g). The
matrix in Table 2.3 indicates the message control direction of the 50 format
and response mode combinations.
27
2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

TABLE 2.2
Brief Description of the Basic Format and Response Mode
Categories of the RogersFarace Coding System
Format
ASSERTION: Any completed referential
statement expressed in either the declarative or imperative form.
QUESTION: Any message that takes an interrogative form (verbnoun order, rising of
voice, etc.).
TALK-OVER: Any interruption or verbal intervention made while another person is
speaking.
Talk-overs can be coded as SUCCESSFUL or UNSUCCESSFUL depending on
whether the first speaker relinquishes the
floor.
NONCOMPLETE: Any utterance that is initiated but not completed (without a clear
format, or response mode).
OTHER: Any utterance that is indistinguishable or grammatically unclassifiable.
Response Mode
SUPPORT: Any message that offers or seeks
agreement, assistance, acceptance, and/or
approval.
NONSUPPORT: Any message that implies
disagreement, rejection, demand, resistance, and/or challenge.
EXTENSION: Any message that continues the
flow or theme of the preceding message.
ANSWER: Any message that is a definitive
response to a question that has substance and/or commitment.
INSTRUCTION: Any regulative message that
is a qualified suggestion involving clarification, justification, or explanation.
ORDER: Any message that is an unqualified
command with little or no explanation,
usually in the imperative form.
DISCONFIRMATION: Any message that ignores or by-passes the request (whether explicit or implicit) of the previous message.
TOPIC CHANGE: Any message that has little
continuity with the previous message but
no response continuity was requested.
SELF-INSTRUCTION: Any message that reflects back on self about what and how
self should do and feel.
OTHER: Any message that has an unclear,
unclassifiable response implication.
By combining the control codes of contiguous messages, three interactional or transactional categories are created. With complementary transacts, the definition of the relationship offered by one interactor is accepted
by the other; the control directions are opposite (hi or ih). In symmetrical
transacts, the control directions are the same (hh, gg, or ii); each
interactor behaves toward the other as the other behaved toward them. In
transitory transacts (gi, ig, gh, or hg), the control directions are different with one of the interactors expressing a neutralizing, minimally constraining, one-across message. Table 2.4 shows the nine types of relational
transactional patterns identified by the coding system, resulting in two
forms of complementarity, three forms of symmetry, and four types of transitory transacts.
The following interaction, coded according to the RCCCS procedures described earlier, is a small fragment extracted from a couples discussion
28
Assertion
Question
Successful Talk-Over
Nonsuccessful Talk-Over
Noncomplete
Other
Format
Nonsupport
h
h
h
h
h
h
Support
i
i
i
i
i
i
g
i
h
g
g
g
Extension
h
h
h
h
h
h
Answer
h
h
h
h
h
h
Instruction
h
h
h
h
h
h
Order
h
h
h
h
h
h
Disconfirmation
Response Mode
TABLE 2.3
Control Code Assignment for the Message Code Categories
h
h
h
h
h
h
Topic Change
g
i
h
g
g
g
Self-Instruction
g
i
h
g
g
g
Other
29

TABLE 2.4
Types of Relational Control Transacts
Control Direction of Consequent Message
Control Direction of
Antecedent Message
One-up h
One-down i
One-across g
kl
Complementarity
kg
Transition
One-down
i
kk
Competitive
Symmetry
lk
Complementarity
lg
Transition
One-across
g
gk
Transition
ll
Submissive
Symmetry
gl
Transition
One-up
h
gg
Neutralized
Symmetry
concerning their vacation time and the possibility of changing the tradition
of visiting the husbands parents. As observed, this segment represents a
brief episode of competitive symmetry that is deactivated by one-down or
one-across control messages.
Format
Response
Mode
H: If you dont agree on visiting them this year, you

should have said so before. How are they going to
take it, now that they are expecting us, to tell
them that we arent going!
Assertion
Nonsupport
W: For years I have been telling you that I am sick

and tired of spending these holidays with them.
You knew that, so dont come to me with that!
Assertion
Nonsupport
H: [You have always complained, and Ive always told

you that we would do whatever you wanted, but you
have never said no. And now its all my fault!]
Talk-over
Nonsupport
W: Fault? Were pretty grown up, you just have to tell

them we have other plans, thats all.
Assertion
Order
H: Could you tell them, please?
Question
Support
(asking)
W: Come on, they are your family. I think you should

tell them. Go on, please, I beg of you. It wont be
such a big deal.
Assertion
Support
(asking)
H: They are going to get really upset; you know how

they are. And these things really affect them now.
Assertion
Extension
Verbal Interaction of a Couple
Control Code
& Transacts
kk
kk
kk
kl
ll
lg
30
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
One of the extensions of the coding procedures developed by Rogers,

Courtright, and Millar (1980) is the measurement of message control intensity. This measure is based on the implicit intensity continuum which underlies the coding system. For most analyses, the message codes (indicating
the format and response mode categories) are grouped into three general
control categories (h, g, or i) for describing the interaction control dynamics and the resulting transactional patterns, but in doing so, as is always the case with categorization, specific information is lost concerning
the regulative influence of different message forms. Thus, a message giving
an order in an assertive format constrains the relational response options
of the other interactor more intensely than a message expressing disagreement in a question format, even though both messages are coded as one-up
(h). Following the logic underlying the coding procedures, Rogers et al.
(1980) proposed a scale (from 1 to 50) to index the relative intensity of the
50 types of message codes, with a noncomplete/support message representing the lowest level of intensity and a talk-over/disconfirmation, the
highest level. Although the assigned message intensity weights are logically
constructed and as yet lack sufficient empirical validity, the research results based on this measure have allowed more discriminatory descriptions
of couple interaction and have provided evidence of the measures predictive utility of specific relational patterns (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers, 1980;
Rogers et al., 1980).
With this scale, an expanded set of descriptive measures are possible,
including the range and average message control intensity of an interactor or the dyad, the mean distance of intensity between contiguous messages in a dyadic interaction, and in addition, an index of the Coefficient
of Variation (CV) (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers, 1983) defined as the result
of dividing the standard deviation of the control intensity scores by the
mean of these scores. The CV indexes a dyads interaction flexibility; a
high CV value indicates a high level of fluctuation in that the intensity
scores of the messages deviate widely from the mean, while a low CV
value indicates a narrow range of message intensity fluctuation and thus
low level of interaction flexibility.
In a less complex manner, the coding system fashioned by Fisher and
colleagues (Ellis, Fisher, Drecksel, Hoch, & Werbel, 1976) incorporates an intensity dimension in the categorization of message codes. With this coding
scheme, five types of message control positions are defined. The categories
are identified as Dominance (h+), a strong one-up; Structuring (h-), a weak
one-up; Equivalence (g); Deference (i-), a weak one-down; and Submissiveness (i+), a strong one-down. The added intensity distinction is a positive feature of this system.
The research by Folger and Sillars (1980) on the perception of interpersonal dominance focused attention on the coding of different forms of ques-
31
tions. In this study, the authors contrasted their coding of a sample of

messages using the Rogers system, with the control scores assigned by an
untrained group of students to the same set of messages. Each message was
scored on a 5-point scale, from very submissive to very dominant. Although the
mean dominance rating reported were in many cases consistent with the
control codes (p. 326), based on the students perceived control implications of different question formats, Folger and Sillars emphasized the functional differences of open, closed, and fed questions. In the Rogers system,
what would be considered open questions although not labeled as such,
are identified as requests seeking help in a submissive manner or seeking
information in a neutral manner, and are coded in the first case as onedown and in the second, as one-across, while closed and/or fed questions
are identified as constraining, disagreeing, demanding and/or challenging
questions, and are coded as one-up control maneuvers. Nevertheless, the
distinctions posited by Folger and Sillars provided useful clarification of
these question forms. In later work, Heatherington and Friedlander (1987)
included separate open and closed question codes in their relational coding system.
Wichstrom and Holtes (1988) research on therapeutic systems provided
a further development in the study of relational communication. The coding procedures designed by these researchers include an additional control
code to the three control codes (one-up, one-down, and one-across) of the
RCCCS. In particular, this system expands the identification of disconfirmation and disqualification of equivocal or ambiguous communication (selfdisqualifications, disqualifications of the other, noncompromising evasive
responses, etc.). These coding procedures were developed in the context of
studying families with a schizophrenic member, a setting in which these
types of communication are more likely to occur.
The coding innovation offered by the Wichstrom and Holte (1988) system is a category of relational control called one-out (f) which encompass
messages, often paradoxical, where the person tries to escape from the
question of control altogether. The metamessage is: we do not relate in
this system (p. 7). This coding system also integrates different levels of
control intensity, by subdividing the message codes into three control intensity levels. In spite of the fact that the complexity of this coding system
is much greater than that of previous systems, these researchers report
satisfactory levels of reliability in its application (Holte, Wichstrom, Erno,
& Kveseth, 1987).
For the different research settings in which relational communication
has been studied, certain communicational phenomena may be of specific
or special relevance in these contexts, as in the previous case. In other
cases, message types identified within a particular context may only involve slight modifications of the coding procedures. For example, in the in-
32
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
vestigations of relational control in an organizational setting, Fairhurst (see

chap. 9) included a backchannel category that records expression such
as, mm-hmm, yeah, OK, etc., interjected into the stream of discourse
to indicate that the speaker is listening. The use of this message code allows a clear regulative distinction of these common conversational features, coded as extensions, from those that indicate agreement or approval.
From Dyadic to Triadic Interaction Analysis

A major contribution in the development of relational coding procedures is
that of Heatherington and Friedlander (1987) who designed a system that
expands the application of the RCCCS methods to interactions of three or
more people. Their Family Relational Communication Control Coding System (FRCCCS) emerged from the study of relational communication in the
context of family therapy. With three or more interactants, there are various message dynamics, often with indirect definitional implications, that do
not occur in dyadic interaction. The FRCCCS procedures allow the coding of
a number of triadic processes and thus, significantly extends the utility of
the relational approach. The contributions of Heatherington and Friedlander which are briefly described here, involve the designation of message targets, additional message code categories, and the coding of specific triadic
interactions. (See chap. 5 for a complete description.)
In family or group interactions there are direct and explicit targets of
message behavior, but there are also many occasions when the messages
are neither direct nor reciprocal, that is, a message can also have an indirect target. For this reason, the coding rules of the FRCCCS include the identification of direct and indirect message targets, with the later referring to
maneuvers in which an interactor has not been specifically addressed, but
is clearly implicated by the message expressed to another person.
When the messages are direct, and represent a reciprocal exchange between two members of a larger group, the coding procedures applicable to
a dyad are employed, but when, for instance, a message is clearly directed
to one member but responded to by another member, this represents an
interference in the initiated exchange between two members by a third. For
indexing this type of triadic event, a message format category, interception,
was added to identify this form of message maneuver. An interception is
essentially an interruption on behalf of a third person of the dyadic exchange taking place. The FRCCCS, as indicated earlier, also includes separate format codes for open and closed questions. In the context of the therapeutic interview, where questions play a prominent role, this distinction is
useful for specifically identifying the different control functions of the question format.
33
Within a larger group, in comparison with dyadic interaction, the identification of messages categorized as disconfirmation is also expanded via
different forms of triadic interactions. A type of interpersonal disconfirmation coded with the FRCCCS occurs when the person addressed (i.e., the direct target of the message) ignores the request being made by a speaker by
using the strategy of addressing a third person.
A central feature of the FRCCCS is the categorization of different forms of
triadic interaction sequences, in which a speaker defines their relationship
with two other people simultaneously. Although these procedures have
largely been applied in the context of family therapy (Heatherington &
Friedlander, 1990a, 1990b; Friedlander, Heatherington, & Wildman, 1991)
where many theoretical constructs of family dynamics are closely tied to
triadic communication movements, it is equally beneficial to capture these
types of relational dynamics in other interactional settings involving three
or more participants. Three types of triadic sequences that are operationalized by the application of the FRCCCS are illustrated below, using examples from a recent study of everyday family discussions (Escudero,
Lpez, & Platas, 1998).
Simple Triadic Sequences are defined as occurring when a message is
given to at least two people at the same time and the message is coded
as a neutral (leveling g) control movement to either one or both of the recipients.
Mother: (to her son) Stop making noise! Dad and I cant speak with so much
commotion going on! [h order to the boy]
Son:
Rrrrrrruuhhh, its the plane; see it stopped. Thats it. (lowering his
voice) [i obedient response to his mothers order]
Father: In 10 minutes you have to put the plane away and go do your homework while Mom and I continue speaking. [Simple Triadic Movement
k.g with the fathers message a h instruction to the son, and g neutral respect toward the mother]
[Note: Triadic messages are represented with two codes, the first in relation to
the direct target and the second, separated with a dot, in relation to the indirect target, in this case as (h.g).]
Parallel Triadic Sequences are configured by a one-up or one-down message that is concurrently given to two or more interactors. Thus, these messages simultaneously define the same type of control in relation to the implicated members.
Father:
Son:
(to his son) Move somewhere else so I can have more room to work
at the table! [h order to son]
(moving to another place) Yes, Dad. [i response to the father]
34
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
Mother: Look at the time! It is very late and the two of you are wasting time
as always! [k.k Parallel movement, with h to both father and son]
Coalition Sequences refer to messages that define the speakers control

position in an opposite way for each of the other two interactors, one-up
control with one of them and one-down with the other. Thus, the message
simultaneously expresses one control function for the direct recipient and
an opposite control function for the indirect recipient.
Mother: Dont touch the vase and come play over here so that Dad and I can
speak! [h to the son]
Son:
(doesnt obey, continues to play with the vase) [nonverbal h to
mother]
Father: Let me see how you pick up that vase! Bravo, you look like a muscle
man! Very good! (applauding) [l.k Coalition movement with the
message i support for the son, but h resistance for the mother, with
the father joining the son in ignoring the mothers order]
These examples demonstrate the ability of the FRCCCS to index noted

complexities of interaction processes that occur within three person or
larger group settings. A further expansion of this work is a procedure for
coding nonverbal behavior.
Nonverbal Relational Control
With the development of relational coding guided by Sluzki and Beavins
(1965) focus on the audible-linguistic aspects of communication, these
systems have essentially been based on the categorization of verbal behaviors and accompanying paralinguistic features (e.g., tone of voice, inflections and pitch, pauses, message length, laughter, etc.). Practical considerations in terms of the preference for gathering interactional data in
the participants natural setting and the earlier limitations of video technology were also involved in this choice. Even so, the relevance of nonverbal behavior was recognized and viewed as an important future development, especially since the founding work of Watzlawick, Beavin, and
Jackson (1967) posits that the information offered via this mode is largely
relational. The integration of the nonverbal mode in the operational procedures of relational control is a logical extension. Also, the present ease
of obtaining and analyzing video recordings using current multimedia
technology is far more facilitative for including nonverbal behaviors in the
analysis of relational communication.
Along these lines, Siegel, Friedlander, and Heatherington (1992) developed a set of procedures for coding nonverbal relational control behaviors
35
in conjunction with the FRCCCS codes. These procedures for identifying

and relationally defining a group of nonverbal behaviors that commonly appear in interactions have demonstrated interjudge reliability as well as criterion validity. In this system, the coding of nonverbal relational control is
based on: (a) specific nonverbal behaviors that concurrently occur with
verbal messages, or (b) nonverbal behaviors that signal a message on their
own without any simultaneous verbal expression.
The following relational response modes have been categorized by nonverbal behaviors: Supportagreement, which indexes nonverbal actions that
clearly indicate an acceptance response to a prior statement or request, such
as nodding in agreement, or carrying out a suggested behavior (e.g., closing a
door, turning off the stereo, etc.) as asked or instructed without saying anything after receiving the message; NonsupportDisagreement, which includes
nodding in disagreement, rejection through body movements such as turning
ones back or ignoring anothers message, specific gestures indicating an insult or sarcasm, attack such as hitting, or marked incongruence between the
nonverbal and verbal behaviors; Answering-questions, nodding and other specific gestures that serve to give a clear answer to a previous question; and
OrderInstruction, which refer to nonverbal gestures of prohibition or that order a behavior such as be quiet, change chairs or leave the room. One of the
several advantages of coding both verbal and nonverbal relational communication behavior is that it allows the study of congruencies and incongruencies between these two modes of expression.
To exemplify the combined coding procedures for indexing triadic sequences and nonverbal behaviors, we return to the earlier example of the
couple arguing about the tradition of visiting the paternal family on vacations. Actually this interaction was recorded in the couples home in the
presence of their young son. In the following, longer segment of their discussion we see the son becoming involved in the argument. By taking into
account the relational communication of the three (father, mother, and
son) and their nonverbal communication, we can observe in Table 2.5 a
greater level of coding complexity then in the prior dyadic example.
As investigators of relational communication expand the facets and analytical capacity of coding systems, their research ability to incorporate
more of the complexities, as well as the subtleties, of the interaction process increases. But the time needed to train coders, code the interactions,
and process the large amounts of data is also increased. Recent technical
advances in computer-based, multimedia analysis systems, however, minimize these difficulties and offer research capabilities that before, with the
traditional methods of transcribing, coding, and data analysis were considerably more taxing.
Different technical systems now exist that can be adapted to the study of
relational communication. Of those examined for analyzing interaction, a
TABLE 2.5
Example of Coded Interaction With Triadic Sequences
and Nonverbal Control Codes
Verbal Interaction
F.- If you dont agree on visiting
them this year, you should
have said so before. How are
they going to take it, now that
they are expecting us, to tell
them that we arent going!
M.- For years I have been telling
you that I am sick and tired of
spending these holidays with
them. You knew that, so dont
come to me with that!
Relational Control
and Transacts
The boy is quietly playing, assembling and disassembling pieces

of a small plastic car.
h
kk
Both parents raise their voices.

h
kk
F.- (You have always complained,

and Ive always told you that we
would do whatever you wanted,
but you have never said no. And
now its all my fault!)
M.- Fault? Were pretty grown up,

you just have to tell them we
have other plans, thats all.
F.- Could you tell them, please?
M.- Come on, they are your family. I think you should tell them.
Go on, please, I beg of you. It
wont be such a big deal.
F.- They are going to get really

upset; you know how they are.
And these things really affect
them now.
S.- Ill tell them.

F.- What are you saying? Go play
with Maria.
Salient Nonverbal Observations
kk
Facial expression of the husband
indicating resentment.
kl
The boy starts to move his toy and
some pieces over to the armrest
of his mothers armchair.
ll
lg
gk
h Interception
kk
h
S.- NON-VERBAL: Clear no with

movement of the head.
h
The boy approaches his parents

with his little car, sitting on the
floor very close to the armchairs where his parents are.
Looks intensely at his parents, after starts making noise, (although without raising his
voice at all) imitating the motor
of his car.
The boy increases the noise of

the motor and looks at his father, who returns the complacent look.
kk
Emphatically faces his parents
with a negation movement of
the head.
(Continued)
36
TABLE 2.5
(Continued)
Verbal Interaction
Relational Control
and Transacts
M.- Thats it, tell Maria that you

and she can play with your car.
h.i Parental Coalition
S.- Mom and Dad dont want to go

this year.
h.h Parallel
M.- We do want to go!

S.- NON-VERBAL: Negation with
exaggerated movement of the
hand and head.
F.- Of course we want to go.
S.- Are we going?
M.- Its just that we would also like
to do other things, the bike trip
we had planned, remember?
Salient Nonverbal Observations
kk
Exaggerated negation movement
with his hand and head.
h
h.i Parental coalition
kl
i
kg
The parents look at each other

and smile.
g
i.g Simple
h.h Parellel
F.- Right, remember the trip?

S.- Well, I told Grandfather about
the trip and he liked the idea.
M.- Really?
S.- Yeah
F.- We could go for two days, and

then from there we could go on
the bike trip and stop on our way
back to tell them how it went.
S.- Fine, Ill tell them!
M.- No, well tell them.
S.- I will, I will.

F.- No, we will, you heard your
mother, and now go to play
with Maria.
S.- NON-VERBAL: OBEYS
kl
lk
Both parents express surprise

and liking.
kk
The boy once again takes pieces
from his toy and begins to disassemble parts of the car.
kl
kl
kk
Very enthusiastic tone of voice,

does not stop touching the toy
pieces.
h
h.i Parental coalition
i
kl
Picks everything up and goes out
running toward the other room
where his sister is.
37
38
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
computerized system found to be particularly suited for observational research is The Observer Video-Pro instrument (Noldus, Trienes, Hendriksen,
Jansen, & Jansen, 2000). This system has a number of positive features,
such as, its compatibility with many video formats (digital as well as analog
videotapes), its efficacy in analyzing nonverbal aspects of interaction, and
its flexibility in transferring data to other analysis programs. The system
can be used to record, organize, analyze, and present observational data.
The Observer Video-Pro provides continuous time recording of the interaction and the versatility for combining different coding systems in the
same study. The system is capable of integrating specific software with
time codes and multimedia hardware components, which allow a researcher to edit, code, and revise coded messages and images of previously
recorded videotaped interactions. During the coding process, coders can
display the video image, the code categories, a timetable, and the VCR control functions, on separate windows on the computer screen. The software
summarizes the coding results in graphical and multimedia formats. For example, a time-event plot of the coded process can be easily created. Figure
2.1 shows the screen of the computer with the main application windows
during an observation session using the RCCCS.
This system not only facilitates but optimizes the options available for
coding relational communication, the training of coders, as well as, conducting quantitative and qualitative investigations. The inclusion of the recording of time that allows the synchronized coding of relational control
with other observation systems, including nonverbal communicative
codes, spatial or other contextual features, offers new possibilities in relational research.
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ASSESSMENT
The application of coding systems to study relational communication bears
a series of methodological questions common to all observation procedures of interaction. These questions include a number of interrelated issues, such as: To what extent does the analysis of interaction represent the
relational qualities of communication? Are the coded descriptions representative of the shared cultural meaning or perceptions of system members? Are the more subtle or ambiguous aspects of communication sufficiently taken into account? What degree of coder agreement is necessary to
indicate the reliability of a coding system? Are there ways of assessing if
the coding rules are consistently being applied? How does one demonstrate
the validity of a coding system for studying the theoretical domain of interest? Many of the questions concerning the reliability and validity of coding
procedures are addressed in the chapters describing the different research
programs in this volume. Our goal here is to provide a general discussion of
39
FIG. 2.1. The Observer Video-Pro computer screen during a coding session using the RCCCS.
the methodological issues involved in interactional research, by taking up

the reliability issues first, which lead into a discussion of validity.
Reliability
Measurement consistency is the fundamental issue underlying reliability.
Thus, for studies carried out using systematic observational procedures, re-
40
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
liability is based on the degree to which the same sample of communicational behavior analyzed independently by trained coders, using the same
coding system, will give similar results. Interaction coding rests on clear,
mutually exclusive, code category definitions and the application of a standardized set of coding rules. The reliability of a coding system is operationalized as the level of agreement among the coders in the application of the
system. Reliability assessments are typically carried out, both in the training process and during the investigation process. The agreement among
the observers has two requirements: first, that their agreement has a magnitude that guarantees that the observers interpret the coding rules in an
unambiguous and appropriate manner, and second, that the level of intercoder agreement remains stable over the coding process. That is, the
agreement level should not undergo fluctuations (reliability decay) during
the time the interaction samples are being coded for a study. Coder consistency is required for both the unit being coded and the application of the
code categories to these units. For systems in which the unit coded is
clearly identified, such as the speech turn in the case of relational control
coding, unitizing reliability is rarely problematic and typically results in a
high degree of coder reliability.
A statistical index frequently recommended in the literature on interaction analysis for computing the reliability of coder agreement (Bakeman &
Gottman, 1986) is Cohens kappa (1960). The kappa value represents the
agreement among observers relative to chance agreement estimated for
the data sample analyzed. Thus, kappa is a conservative estimate of reliability and is defined as:
kappa =
Po - Pc
1 - Pc
(1)
where Po is the agreement observed in the data and Pc is the chance agreement estimation for these data. Kappa varies from zero, indicating no agreement, to one, indicating perfect agreement. In general, kappa values between .60 and .75 are considered good, and values above .75 are judged as
excellent estimates of reliability (Fleiss, 1981). The chance agreement estimation depends on the number of observational categories of the system,
and on how the code frequencies are distributed among these categories.
For this reason, extra care must be taken in the interpretation of kappa
when there are only a few code categories and the simple probabilities of
the codes are skewed (Bakeman, McArthur, & Quera, 1996).
To illustrate the application of kappa, a matrix resulting from a comparison of the RCCCS coded results of independent observers coding each
speech turn in an interaction is shown in Table 2.6. For the relational coding
41
system, the computation of kappa is carried out on the separate or combined code categories identifying the speaker (FRCCCS also includes the
speakers direct and indirect target), the message format, and the response
mode of the message. It is also possible to compute a reliability estimate
based on the control direction of the messages, however in this case, the
caution concerning the use of fewer code categories must be recognized.
The research example given in Table 2.6, presents an agreement matrix on
which the computation of kappa is based, in this case, for the response
mode of the RCCCS. The intercoder frequencies on the diagonal indicate
coding agreement, while the frequencies off the diagonal indicate disagreements, as well as, the categories in which they occur. Similar matrices, but
considerably expanded, are used to compute kappa values for code combinations. As can be observed, the construction of agreement matrices provides a useful source of information for identifying particular coding difficulties and thus, for the training of coders.
These matrices also provide a basis for evaluating a coding system and/or
procedures in terms of the distribution of the observations across the code
categories. In the application of a coding scheme to different research settings, it may be the case that some categories are more frequently used in
some contexts and less so in others. This is not in itself necessarily problematic, rather it may reflect comparative behavior differences in different socialcultural contexts, or between different participants interaction within
the same setting. However, it may suggest a refinement of the coding procedures for identifying specific communication behaviors of interest within a
particular context. Nevertheless, even when the application of a coding system has been modified, the possibility remains that the distribution of the
coded behaviors may still be skewed. In these cases, if the researcher considers that certain disagreements or inconsistencies in the coding are more critical than others, there are adjustments in the computation of interobserver
reliability that can be applied, in particular, Cohens (1968) weighted kappa,
which specifies a procedure for weighting coded disagreements differently,
or Hawkins and Dotsons (1975) calculation, which focuses exclusively on the
occurrence or nonoccurrence of certain categories.
For carrying out observational research, coder reliability is an obvious
requirement, both in terms of the utility of the system and as a precondition for establishing the validity of the system. The relational control coding procedures have satisfactorily demonstrated intercoder reliability in
studies conducted over several decades based on different samples from
various interactional contexts, for example, in counseling (Lichtenberg &
Bark, 1981; Tracy & Miars, 1986), television dramas (Barbatsis, Wong, &
Herek, 1983), couple typologies (Fitzpatrick, 1983), school consultation
(Erchul, 1987), employment interviews (Tullar, 1989), teacher supervision
42
34
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Support
0
22
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
Nonsupport
4
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Extension
1
0
0
13
0
0
0
1
0
0
Answer
Observed agreement = 0.82; Chance agreement = .20; Kappa = .78.
Support
Nonsupport
Extension
Answer
Instruction
Order
Disconfirm.
Topic Change
Self-Instruction
Other
Coder A
0
2
1
0
7
1
0
0
1
0
Instruction
0
1
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
Order
Coder B
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Disconfirmation
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
Topic Change
TABLE 2.6
Example of Intercoders Agreement/Disagreement Matrix for RCCCS Response Mode Codes
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
Self-Instruction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
Other
43
(Brouillet & Deaudelin, 1994), medical settings (McNeilis & Thompson, 1995;
OHair, 1989), and in the marital, family and organizational settings reported
in this volume.
Validity
A reliability issue that overlaps with validity is intercoder assessment linking observer agreement with observer accuracy (Suen, 1988). This type of
assessment implies there is a correct standard by which to judge coder reliability, which in turn suggests that observer agreement should be based on
some real or true, infallible criteria. Obviously, such criteria do not exist. In reference to relational phenomena, there is no way of knowing, in an
absolute sense, their real or correct definition reflecting the notion that relational control is a theoretical construct. Establishing validity is, likewise, a
theoretical issue. Thus in assessing validity, rather than pose what is the
correct standard, the question becomes what are the appropriate standards by which to judge if an instrument, in this case observational coding,
measures what it claims to measure, or phrased differently, if a coding system appropriately identifies (i.e., empirically maps) the theoretical domain
under study.
Validation of a relational control measurement system involves the task
of examining to what extent the coding procedures, apart from being used
in a reliable way, identify the control aspect of relational communication in
a way that is logically consistent with its conceptual definition. The issue of
validity is closely related to the theoretical and epistemological perspective
from which the observation of communicational behavior is carried out.
Folger, Hewes, and Poole (1984) classified three observation modes that
have been helpful in clarifying issues of coding system validity: the experienced, experiencing, and experiencer modes.
From the experienced mode, the interaction is studied essentially from a
theoretical perspective; a lack of correspondence between the external observations and the individual perceptions of the participants is not equivalent to a lack of validity. From this perspective, the main goal is to demonstrate evidence for face and construct validity, as well as predictive validity.
The experiencing mode of observation is concerned with the correspondence between the descriptions obtained using a coding system and the culturally shared meaning of the construct being studied. From this point of
view, a coding system should be compared with the interpretation individuals, belonging to the same culture group to which the scheme is applied,
have of that interaction, thereby assessing the systems representational validity. And finally, from the experiencer mode, validity is related to the correspondence between the coding of the investigator and the participants idiosyncratic perceptions or intentions of the interaction behaviors. This
44
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
approach relies more heavily on the researchers interpretive skills than the
other two modes and is the most difficult for making validity claims.
The focus of relational communication, as seen from its theoretical foundations (chap. 1), is basically aligned with the experienced mode of observation. Even so, some authors consider representational validity (experiencing mode) as the fundamental criterion for relational communication
schemes (Folger et al., 1984; Folger & Poole, 1982). Although the development of the coding systems was clearly attentive to the commonly held
meanings of language use and how speech acts, the main purpose was to
sequentially capture how behavior means rather than what the performer
means (Scheflen, 1974) or intended to mean by their message behavior. The
relational perspective examines the systemic, contextual meaning of interaction patterns; with this theoretical focus, the interpretive meaning of message behavior of individual participants or cultural members, is relevant
and valuable information, but represents a different locus of meaning (Rogers & Millar, 1982). Both the relational study of the regulative meaning of
contextually configured transactional patterns and the meaning of communicative behaviors by language users are important, but as Folger et al.
(1984) indicated, all coding procedures are employed to provide insights
that step beyond subjects knowledge (p. 155).
A number of studies assessing the validity of relational coding have been
conducted including the early effort of Ayers and Miura (1981). These authors compared six coding procedures of relational communication, Sluzki
and Beavin (1965), Mark (1971), Rogers and Farace (1975), Ellis et al. (1976),
Folger and Sillars (1980) and Folger and Puck (1976), in a study designed to
examine the construct and predictive validity of these systems. For evaluating predictive validity, Ayers and Miura analyzed the ability of each coding
system to predict the classification of 29 dyads identified as compatible or
incompatible. The results showed that the RogersFarace system stood
out from the others in its capacity to discriminate between the compatible
and incompatible dyadic interactions through the coding of symmetrical exchanges. In another similar effort, Bohn and Bock (1980) used discriminant
analysis for evaluating the RogersFarace schemes ability to predict a different set of compatible and incompatible dyads. Besides the three types of
symmetrical exchanges, they also found additional transactional pattern
evidence supportive of systems predictive validity. Ayers and Miura, in
their assessment of construct validity, analyzed the convergence of the six
coding systems in their operationalization of basic relational constructs.
Based on the results, construct validity was demonstrated for all systems,
although this was evidenced more soundly for the coding of complementary interaction than for symmetrical interaction. An examination of
discriminant validity also found the coding systems better able to discriminate complementarity than symmetry.
45
ODonnell-Trujillo (1981) compared the RogersFarace system with the

Ellis et al. system. The correspondence of the two systems based on the distribution of the control codes was mixed, but with the code category and
coding procedure differences, the lack of correspondence was not unexpected. In comparison to the RogersFarace coding system, the Ellis et al.
system includes two types of one-up control and two types of one-down control, does not use double codes, nor grammatical format message codes, including talk-overs, among other differences. These prior know unitizing and
coding differences obviously contribute to the lack of comparability.
An additional set of research has been conducted for assessing the validity of the Rogers system (RCCCS) and the closely related Heatherington and
Friedlanders family relational coding system (FRCCCS). Among these investigations is a study by Heatherington (1988) who evaluated the representational validity of the RCCCS based on the experiencing mode described earlier. In a carefully constructed study, a total of 242 undergraduates forming
10 different groups listened to one of five audiotaped interactions designated as occurring between a husband and wife or a counselor and client.
Each group listened to an audiotape that contained a high proportion of
one of the five types of complementary (hi, ih) or symmetrical (hh, gg,
ii) patterns, intermixed with the four transitory patterns (gh, hg, gi,
ig), included in the interaction, but not as a prominent pattern. After listening to the tapes, the students rated the interactors actual and attempted influence, as well as the predominant relational pattern. The perceptions of the students were congruent with the interaction coding of the
RCCCS, except for the data related to the one-down/one-up complementary
interaction, based on a large number of questions and answers. This finding
motivated the modification included in the FRCCCS regarding the formatting of questions as open and closed, described earlier.
An investigation by Tracey and Miars (1986) of therapistclient interaction examined the validity of the RCCCS by comparing the dominance index
derived from this system based on the proportion of one-up/one-down complementary transacts, with another measure of dominance based on a pattern of topic initiation versus topic following (TI/TF). A moderate convergence was found between the two measures of dominance, however, the TI/
TF, topic determination measure, indicated that the therapist was more often in the control position than did the RCCCS measure.
In the context of brief psychotherapy, Beyebach and Escudero (1997)
compared the TI/TF (Tracey, 1988) coding procedures for indexing symmetry and complementarity and the coding procedures of the FRCCCS in an
analysis of the therapeutic interactions of clinical cases in which the client
continued or discontinued therapy. The TI/TF coding did not show relevant
interaction differences between the therapy sessions of clients who stayed
in therapy or those who dropped out of therapy. However, based on the re-
46
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
sults of the FRCCCS coding, theoretically congruent differences in the patterns of relational control were found between the two groups.
A further validation study by Gaul, Simon, Friedlander, Heatherington,
and Cutler (1991) compared the FRCCCS coding of two family therapy videotapes, constructed to include relevant triadic interaction sequences, with
the perceptions of 25 experienced family therapists. The results of the
study showed a significant correspondence between the therapists perceptions and the coding rules of the FRCCCS (for details, see chap. 6).
In addition to the studies that have directly examined issues of reliability
and validity of the relational control coding systems, there are other studies that have shown the predictive and/or discriminating ability of these
procedures, thus, providing indirect evidence on the validity of these coding systems. The research reviewed in later chapters of this volume reflect
the capacity of the RCCCS and the FRCCCS to discrimination between different types of interaction systems (clinical and nonclinical couples, organic
and mechanistic organizations, etc.). Overall, substantial evidence of validity has been obtained.
CONCLUSION
In tracing the evolution of the coding systems for observing relational communication, the influence of the operational approach of Sluzki and Beavin
(1965) is clearly evident. Building off this original work, later coding systems have progressively refined and expanded our ability to tap more complex aspects of the interactive processes of communication. Furthermore,
the established reliability and validity of these observational procedures
give credence to the utility of this approach for capturing the relational
qualities of interaction. Hopefully, the descriptions and illustrated applications of these coding procedures have demonstrated and given life to how
these patterned qualities come into being in the ongoing, mutual adaptations of relational members to one another.
REFERENCES
Ayers, J., & Miura, S. Y. (1981). Construct and predictive validity of instruments for coding relational control. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 159171.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman, R., McArthur, D., & Quera, V. (1996). Detecting group differences in sequential association using sampled permutations: Log odds, kappa, and phi compared. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 446457.
47
Barbatsis, G. S., Wong, M. R., & Herek, G. M. (1983). A struggle for dominance: Relational communication patterns in television drama. Communication Quarterly, 31, 148155.
Bateson, G. (1958). Naven (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Beyebach, M., & Escudero, V. (1997). Therapeutic interaction and dropout: Measuring relational
communication in solution-focused therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 19, 173212.
Bohn, E., & Bock, D. G. (1980, November). A study of the predictive validity of the relational control
paradigm. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association convention, New
York, NY.
Brouillet, M., & Deaudelin, C. (1994). tude cosystmique dun entretien de supervision de
stage [Ecosystemic analysis of a supervisory practice meeting]. Revue des Sciences de
lducation, 20, 443466.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 3746.
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa nominal scale agreement with provisions for scales disagreement of partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213220.
Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1980). Message control intensity as a predictor of
transactional redundancy. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 199216). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1983). A new measure of interactional control patterns. Communication, 12, 4768.
Ellis, D., Fisher, B. A., Drecksel, G. L., Hoch, D., & Werbel, W. (1976). A system for analyzing relational communication. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Erchul, W. P. (1987). A relational communication analysis of control in school consultation. Professional School Psychology, 2, 113124.
Ericson, P. M., & Rogers, L. E. (1973). New procedures for analyzing relational communication.
Family Process, 12, 245267.
Escudero, V., Lpez, S., & Platas, L. (1998). Discusiones familiares en el hogar: Los nios en el
contexto de la rivalidad y el conflicto [Everyday family discussions: Children in a context of
competition and conflict]. In J. A. Ros (Ed.), El malestar en la familia (pp. 5186). Madrid: Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramn Areces.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1990). Supplemental coding rules and modification of the relational control coding
scheme. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1983). Predicting couples communication from couples self-reports. In R. N.
Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 4982). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.
Folger, J. P., Hewes, D., & Poole, M. S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In B. Dervin & M. Voight
(Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (pp. 115161). New York: Ablex.
Folger, J. P., & Poole, M. S. (1982). Relational coding schemes: The question of validity. In M.
Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 235247). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Folger, J. P., & Puck, S. (1976, April). Coding relational communication: A question approach. Paper
presented at the International Communication Association convention, Portland, OR.
Folger, J. P., & Sillars, A. (1980). Relational coding and perceptions of dominance. In B. Morse & L.
Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal communication: A relational perspective (pp. 322333). Minneapolis: Burgess.
Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Wildman, J. (1991). Interpersonal control in structural
and Milan systemic family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 395408.
Gaul, R., Simon, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Cutler, C. (1991). Correspondence of
family therapists perceptions with the FRCCCS coding rules for triadic interactions. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 379394.
Haley. J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton.
48
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
Hawkins, R. P., & Dotson, V. A. (1975). Reliability scores that deluce: An Alice in Wonderland trip
of the misleading characteristics of interobserver agreement scores in interval recording. In
E. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior analysis: Areas of research and application (pp. 359376).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heatherington, L. (1988). Coding relational control in counseling: Criterion validity. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 35, 4146.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family Relational Communication Control Coding
System. Unpublished manuscript, Williams College, Williamstown, MA.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990a). Applying task analysis to structural family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 3648.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990b). Complementarity and symmetry in family therapy communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 261286.
Holte, A., Wichstrom, L., Erno, K. O., & Kveseth, K. (1987). Confirmatory feedback in families of
schizophrenics: Theory, methods, and preliminary results. In K. Hahlweg & M. J. Goldstein
(Eds.), Understanding mental disorder: The contribution of the family (pp. 139155). New York:
Family Process Publishing.
Lichtenberg, J. W., & Bark, K. H. (1981). Investigation of transactional communication relationship patterns in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 471480.
Mark, R. A. (1971). Coding communication at the relational level. Journal of Communication, 21,
221232.
McNeilis, K. S., & Thompson, T. L. (1995). The impact of relational control on patient compliance
in dentist/patient interactions. In G. Kreps & D. OHair (Eds.), Communication and health outcomes (pp. 5772). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Noldus, P. J. J. L., Trienes, R. J. H., Hendriksen, A. H. M., Jansen, H., & Jansen, R. G. (2000). The Observer Video-Pro: New software for the collection, management, and presentation of timestructured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 197206.
ODonnell-Trujillo, N. (1981). Relational communication: A comparison of coding schemes. Communication Monographs, 48, 91105.
OHair, D. (1989). Dimensions of relational communication and control during physician-patient
interactions. Health Communication, 2, 97115.
Rogers, L. E. (1972a). Dyadic systems and transactional communication in a family context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Rogers, L. E. (1972b). Relational Communication Control Coding System. Unpublished manual.
(Available from L. Edna Rogers, Department of Communication, 255 S. Central Campus Drive,
Rm 2400, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112)
Rogers, L. E., Courtright, J. A., & Millar, F. E. (1980). Message control intensity: Rationale and preliminary findings. Communication Monographs, 47, 201219.
Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: A transactional view.
Human Communication Research, 5, 238246.
Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1982). The question of validity: A pragmatic response. In M. Burgoon
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 249257). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Scheflen, A. E. (1974). How behavior means. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Siegel, S. M., Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1992). Nonverbal relational control in family
communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 117139.
Sluzki, C., & Beavin, J. (1965). Simetra y Complementariedad: Una definicin operacional y una
tipologa de diadas [Symmetry and complementarity: An operational definition and a typology of dyads]. Acta psiquitrica y psicolgica de America Latina, 11, 321330.
Sluzki, C., & Beavin, J. (1977). Symmetry and complementarity: An operational definition and a
typology of dyads. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds. & Trans.), The interactional view (pp.
49
7187). New York: Norton. (Reprinted from Acta psiquitrica y psicolgica de America Latina,
1965, 11, 321330)
Suen, H. K. (1988). Agreement, reliability, accuracy, and validity: Toward a clarification. Behavioral Assessment, 10, 343366.
Tracey, T. J. (1988). Topic following/not following as a measure of complementary/symmetrical
communication. Journal of Communication Therapy, 4, 3757.
Tracey, T. J., & Miars, R. D. (1986). Interpersonal control in psychotherapy: A comparison of two
definitions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 585595.
Tullar, W. L. (1989). Relational control in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 971977.
Wichstrom, L., & Holte, A. (1988). The relationship control coding system manual. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New
York: Norton.
C H A P T E R
3
Analyzing Relational
Communication
Valentn Escudero
L. Edna Rogers
University of Utah
To explore patterns of relational communication, it is obviously important

to use analytical procedures that are not at odds with the theoretical paradigm of this approach. In other words, it would not make sense to theorize
that the relationship is the focus of relational communication, and then proceed to base the analysis solely on individual behavior. Although this type
of information may add to the overall analysis, the primary objective is to
study sequentially patterned interaction (Rogers, Millar, & Bavelas, 1985).
Thus, this chapter focuses on analytical techniques that enable us to examine the emergent structure and pattern of interpersonal relationships. We
begin with an introductory description of pattern identification, followed by
a detailed discussion of relational communication data analysis procedures
and illustrative research examples.
A basic understanding of these procedures is relatively simple if we start
by describing the type of relational information obtained from our observations. Any behavior emitted by one interactor in an interpersonal context
can potentially affect the subsequent behavior of the other interactor and
at the same time be affected by the others preceding behavior. In a situation where a given behavior limits the response options of the other it is
easier to predict what the response will be. For example, if a person gives
what is considered an appropriately expressed order, a likely response is
that the other person will obey this order. When this sequence is highly
probable within a relationship, that is, when it is relatively easy to predict
that a message giving an order tends to be followed by compliance, the con51
52
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
junction of these two behaviors (an ordercompliance interchange) offers

specific relational information. Based on this type of information, the interactors relationship can be characterized and defined in terms of the sequential association of their interactive exchange of behaviors. The identification of pattern does not imply a causal relationship between the
observed behaviors, but a probabilistic one.
Although it may be the case that certain behaviors are more likely to follow other behaviors in a given interpersonal setting, it is also possible to
find other behaviors that are not sequentially associated with any type of
preceding behavior. In other words, the occurrence of a given behavior
does not tend to vary as a function of prior, antecedent behaviors. With this
type of interchange, the relational information obtained from the study of
observed behaviors is obviously different than in the previous situation.
For instance, one may find that the probability of a compliant response of
one person, following an order given by another, does not deviate from the
probability of responding with compliance to any other type of prior behavior (instruction, request, suggestion, etc.). The result does not differ, then,
from what is termed unconditional probability, or from a randomly expected compliant response. The relational information, in this case, indicates that an ordercompliance pattern of complementarity, is not a defining characteristic of the relationship.
Based on these considerations, Gottman (1979) defined relational information in terms of probability estimates, such that a specific behavior of an
interactor provides relational information if it reduces the uncertainty of
the behavior of the other person. More specifically, the probability of a behavior following the behavior given in a previous speech turn (or lag), is referred to as the transitional probability. If for instance, the behavior of a wife,
categorized as one-up (h), has a greater probability of occurrence when it is
preceded by a one-up (h) behavior by her husband than when it is not preceded by this behavior, a type of constriction in the interactional sequence
is observed. In this case, the constriction provides information regarding
the symmetrical (hh), competitive nature of the relationship.
Thus, event-based transitional probabilities provide an operational identification of pattern based on the detection of sequential association, such
that the probability of a given behavior of one member increases significantly (with respect to the unconditional probability) when preceded by a
particular behavior by the other member. However, in applying this approach, a series of conditions need to be taken into account for identifying
a pattern as being relevant (i.e., significant) rather than a randomly occurring event. These conditions are related to the system of codification used,
the number of behaviors observed, and the manner in which the sequential
dependence of these behaviors is computed. Of the available research options, the analytical approach taken here utilizes a set of procedures de-
3. ANALYZING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION
53
signed by Bakeman and Quera (1995a) that are particularly well suited for
describing the sequential association of relational communication message
codes and conducting different types of comparative analysis.
Before taking up these procedures, two general issues are noted regarding the analysis of relational communication. First, as described in the previous chapter, the database consists of coded accounts of message behavior derived from the perspective of trained, external observers. Thus, the
analysis and the interpretation of relational patterns rest on and are limited
to an outsider view of the communication behaviors as seen through the
lens of the relational coding system. Second, appropriate interpretations of
the relational information recognize that certain patterned results may be
associated with particular interaction contexts and not others. For example, a competitive pattern might characterize the participants discussions
in one context, and not be characteristic of other areas of discussion. Unless the research is designed to compare interaction patterns across different communication or relational contexts, caution needs to be taken to not
overgeneralize the results beyond the interpretative boundaries of the research. Given these considerations, we turn to a description of relational
communication data analysis procedures. These analytical procedures represent a relatively straightforward, progressive set of methods that are described, step by step, from the recording of codified behaviors to the types
of analysis that allow us to answer questions about complex interaction
patterns.
FIRST STEP: THE REPRESENTATION OF

RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION SEQUENCES
As previously discussed, the operationalization of relational communication is based on coding each speech turn according to the format and response mode categories in terms of their function within the relational context created by the preceding message. The possibility of a speech turn
being double coded was also indicated. With this coding system, interaction sequences are typically represented as chains of message codes recorded in the sequential order in which they occur. There are, however, a
number of different ways of representing interactional events. An important
methodological consideration is to establish a standardized system for
clearly delineating the alternative forms for recording the sequential data
used in interaction research. This type of standardization facilitates the
clarification and comparison of studies by different researchers in different
contexts, and thus, the potential synthesis of research results.
A proposal for meeting these concerns is the Sequential Data Interchange Standard (SDIS), a system developed by Bakeman and Quera (1992)
54
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
for formatting different forms of sequential data. The usefulness of SDIS is

reinforced by the fact that the language for representing different types of
code sequences is coordinated with a computer program, the Generalized
Sequential Querier (GSEQ; Bakeman & Quera, 1995a), which allows for the
analysis of sequential data (expressed in SDIS) that is flexible, efficient, and
easy to use With this approach, interaction sequences can be expressed in
one of the following five modalities:
1. Event Sequences. This modality refers to sequences that consist of a
series of codes that are recorded in the order of occurrence; the behavioral
codes are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but the duration of the events
are not taken into account. This form is usually used in recording relational
control codes based on the RCCCS in which each speech turn is considered
a coded event independent of the time length of each event.
2. Multievent Sequences. Behavioral sequences can also be represented as multievents when various events occur simultaneously. For example, the three RCCCS types of code categories can be represented in a
multievent format with the speaker, format, and relational response codes
occurring simultaneously in each speech turn.
3. State Sequences. With this modality one or a series of categories that
represent behavioral states and the transition from one state to another are
recorded according to the onset and offset of the coded behavioral states.
This mode has rarely been used in the analysis of relational communication
since the definition of relational control is based on verbal interchange
codings characterized as discrete events constituting the dialogue.
4. Timed Event Sequences. In this format, the events are represented
with the duration or time of momentary occurrence by either the onset, or
onsetoffset recorded times of each event. The categorized events do not
need to be mutually exclusive, and importantly, this format allows the analysis of different, co-occurring types of behavioral codes. Although this modality has been infrequently used in relational communication research, it
opens up the possibility for more comprehensive, integrated forms of analysis in future research. An example of this modality is the combined interaction analysis of relational control and nonverbal affect (Escudero, Rogers, & Gutirrez, 1997). This type of sequential representation, however,
requires the use of an electronic time recording system such as The Observer Video-Pro system described in chapter 2.
5. Interval Sequences. This format is based on a series of successive
timed intervals to which one or more codes are assigned. The time sampling procedure for this mode is not readily compatible with the opera-
55
tionalization of relational control by RCCCS or FRCCCS, because these coding systems use the context of the message or chain of previous messages
as the principal reference point.
Given the different sequential modalities, the first step in the analysis of
relational communication is to identify the type of representation of the recorded data. For example, the format may be based on the three codes representing the speaker, message format, and response mode categories as
multievents or the transformation of the these codes into control direction
codes. Figure 3.1 shows the data file of a sampled interaction between a
mother (MO) and her adolescent daughter (DA) represented as multievent
sequences in the SDIS format, with the separation of the speech turns indicated with a dot. For each speech turn, the three types of observations
coded by the FRCCCS are simultaneously categorized according to the
speaker, format, and response mode. Obviously, the codes could also be
represented as single events; for example, MOASRSUP would represent a
speech turn with the mother (MO) expressing an assertive (ASR), support
(SUP) message. Note, this motherdaughter example is used to illustrate
the data analysis procedures throughout the chapter. The use of a single
dyad is only for the purpose of simplifying these presentations; a full scale
research study would obviously be based on a larger sample of relationships (dyads or groups) and more extended sets of interaction data for
each of the units studied.
The inclusion of event time, as suggested earlier, provides a more complete representation of the interaction; it not only allows the concurrent
coding of different aspects of the communication process, but also ideographic descriptions of interaction patterns as well as different group comparison designs. And if desired, time data can easily be converted to discrete events automatically with current data processing programs. Figure
3.2 presents the same motherdaughter data as in Fig. 3.1, but transformed
into the FRCCCS relational control direction codes, with the initial time for
each speech turn indicated in the SDIS format.
SECOND STEP: INFORMATION BASED
ON THE SIMPLE FREQUENCY OF BEHAVIORS
Although the relational focus is based on the notion of sequence, it is often
informative to base a first analysis on the observed frequency of individual
relational control codes. As an example of this type of information, Table
3.1 presents a comparison of selected types of one-up messages of the
mother and daughter and the average control intensity of these messages.
As observed, the daughter gives off nonsupport and disconfirming messages, while the mother uses three regulative types of one-up messages (order and instruction) plus disapproving (nonsupport) messages. In accor-
FIG. 3.1. Example of a SDIS file representing relational control interaction as

multievent sequences.
FIG. 3.2. Example of a SDIS file representing relational control codes with onset and offset times.
56
57

TABLE 3.1
Frequency and Control Intensity for Selected Types
of One-Up Messages of Mother and Daughter
High Intensity One-Up Control Codes
Frequency
Mother Disconfirmation
Mother Order
Mother Instructions
Mother Nonsupport
Mothers Control Intensity Average
0
1
2
7
28.00
Daughter Disconfirmation
Daughter Order
Daughter Instructions
Daughter Nonsupport
Daughters Control Intensity Average
3
0
0
8
31.27
dance with the measure of control intensity (Rogers, Courtright, & Millar,
1980), the one-up control style of the daughter is slightly more intense than
that of her mother.
A common objective in much of the research on relational communication is the comparison of relational control differences between groups, for
example, between clinical and nonclinical couples engaged in similar types
of discussions (Escudero et al., 1997), or the control behaviors of therapists
and clients during therapy sessions (Beyebach & Escudero, 1997). In general, when those comparisons are based on the frequencies of individual
control codes, standard parametric tests (e.g., t tests or analysis of variance) are adequate if the usual parametric precautions, such as the normal
distribution of scores, are taken into account.
The simple estimation of the relative frequency of the three types of control directions defined by the RCCCS, provides indexes that have been of
utility in different kinds of research (Millar & Rogers, 1987; Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983; Rogers-Millar & Millar, 1979). One of these indexes, labeled domineeringness, is based on the number of one-up attempts by an interactor to
assert control in a relationship. The calculation of domineeringness is simply the relative frequency of a participants one-up (h) messages (i.e., the
number of one-up messages of an interactor with respect to total number of
messages emitted by that interactor in the interaction sample analyzed). In
the same way the relative frequency of one-down (i) behaviors provides an
index of submissiveness, and the relative frequency of the one-across (g)
behaviors, an index of neutrality or levelingness. Thus, based on these
measures of relative frequency, interactors can be compared in different
situations, contexts, or groups.
An initial question concerning these indices of relational control is:
What is the relationship between the domineeringness of an interactor
58
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
and receiving an accepting, submissive response from the other interactor? This question leads to relating the frequency with which an interactor
displays one-up behaviors with the frequency with which these behaviors
are sequentially followed by submissive one-down behaviors. The pattern
of one-up/one-down complementarity represents this type of interchange
in which domineering behavior (h) is associated with an acceptance/approval response (i). This interactional index is referred to as dominance
(hi). Domineeringness and dominance are independent indexes; each represents a different level of description, monadic, and dyadic. Table 3.2
shows how domineeringness and dominance are computed based on the
motherdaughter interaction. In this example, although a third of the
mothers messages are one-up, none are followed by a submissive response. For the daughter, a clear difference is noted; more than half of her
messages are one-up, with almost half receiving a one-down response by
the mother.
Taking into account the time duration of the messages exchanged provides another of the possible ways of describing and comparing the communicative behaviors of the individual participants of an interaction. With
the use of an automated time registration instrument, a researcher can
track the time duration of each speech turn allowing an expanded description of the interactors message control behavior. Computer programs of
sequential analysis such as the General Sequential Querier (GSEQ; Bakeman & Quera, 1995a) automatically provide the type of information shown
in Table 3.3. Along with the frequency and duration of each control category, this table includes information on the relative frequency and rate (frequency in relation to unit of time), relative duration (with respect to total
time of recorded interaction), and the average duration of each type of control message. For example, with this type of information, we see that although one-across messages are low in occurrence, their average duration
is much greater than that of one-up or one-down messages, and that the
mean duration of the mothers messages is greater than that of the messages of the daughter.
TABLE 3.2
Domineeringness and Dominance for MotherDaughter Interaction
Mothers Domineeringness
(relative frequency of MOk)
Mothers Dominance
(probability of DAl, given MOk)
Daughters Domineeringness
(relative frequency of DAk)
Daughters Dominance
(probability of MOl, given DAk)
.34
.00
.53
.46
59

TABLE 3.3
Frequency and Time Measures for the MotherDaughter Interaction
RELControl Codes
MOh
MOi
MOg
DAh
DAi
DAg
Frequency
Relative
Frequency
Rate
Duration
(seconds)
Relative
Duration
Average
Duration
10
14
5
15
6
8
.17
.24
.08
.26
.10
.14
.42
.58
.21
.63
.25
.33
215
243
534
121
31
290
.15
.17
.37
.08
.02
.20
21.50
17.36
106.80
8.07
5.17
36.25
THIRD STEP: EXAMINING THE EXISTENCE

OF RELATIONAL STRUCTURE
Although indices based on individual codes offer basic, and often relevant
information, with this step we move increasingly toward the analysis of interaction sequences, beginning with transactional interchanges. The first
step in analyzing these interchanges is to compose transition tables based
on the control direction of the behaviors observed. The observations recorded in the motherdaughter interaction example (Fig. 3.2) can be organized in terms of two types of transition tables, depending on whether or not
the speaker order of contiguous messages is taken into account. Table 3.4
represents all types of sequential interchange without considering the
speaker designation of the interactors.
When the speaking order of the interactors is of interest, the table entries are organized by the antecedent (prior) or consequent (subsequent)
position of each interactor at the moment their behaviors are recorded.
Therefore, to explore the types of interchange between the mother and
daughter based on speaker order, two tables are composed, one with the
mother in the antecedent position as show in Table 3.5, and one with the
daughter in this position as presented in Table 3.6.
TABLE 3.4
Contingency Table for Relational Control Codes
Consequent
Antecedent
One-up (h)
One-down (h)
One-across (g)
Totals
One-Up (h)
One-Down (i)
One-Across (g)
Totals
15
7
2
24
7
8
5
20
3
4
6
13
25
19
13
57
60
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

TABLE 3.5
Contingency Table for Relational Control With Mother
as Antecedent and Daughter as Consequent Speaker
Consequent
Antecedent
Mother One-up (h)
Mother One-down (h)
Mother One-across (g)
Totals
Daughter
One-Up (h)
Daughter
One-Down (i)
Daughter
One-Across (g)
Totals
9
6
0
15
0
4
2
6
1
4
3
8
10
14
5
29
TABLE 3.6
Contingency Table for Relational Control With Daughter
as Antecedent and Mother as Consequent Speaker
Consequent
Antecedent
Daughter One-up (h)
Daughter One-down (h)
Daughter One-across (g)
Totals
Mother
One-Up (h)
Mother
One-Down (i)
Mother
One-Across (g)
Totals
6
1
2
9
7
4
3
14
2
0
3
5
15
5
8
28
In examining these tables, the first question concerns whether or not sequential association exist in the table. For example, does the relational response of the daughter tend to vary depending on the previous relational
message of her mother? If we find that the behavior of relational control of
the daughter is associated with the control behavior of the mother, we can
state that for this interaction, relational structure exists. Once an association is established, the specific patterns of relational control that are responsible for or characteristic of this structure can be examined. We are
also able to compare these patterns in different contexts in order to test
specific research hypotheses.
An appropriate statistical method used to test the global existence of association between antecedent and consequent relational control behaviors
in the interaction is Pearsons chi-square statistic. For the analysis of contingency tables like those of our example, this statistical test indicates if a
significant association exists between the behaviors represented in the
rows and the behaviors represented in the columns. Thus, with the analysis
based on the whole table, this statistic is defined as:
2 =
[f (i , j ) fexp (i , j )] 2
fexp (i , j )
61
(1)
Although chi-square offers an estimate of the sequential association and

therefore, evidence of relational structure, a note of caution is needed in interpreting the resulting degree of association, as this value increases with
an increasing sample size (total number of recorded codes). Another important aspect to keep in mind is that the calculation of chi-square is based
on an estimation of the expected frequencies (fexp) of the contingency table
studied. These expected frequencies are estimated from the marginal frequencies of the table, assuming no association between rows and columns.
When the codes can be repeated sequentially, the expected frequencies are
defined as:
fexp (i , j ) =
f ( j)
f ( j )f (i )
f (i ) =
N
N
(2)
When it is not possible for two similar codes to be recorded consecutively,

a procedure called iterative proportional fitting (Bakeman & Quera,
1995b) can be used. However, the tables commonly produced with the relational control coding procedures (as shown in Tables 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6) are
based on repeatable codes (a one-up code, for example, can follow another
one-up code).
It is also the case that the confidence in the chi-square value is not sufficient when working with data tables that result in many, very low-expected
frequencies. For this reason, it is helpful when exploring relational structure with this type of analysis, to use a program that readily provides the
expected frequencies or the proportion of expected frequencies of low
value. Also note, it is recommended that a similar statistic, the LikelihoodRatio Chi-square, G2 (available in the GSEQ program) be utilized with tables
containing more than two dimensions and as well, with log-linear analysis.
To return to our example, the results of analyzing the sequential association in Tables 3.5 and 3.6, are given in Table 3.7. Here we observe that a significant relational structure exists only in the interaction with the mother as
antecedent and the daughter as consequent. The p value is .328 for the
daughtermother interactions, but the p value approaches zero, .016, for
the motherdaughter interactions. These results indicate that the relational
structure is in one direction (i.e., the relational control behavior of the
daughter tends to change as a function of the type of control of the
mother). In other words, the findings suggest a unidirectional dependence.
If an association had been found with either the mother or the daughter as
62
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

TABLE 3.7
Results of Testing Relational Structure
Pearsons Chi-Square Result for the

Interaction DaughtergMother
Pearsons Chi-Square Result for the

Interaction MothergDaughter
Pearsons Chi-square
Degrees of freedom
Approximate p value
Pearsons Chi-square
Degrees of freedom
Approximate p value
= 4.621
=4
= 0.328
(Expected frequencies < 5 = 88.9%)
= 12.052
=4
= 0.016
(Expected frequencies < 5 = 77.8%)
antecedents, it would indicate a bidirectional dependence. For this example

(as shown in Table 3.7), there is a high percentage of very low-expected frequencies which, other than for illustrative purposes, would caution against
making inferences about significance. As noted earlier, most relational control analyses are based on many more observations than in the mother
daughter example and thus, are typically not subject to the limitations of a
small database.
FOURTH STEP: ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC
RELATIONAL PATTERNS
Generally, studies in relational communication involve research questions
related to specific control patterns. For example, it has been observed in
studies of clinical couples their discussions of conflict are characterized by
a pattern of competitive symmetrical interaction. In this case, in a table consisting of the possible dyadic interchanges, the cell corresponding to the
one-up/one-up (hh) interchange is central. To test if the frequency of this or
other cells of interest in a contingency table are significant, an index referred to as Adjusted Residual (Bakeman & Quera, 1995a; Haberman, 1978)
can be used. It is defined as:
zij =
f (i , j ) fexp (i , j )
(3)
fexp (i , j )[1 p( j )][1 p(i )]
The adjusted residuals are a normalized version of the difference that exists
between the observed and expected transition frequencies. Therefore, they
indicate if the consequent behavior is influenced significantly by the antecedent behavior. But it must be recognized that computing the adjusted residuals makes sense only when the results of the chi-square indicate that sequential association exists in a table overall. The adjusted residuals for the
motherdaughter interaction with the control messages of the mother taken
as antecedent to the daughters response are given in Table 3.8.
63

TABLE 3.8
Adjusted Residuals for MotherDaughter Interaction
Consequent
Antecedent
Mother One-up (h)
Mother One-down (h)
Mother One-across (g)
Daughter
One-Up (h)
Daughter
One-Down (i)
Daughter
One-Across (g)
2.99
-0.92
-2.54
-2.00
1.01
1.17
-1.54
0.11
1.78
Adjusted residuals can have a positive or negative sign. Using a significance level of p < .05, adjusted residual values greater or equal to +1.96 indicate that the consequent behavior is activated by the antecedent behavior;
values below or equal to -1.96 indicate that the consequent behavior is inhibited by the antecedent behavior. The results in Table 3.8 show that the
one-up behaviors of the mother are significantly associated with the daughters one-up behavior, thus, evidencing a pattern of competitive symmetry
(Mh,Dh). We also observe that the mothers one-up behaviors not only activate competitive behavior by the daughter, but they also inhibit the daughters submissive, one-down (i) behaviors. Furthermore, the mothers oneacross messages (g) inhibit the daughters one-up (h) messages.
As with all statistical tests, certain conditions need to be met for the appropriate application of this form of analysis and the interpretation of the
results. The normal approximation of the adjusted residuals can not be met
when the transition tables are based on a small sample of recorded codes
or an unbalanced sample of codes with very high frequencies of some
codes and low frequencies of others. It is indispensable that the characteristics of the transition tables be clearly recognized before interpreting statistical significance. The GSEQ program for carrying out this analysis indicates which of the adjusted residuals do not meet the conditions for a
normal approximation. In the case of the example used here, the sample is
too small for the adjusted residuals to meet the conditions described; but it
is used to serve as an illustrate of this type of analysis.
For exploring relational structure, a more typical analysis of the relational
control transition table involves carrying out statistical comparisons based
on the nine relational control transactions (even more if we analyze interchanges on the basis of the response mode codes). A useful recommendation
when facing the possibility of finding significant results by chance (Type I error) is to apply the correction of Bonferroni to reduce the probability of this
type of error. It consists of dividing the conventional alpha level of .05 by the
number of comparisons. In a typical table of relational control (9 cells) this
correction requires the use of a .005 level for each cell.
64
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
Nonetheless, it seems especially advisable to approach the analysis of

these contingency tables in a systematic manner due to the fact that the relational patterns (represented in the different cells of the table) are interrelated. Quera and Bakeman (1999) described a procedure referred to as the
winnowing technique, developed on the basis of a number of different
contributions (Brown, 1974; Bakeman & Quera, 1995b; Bakeman, Robinson,
& Quera, 1996). In general terms, the winnowing technique consists of extracting one by one the statistically significant adjusted residuals from the
contingency table, substituting them with structural zeros (a zero assigned
to the table cell in order to test its effect on the analysis of the table overall)
and analyzing the modified tables until the chi-square statistic of the table
is not significant. By means of this procedure, one can detect the interaction patterns that have significant adjusted residuals and that are independent of each other.
The technique proposed by Quera and Bakeman (1999) eliminates cells
from the contingency table as a function of the absolute value of Habermans (1978) adjusted residuals found at the time of starting the winnowing
process. With this analysis, the cells that with every winnowing step go
from having a significant residual to a nonsignificant one in the following
step are identified, thereby indicating the relationship of these changes in
significance with the cells eliminated in each step. This technique considers
all the redundancies, and thus, allows one to correctly detect the relevant,
independent interaction patterns. It further allows the detection of patterns
that are redundant with respect to a particular pattern that one is interested in analyzing. Accordingly, the winnowing process can begin with the
cell with the greatest residual magnitude, or with a cell of particular interest for identifying relevant transactional patterns.
By applying the winnowing technique to the table of adjusted residuals
(Table 3.8) for the motherdaughter example, it is observed as shown in Table 3.9, that only the pattern of competitive symmetry is relevant in terms
of this interaction sample. In line with this technique, once the competitive
symmetrical (hh) cell is substituted with a structural zero, the analysis of
the resulting table does not show any further significant relational structure. The adjusted residuals of the other transactional patterns and the resulting chi-square value are given in Table 3.9.
FIFTH STEP: THE COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN GROUPS
Apart from examining the relational structure of an interpersonal system
and analyzing specific interaction patterns, an investigator is often interested in comparing the communication patterns of different types of groups
65

TABLE 3.9
Results of the Winnowing Analysis
WINNOWING STEP 1:
*Zeroed cell: 1 1
XSQ(3) = 4.04541
GSQ(3) = 5.87841
Given: MOup
p = 0.255
p = 0.115
Target: DAup
ADJUSTED RESIDUALS:
MOup
MOdown
MOacross
DAup
0.00*
1.64
-1.73
DAdown
-0.80
-0.11
0.61
DAacross
0.75
-1.48
1.11
using parametric analyses. The investigation of the relational control differences of clinical and nonclinical couples by Escudero et al. (1997) is representative of this type of analysis.
A common procedure used to conduct a study of this type consists of
the following set of procedures:
1. analyzing each couple (or study unit) for the existence of relational
structure,
2. analyzing each couple for the significance of specific patterns of relational control (for instance, if competitive symmetry or one-down
complementarity are activated or inhibited), and
3. carrying out parametric analyses to compare the specific patterns between groups.
An important consideration if one opts to use these analytical procedures is that the indices described earlier (i.e., the transition probability or
the adjusted residuals) are not appropriate scores for carrying out parametric analyses. Although the adjusted residuals can be useful for detecting
significant interaction patterns in a contingency table (one in which the existence of relational structure has previously been detected), these indexes
are affected by the size of the sample, that is, by the number of observations recorded in a sequential contingency table (Morley, 1987; Wampold,
1992). Thus, adjusted residuals can only be used as appropriate scores for a
parametric analysis when each dyad or interpersonal system included in
the analysis have the same number of recorded observations. Bakeman,
McArthur, and Quera (1996), as well as Yoder and Feurer (2000) examined
and compared the results of different indexes of sequential association,
specifically the Odds Ratio, Yules Q, Kappa, and Phi, which in contrast to
adjusted residuals, are not affected by the size of the sample. With the ex-
66
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
ception of a few disadvantages of the transformed kappa (Wampold, 1989),

the other indexes offered only subtle differences.
These indexes are applicable for 2 2 tables, hence, a prior operation to
computing these indexes of sequential association is the transformation of
the contingency tables into 2 2 tables. The procedure for collapsing a typical table obtained from the RCCCS is a simple one, as illustrated in the following example. For the MotherhDaughterh pattern, the 3 3 table presented in Table 3.5 can be broken down into the 2 2 table shown in Table
3.10, with the letters A, B, C, and D indicating the four resulting cells.
The Phi coefficient, suggested initially by Morley (1987) as a sequential
association index, is a common index for 2 2 tables that corresponds to
the Pearson correlation coefficient computed for binary coded data (occurrence or nonoccurrence of the code). Phi can vary between -1 and +1; the
extreme positive and negative values are the maximum association of activation and inhibition, respectively, with zero indicating there is no association. In the research mentioned earlier (Escudero et al., 1997), phi was used
as an index in the sequential analyses of relational communication patterns
for carrying out parametric comparisons between clinical and nonclinical
couples. Recognize, however, the use of this coefficient is inappropriate
when analyzing tables in which the total frequencies of rows and columns
are disproportionate. This disproportionality affects the maximum value
possible for phi, independent of the magnitude of the association between
the analyzed behaviors (Cureton, 1959; Yoder & Feurer, 2000). Therefore, in
comparing dyads or groups (e.g., couples or families) based on disproportionate tables of data, it may be the case that similar sequential associations will produce different phi values.
Of the four indexes examined, Yules Q appears to be the most recommended (Bakeman et al., 1996; Yoder & Feurer, 2000). This index is derived
from the Odds Ratio, but is easier to interpret. As with phi, Yules Q has a
minimum value of -1, which represents the greatest inhibitory type of sequential association and a maximum value of +1, which indicates the greatest activation of sequential association. A value of zero indicates that no
sequential association exists between the antecedent and consequent behavior. The calculation of Yules Q for the pattern of competitive symmetry
(MhDh), based on Table 3.10, resulted in a value of .90.
TABLE 3.10
Example of a 2 2 Table for Analyzing Competitive Symmetry
Consequent
Antecedent
Mother h
Mother NO h
Daughter h
9
6
(A)
(C)
Daughter NO h
1
13
(B)
(D)
Q=
ad bc 117 6
=
= .90
ad + bc 117 + 6
67
(4)
In this formula, if the value of the A or D cells and the B or C cells is 0,

Yules Q can not be computed. In our example there are no zeros, and the
Yules Q value reflects that the sequential association between the MotherhDaughterh behaviors is greater than the randomly estimated association of these types of behaviors. Specifically, the result represents an activation of h behaviors in the daughter by h behaviors of the mother. When
based on a larger number of dyads (e.g., a sample of mothers and daughters), the Yules Q values can also serve as the basis for carrying out parametric types of analysis.
Among the advantages of Yules Q, described by Yoder and Feurer
(2000), are: (a) the fact that the computational formula of Yules Q does not
use the marginal frequencies of the table (the total of each binary recording
in rows and columns), (b) this index is adequate for retrospective sequential analyses (to explore, for example, the probability of h, i, and g behaviors of the mother appearing before a h response of the daughter, by recording these sequences backwards), and (c) the adaptation of Yules Q
as a measurement of a dependent variable in group parametric designs, because its distribution approaches a normal distribution and its mean approaches zero (Bakeman et al., 1996). A precaution to keep in mind for the
use of this index is the total number of recorded codes and the frequency
with which the type of transaction being analyzed occurs. The computation
of Yules Q is not very reliable with limited observations; as a general rule,
when working with a coding system consisting of three codes, it is necessary to consider that the frequency of the pattern being studied (cell A in
our example) be at least 10 (which is not met with only 9 codes in this cell).
SIXTH STEP: THE EXAMINATION OF MORE

COMPLEX RELATIONAL PATTERNS:
DIRECTIONALITY, RECIPROCITY,
PREPONDERANCE, EPISODES,
AND CONTEXTUAL MARKERS
An obvious goal, as well as challenge, of relational research is to identify
more of the interactional complexities of interpersonal systems. Although
particular research questions will guide the type of analysis required, what
follows is a discussion of different ways of expanding relational communication pattern descriptions.
68
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
Directionality, Reciprocity and Preponderance

of Pattern
As demonstrated earlier, pattern directionality rests on an examination of
whether or not speaker order significantly influences the resulting patterns
of sequential exchange. To briefly review, let us assume we find a pattern of
relational control that is independent of speaker order, that is, independent
of which interactors message is taken as the prior (antecedent) or subsequent (consequent) message in the ongoing exchange of contiguous messages. More specifically, let us suppose that in a marital couples interaction, the h behaviors of the husband significantly activate the subsequent i
behaviors of the wife, and likewise the h behaviors of the wife significantly
activate the subsequent i behaviors of the husband. In this case, the resulting pattern represents a bidirectional activation of one-up complementary
reciprocity. This pattern of reciprocal complementarity is based on two
dyadic patterns which in combination indicate that the interactors tend to
interchange their control positions in a relatively equal manner.
In contrast, recall that when speaker order matters a pattern of unidirectionality is indicated. Such is the case, for example, if a wife significantly responds with h behaviors to her husbands h messages, but the reverse is not the case, that is, the husband does not significantly respond
with h messages to the h behaviors of the wife. If, however, in relation to
this example, a significant activation of competitive symmetry is found independent of the husband or wife speaker order (i.e., who initiates or follows), the results, as previously indicated, would represent a reciprocal,
bidirectional pattern. Note that even though the pattern is bidirectional, the
possibility exists for one of the speaker-ordered sequences to result in a
stronger activation of the pattern than the other. The concept of pattern
preponderance refers to this differential strength of association.
Figure 3.3 outlines the principal patterns of interaction based on the different forms of directionality, reciprocity and preponderance, along with
corresponding types of analysis, and relational communication examples.
The examples given are based on complementary and symmetrical patterns, but these procedures can be applied to any of the relational control
transactions, including transitory transacts, as well as the different forms of
symmetry and complementarity. As noted earlier, a prior condition for carrying out the types of analysis described is that the results of the global
analysis of the sequentially ordered, transactional contingency tables are
significant, thus giving evidence of relational structure (see Step 3).
To summarize the types of pattern discrimination presented in Fig. 3.3,
interaction patterns may be unidirectional or bidirectional. For each form
of directionality, the results may indicate relationships of activation or inhibition, such that, in an ongoing interaction, certain message behaviors of
69
one or both of the interactors may significantly increase the probability (activate) or decrease (inhibit) certain subsequent behaviors by the other.
With the occurrence of bidirectionality, two additional types of pattern
description are possible. First, when the same type of bidirectional relationship is found between interactors, this represents a pattern of reciprocity.
Reciprocal complementarity and competitive symmetry represent the two
most common types of reciprocity referred to in the relational literature;
further, if highly accentuated bidirectional circuits of reciprocity are noted,
these types of interchange evidence the processes of schismogenesis described originally by Bateson (1936). Second, bidirectionality may further
be described in terms of the preponderance of pattern, if the magnitude of
the sequential association is greater in one direction than in another. Thus,
if a bidirectional circuit is found, for example of competitive symmetry between persons A and B, both the sequential association of AhBh and BhAh
are significant, but it may also be the case that one of the patterns of association is significantly greater than the other. For example, if the AhBh pattern is significantly greater than BhAh, a preponderance (strength of association) of the AB sequence for predicting competitive symmetry exists
over the BA sequence.
The analysis of bidirectionality and preponderance are specific adaptations of the general ideas formulated by Gottman and Roy (1990) based on
the asymmetry in predictability of the interactors observed behaviors in
relation to one another. Wampold (1992) also offered specific statistical
tests for the analysis of bidirectional dependency, reciprocity and preponderance. As indicated in Fig. 3.3, these different forms of analysis are readily
derived from the comparison of the indices described in the preceding sections (e.g., Pearsons Chi-square for global analyses and Adjusted Residuals
or Yules Q for the analysis of specific patterns). The potential results of
these analyses are nonexclusive, as graphically displayed in Fig. 3.4. The
husbandwife interaction depicted in Fig. 3.4 illustrates the existence of a
complementary bidirectional circuit of reciprocity, as well as a pattern of
preponderance with the husbands one-up messages taken as the antecedent in the sequential structuring of this transactional pattern.
Episodes
Complex patterns of relational communication can also be defined based
on specific sequences consisting of more than two messages whose configuration has a particular relational meaning. These types of patterns are referred to as episodes, in the sense that they are communicative configurations depicting particular forms of the interaction process.
One of the interaction sequences that has been defined and studied in the
literature on relational control is the conflict episode (Bavelas, Rogers, &
70
71
FIG. 3.3. Overall scheme of possible relational control patterns.
72
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
FIG. 3.4. Illustration of a reciprocal complementary pattern.
Millar, 1985; Millar, Rogers, & Bavelas, 1984). This episode represents the conception of conflict as active opposition and is identified by the occurrence
of at least three consecutive one-up (h) types of interchange between interactors. In a conflict sequence, person A asserts a definitional claim which is
rejected by person B which, in turn, is opposed by person A, with the resulting sequence being one of competitive symmetry (AhBhAh). In previous research, the frequency of this episode has been a clear indicator for differentiating the conflictive quality of relational contexts, and the competitive nature
of different types of marital relationships (e.g., Escudero et al., 1997).
Another pattern of theoretical and empirical consistency is the leveling
negotiation episode. Studies of marital interaction, as well as therapeutic interaction (Beyebach & Escudero, 1997; Beyebach, Rodrguez-Morejn,
Palenzuela, & Rodrguez-Arias, 1996) have indicated the importance of oneacross (g) messages in the formation of transitory transacts as conflict regulators, and as mechanisms for introducing solutions in therapeutic situations. Specifically, the interchange of g and i messages between two
interactors, represents an episode in which one person offers information
about the conflict or relational situation in a leveling or neutral (g) manner
and the other person accepts these ideas or suggestions with one-down (i)
messages. For example, a AgBiAgBi sequence between persons A and B
in a context of conflict resolution, implies a neutral control offering by A
that is accepted or supported by B. The regulative function of this pattern
is further illustrated in the following sequence of BhAhBgAiBgAi, in
which the leveling negotiation episode reflects a movement away from a
potentially competitive sequence toward a neutralizing/accepting sequence
of transactional interchange.
As a general procedure for depicting and illustrating pattern, we have
found it helpful to construct graphic displays of the interaction flow of the
RCCCS codes which allow an overall, visual identification of episodes and
other sequences of interest. Among the more useful graphic representations of relational control patterns and their descriptive power, we highlight two: the sequential representation of control messages as shown in
Fig. 3.5, and the cumulative representation of the control maneuvers shown
73
FIG. 3.5. Example of a graphic display to detect relational control episodes.
in Fig. 3.6. In the first of these, the three types of control codes are represented on one axis and the speech turn on the other axis. The shaded
speech turns, in the motherdaughter example (Fig. 3.5), indicate a noted
sequence of competitive symmetry. With the cumulative type of graph, h
messages are represented with a +1 value, i messages with a -1 value, and
g messages with a 0 value; based on these values, the accumulated movement of each successive control code is noted in the overall graphing of the
interaction. The same motherdaughter example is used in Fig. 3.6 to illustrate this form of graphic display. The sequence of competitive symmetry
shown in Fig. 3.5, becomes even more visually pronounced with the cumulative type of mapping the control code sequences.
FIG. 3.6. Example of a cumulative graphic display for visually detecting relational control episodes.
74
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

TABLE 3.11
Frequency and Percentage of Selected Relational Control Episodes
Episodes
Conflict Episodes
Messages composing hhh chains
Negotiation episodes
Messages composing gigi chains
Messages not integrated in conflict or negotiation episodes
Frequency
18
31%
10
30
17%
52%
In addition to the episodes described here, note that with the use of the
FRCCCS coding procedures, another set of patterns that represent relational control episodes are those composed of the triadic sequences described in chapter 2, namely, simple, parallel, and coalition triadic configurations. Because the sequential analysis of the interactions among three or
more people may necessitate breaking the interaction processes into dyadic units, the graphic identification of episodes offers a useful, visual focus
of examination.
Current programs of data recording and analysis provide procedures for
easily identifying episodic configurations in the ongoing interaction flow.
Programs, such as the GSEQ, allow the detection of episodes through the
identification of a chain of codes. For any selected sequence containing
three or more consecutive codes, the program provides for the reanalysis
of the data using the designated chain of codes for detecting the episodes
of interest. If, for the motherdaughter example, we wish to identify and
compare the proportion of messages that are organized into conflict episodes (hhh) and episodes of leveling negotiation (gigi), the results of
this type of analysis are shown in Table 3.11. For this interaction nearly one
third of the one-up (h) messages form conflict episodes.
Contextual Markers
There are certain punctuated events in interpersonal communication, identified as contextual markers, that have a particular significance within a
given relational context. The investigation of these events is in line with the
analytic goal of interaction research of uncovering types of behavioral occurrences or behavioral sequences that prompt observable differences in
the ensuing direction and form of the interactional process. These events
are akin to interactional turning points. In the context of psychotherapy, for
instance, a question of particular interest is what interaction patterns are
produced following a therapists statement or request that is considered a
clinically important move within the therapeutic model being applied. In
this setting, a frequent topic of study is the effect of an intervention, known
75
as re-framing, by which a therapist provides a redefinition or reinterpretation of the meaning and influence of the family members behaviors. It is
proposed that this form of intervention, if effective, can mark a new relational context for the family. These events, which may occur infrequently
but are of theoretical importance, are representative of what are identified
as interactional markers. Another example of this type of research is the investigation of blaming messages as contextual markers in the study of marital couples construction of relational problems (Escudero, Heatherington,
& Friedlander, 1998). Any number of events, depending on ones research
interest, may serve as contextual markers, such as supportive, nonsupportive messages, closed questions, disconfirmation, triadic sequences of
coalition, etc. The exploration of the potential influence of these events on
relational processes is of practical, as well as theoretical concern.
A strategy used to study the effect of events defined as contextual markers consists of examining if in an designated period of time after the identified event, a change is observed in the interaction pattern with respect to
other time periods of the interaction that are not affected by that event.
Through the use of time windows in conjunction with the GSEQ or similar
analytic programs, one can discern, for instance, if the relational control
patterns significantly change during a specific time period (i.e., time window) after the occurrence of the contextual marker events. (Note, the time
window can also be a time period prior to, instead of after, the event being
examined, however, the latter is more typically the case.) The duration of
the time frame can vary, based on ones research interests or on previously
established empirical indicators. The analytic procedures rest on a comparative analysis of whether the interactions that take place during the specified time period in relation to the contextual markers are significantly different from the those not marked by the special event. The results of the
analysis indicate if the contextual markers structure the subsequent interaction, and if so, what type of relational patterns characterize the influencing effect of these events.
With the conclusion of this final step, the procedures covered in this
chapter provide a central analytical framework for investigating relational
communication patterns. The techniques described are as well applicable
to other forms of interaction research based on time-ordered observations.
The design of the GSEQ computer program, utilized in illustrating these procedures, provides a highly compatible system for analyzing interaction patterns. Additional information regarding this program is given in the appendix to this chapter. The programming commands for the analysis of the
motherdaughter interaction examples are also included to illustrate the
type of format used. See Bakeman and Quera (1995a) for complete coverage
of the application and use of the SDIS-GSEQ system.
76
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
A FINAL NOTE: THE CONTRIBUTION

OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
Based on the wealth of relational information contained in the interaction
data, an important consideration in carrying out observational research is
the inclusion of different forms of qualitative analysis. The transcriptions of
the interaction, along with the audio and video tape recordings, offer the
opportunity to complement quantitative with qualitative analyses, with the
potential of each form of analysis being enriched. Qualitative descriptions
of interaction segments have been used to illustrate patterns of relational
communication, but full-scale studies combining qualitative and quantitative data are rare. We see this as an important research direction.
In combination, qualitative approaches could lend extended understandings to the quantitative descriptions of pattern. For instance, discourse or
conversation analysis techniques, would be particularly useful in the explorations of episodes and contextual communication markers in different relational contexts. Insights offered by the relational members under study
can be garnered from an analysis of the specific content of the messages exchanged, their interpretations from viewing their recorded interactions, as
well as from oral histories, open-ended interviews, among other possible
methods. It is clear that the study of relationships is open to a variety of different approaches. By carrying out qualitative analyses of the interaction
process, our understanding of relational dynamics would no doubt benefit
from these contributions.
CONCLUSIONS
The analytical steps and techniques presented in this chapter for assessing
patterns of interaction, clearly do not represent the only possible approach
for the analysis of relational communication. In the research chapters that
follow a number of different analytic techniques have been employed,
which will demonstrate a range of available research paths. Our intention
here was to contribute a useful and understandable set of procedures that
adapt well to the conceptual frame of relational communication. In this
way, by providing step-by-step descriptions of the relatively simple to more
complex forms of analysis, we hope to encourage the expansion of sequential-based research for exploring the communication processes of interpersonal relationships. The statistical complexities of sequential analysis techniques have often been seen as a daunting analytical challenge, no doubt
curtailing the use, and benefits, of these process-oriented techniques. By
77
providing an accessible and readily applicable set of procedures we hope

to foster a revision of this view.
APPENDIX
Analysis Commands Using the SDIS-GSEQ System
The SDIS-GSEQ program comes with the book, Analyzing Interaction: Sequential Analysis with SDIS and GSEQ, by Bakeman and Quera (1995a, 1996 for the
Spanish edition). The most recent version of this program (version 3.8 for
Windows) can be found, along with additional information on sequential
analysis, on the Internet at: www.ub.es/comporta/sg.htm or www.gsu/
psyrab/sg.htm.
The GSEQ program requires a data file of the type shown in Fig. 3.1 of
this chapter. The programming commands allow the instruction files to be
easily formatted for many different analysis options. The programming example given below is the command file used for the different mother
daughter interaction analyses presented in this chapter.
File C:\Archivos de programa\GSEQ for
Windows\gseq\Datbook\name of the file.mds;
Title Relational control analysis of Mother-Daughter conflict
interaction session;
Simple freq rate relf dura reld avgd
%asking for descriptive statistics%
(MOoneup MOonedown MOoneacross DAoneup DAonedown DAoneacross);
Event;
Stats jntf expf conp rsdl adjr yulq phi xsq;
%anlyzing sequential associations in Mother-Daughter interaction%
Target $DAUGHTER;
Lags 1;
Given $MOTHER;
Target $MOTHER;
Lags 1;
Given $DAUGHTER;
Simple freq relf ( MOoneup MOonedown MOoneacross );
Simple freq relf ( DAoneup DAonedown DAoneacross );
Recode Oneup = MOoneup DAoneup;
Recode Onedown = MOonedown DAonedown;
Recode Oneacross = MOoneacross DAoneacross;
Stats jntf expf conp rsdl adjr xsq;
Target Oneup Onedown Oneacross;
Lags 1;
Given Oneup Onedown Oneacross;
%analyzing conflict and negotiation episodes with the chain
78
ESCUDERO AND ROGERS
%command
Chain conflict = Oneup Oneup Oneup;
Chain negot= Oneacross Onedown Oneacross Onedown;
Simple freq relf(conflict negot Onedown Oneacross Oneup);
REFERENCES
Bakeman, R., McArthur, D., & Quera, V. (1996). Detecting group differences in sequential association using sampled permutations: Log odds, kappa, and phi compared. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 446457.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1992). SDIS: A sequential data interchange standard. Behavior Methods,
Instruments, and Computers, 24, 554559.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995a). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995b). Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when consecutive codes can and can not repeat. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 272284.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1996). Anlisis de la interaccin: Anlisis secuencial con SDIS y GSEQ.
Madrid: Ra-Ma.
Bakeman, R., Robinson, B. F., & Quera, V. (1996). Testing sequential association: Estimating exact
P values using sampled permutations. Psychological Methods, 1, 415.
Bavelas, J. B., Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1985). Interpersonal conflict. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),
Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4, pp. 926). New York: Academic Press.
Beyebach, M., Rogrguez-Morejn, A., Palenzuela, D. L., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Research
on the process of solution-focused therapy. In S. D. Miller, M. A. Hubble, & B. Duncan (Eds.),
Handbook of solution brief therapy: Foundations, applications, and research (pp. 157194). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, M. B. (1974). Identification of the sources of significance in two-way contingency tables.
Applied Statistics, 23, 405413.
Cureton, E. E. (1959). A note on phi/phimax. Psychometrika, 24, 9091.
Escudero, V., Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1998, June). Integrative analysis of interpersonal control, cognitive constructions, and emotions in couple interaction: An illustrative case. Paper presented at the meetings of the Society for Interpersonal Interaction Research, Snowbird, Utah.
Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., & Gutierrez, E. (1997). Patterns of relational control and nonverbal affect in clinic and nonclinic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 529.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press.
Gottman, J. M., & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Haberman, S. J. (1978). Analysis of qualitative data: Vol 1. New York: Academic Press.
Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1987). Relational dimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M. Roloff
& G. R. Miller (Eds.), Explorations in interpersonal processes: New directions in communication
research (pp. 117139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Millar, F. E., Rogers, L. E., & Bavelas, J. B. (1984). Identifying patterns of verbal conflict in interpersonal dynamics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 232246.
Morley. D. D. (1987). Revised lag-sequential analysis. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook: Vol. 10 (pp. 172182). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
79
Quera, V., & Bakeman, R. (1999). Untangling the web: Tcnicas de tamizado de residuos en el
anlisis de secuencias de conducta. In A. M. Lpez, J. Lpez, & R. Moreno (Eds.), Actas del V
congreso de metodologa de las ciencias humanas y sociales: Vol 1. Sevilla: Editorial Kronos.
Rogers, L. E., & Bagarozzi, D. A. (1983). An overview of relational communication and implications for therapy. In D. A. Bagarozzi, A. P. Jurich, & R. W. Jackson (Eds.), Marital and family
therapy (pp. 4878). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Rogers, L. E., Millar, F. E., & Bavelas, J. B. (1985). Methods for analyzing marital conflict discourse: Implications of a systems approach. Family Process, 24, 5372.
Wampold, B. E. (1989). Kappa as a measure of pattern in sequential data. Quality & Quantity, 23,
171187.
Wampold, B. E. (1992). The intensive examination of social interaction. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R.
Thomas (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 93131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yoder, P. J., & Feurer, I. D. (2000). Quantifying the magnitude of sequential association between
events of behaviors. In T. Thompson, D. Felce, & F. J. Symons (Eds.), Behavioral observation:
Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 317333). Baltimore, MD: P. H.
Brookes.
P A R T
II
RESEARCH CONTEXTS
C H A P T E R
4
Relational Communication Patterns
in Marital Interaction
L. Edna Rogers
University of Utah
Valentn Escudero
With the advent of the family therapy movement in the 1950s and the early
clinical studies incorporating the movements paradigmatic shift from the
individual to the relational system, the study of marital interaction began to
open up (Bochner, 1976). As Hinde (1995) noted, Three decades ago, nearly
all the data available about relationships came from clinicians (p. 1). From
these beginnings, research on the communication processes of marriage
and family relations continued to develop and carve out an established
area of study. Cumulative efforts to understand the psychosocial interior
of the family (Hess & Handel, 1959), its politics (Laing, 1969), interactional
configurations (Lennard & Bernstein, 1969), conflict styles (Raush, Barry,
Hertel, & Swain, 1974), patterns of distance regulation (Kantor & Lehr,
1975), and temporal form (Gottman, 1982), to name but a few, underscored the importance of process research. In view of the emerging interactional focus in marital and family research, Gottman (1982) emphasized
that the recent methodological breakthroughs represent far more than
new analytic tools, they represent a conceptual revolution in our ability
to think about relationships (p. 958).
Relational communication research, by giving central importance to the
interrelating processes of system members, progressively moves from (a) a
focus on observable communication behaviors, (b) the sequentially ordered descriptions of those behaviors, (c) to the sequential analysis of
larger relational-level patterns of interaction characterizing the relationship
83
84
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
(Rogers, Millar, & Bavelas, 1985). Each step is a prerequisite for the next
level of analysis, with the final step remaining the most critical and the
most challenging.
Far too often, communication studies claiming to be interactional, begin by gathering ongoing, time-ordered behavioral data, only to have the sequentiality of the data pulled apart by analytical procedures that are
based on the participants individual message behaviors, and thus stop
short of incorporating the temporal qualities inherent in the study of process. Playing off the traditional notions of Type I and Type II errors, Ransom,
Fisher, Phillips, Kokes, and Weiss (1990), referred to results based on inappropriate data as Type III error. A Type III error is made whenever one
draws a conclusion to which the data do not speak (p. 49). To avoid this
type of error, it must be recognized that different levels of analysis provide
different types of information.
With a clear distinction between individual behavioral measures and
jointly produced process measures, one of the strengths of the relational
approach is that the full range of the analytical scale can be played out,
such that each level of description may be useful in the overall analysis. In
mapping relational patterns it can prove insightful to recognize the particular behaviors enacted by the individual interactors in the process of constructing the larger, sequentially patterned chains of interaction. Thus,
each level of description has potential value, but lower levels of description
cannot substitute for higher levels. Although each level influences and is influenced by other levels, each has properties that are simply not relevant
to the level below (Hinde, 1997, p. 43).
Koestlers (1978) concept of the holon, coined to refer to the embedded
part/whole nature of systems, emphasizes the interconnected but inescapable level distinctions such that each ascending level cannot be reduced
to, nor predicted from, the lower level (p. 32). Hinde (1995) further clarified
the distinction between monadic and relational levels of analysis in the following quote, Studies of how individuals perceive others, make attributions, resolve dissonance, and so on within relationships, however important and relevant they may be, are not studies of relationship (p. 3). This is
reminiscent of Simmels (1950) earlier statement that marriage, however
much of it depends on each of the spouses, may yet have a character not
coinciding with either of them (p. 129).
Along these same lines, Cappella (1987) provided an extended description of the interwoven, yet different levels of inquiry. In his critique of the
fundamental distinctions of interpersonal communication research beyond
the basic (zero-order) issues concerning the types of behavior observed
and time units utilized, intraindividual research represents the first-order
level of inquiry, the analysis of interaction patterns, the second-order level,
and the analysis of interaction patterns with relationship factors and out-
4. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN MARITAL INTERACTION
85
comes, refers to the third-order. Relational communication research is representative of the third-order. The overriding goal of the relational approach has been the indexing of relational level patterns of communication
and researching their association with different relationship qualities or
consequences.
The initial application of the Relational Communication Control Coding
System (RCCCS) procedures was carried out in the context of marital relationships (Rogers, 1972). Since the early 1970s, the investigation of communication patterns of marital couples continues to represent a central line of
relational research. An unfolding of the main studies in this program of research are presented in this chapter.
MARITAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

Relational control represents one of the central dimensions of relationships
(Dillard, Solomon, & Palmer, 1999; Markman & Notarius, 1987; Millar & Rogers, 1987) and a primary focus of relational research. This dimension refers
to the interactive structuring of the regulative function of message exchange (Rogers & Farace, 1975). To clarify the focus of relational control,
the delineation offered by Olsen and Cromwell (1975) is helpful. These authors suggest that power, viewed as a generic construct, consists of three
different, although interrelated, domains: power base, refers to the classic
sociological definition of the potential to influence outcomes based on resources; power process refers to the interaction processes within which influence attempts are exerted, accepted or resisted, and power outcomes refer to the after-the-fact decisions or outcomes. In short, the first domain
concerns what may happen, the second with what is happening, and the
third with what did happen. The focus of relational control equates with the
conceptual domain of power process, that is, on how the influencing processes are mutually enacted. However, based on the relational perspectives
cybernetic meaning of control, this term is seen as a more appropriate
choice than power in referencing the fluidity of these processes. With this
brief conceptual description, we now turn to the research on relational control within the marital context.
RELATIONAL CONTROL
The results reported in this section are based on two samples of randomly
selected married couples living in two U.S. Midwestern metropolitan areas
who had at least one child under the age of 12. The first sample included 45
marital dyads, and the second, 87 dyads. On the average, the couples in
86
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
both samples were in their first marriage, had been married for approximately 12 years, were in their mid-30s, high school graduates with a year or
two of college, and in the middle to upper-middle social class range. Thus,
the study participants represented a relatively comparable group of married couples in the active child-rearing stage of family life.
During a 2-hour interview in each couples home, two types of data were
collected. First, self-report questionnaires concerning various aspects of
their marital relationship were completed separately by each husband and
wife; second, interaction data were obtained by tape recording each couples conversations as they discussed four marriage and family related topics with one another. The couples were asked to discuss each topic for 10
minutes. The topics included how they met and decided to marry, how they
handled disagreements, related happenings of the day to one another, and
their views on what it takes to have a good marriage.
The coding of the interaction data was done by trained coders, three for
the first data set and five coders for the second set, from verbatim transcripts of the couples discussions. Paralinguistic aspects of the conversations were also noted on the transcripts. The total number of messages
coded was more than 10,000 in the first sample, and more than 13,000 messages in the second. The average intercoder agreement reliability estimates, based on the three-digit message codes of approximately 12% of the
total data for each study, were .86 for the first sample and .89 for the second. The unitizing reliabilities, including double code designations, were .98
and .99 for the two data sets; the separate grammatical code, and response
code averages were above .91, and for the message control direction, .93 for
both samples.
In the initial relational communication study of marital dyads (Rogers,
1972), control patterns were found to differ by the couples level of role
discrepancy, which was an index based on the partners perceived inequity regarding personal, social, and instrumental aspects of their marital
relationship. Controlling on length of marriage, the reported differences
were more evident in couples married for fewer years than the longer
married (12 to 26 years) couples. Dyads with higher role discrepancy engaged in significantly more neutralized symmetry (gg) than those reporting low discrepancy, and enacted more competitive symmetry (hh).
These couples also gave more one-up messages and fewer one-down messages to their partners, and as these behaviors suggest, they reported less
satisfaction with their marriage and their communication with one another than low-discrepant couples.
In comparison, one-down transitory patterns (gi, ig) particularly with
husbands messages being one-down moves, were found to be significantly
more characteristic of couples with low role discrepancy. These couples expressed more support messages, had more active turn-taking and fewer si-
87
lences in their conversations than high role-discrepant dyads. In addition,

the low-discrepant couples reported spending more time together and
more time talking with one another; they talked about a broader range of
subjects and discussed personal topics. Importantly, the results of this initial study found the coding system to be a workable and reliable method for
coding the relational aspects of conversational interaction. The main findings of this study, supported by later research, also served as a basis for an
expanded set of relational control analyses.
In subsequent studies, several interaction-based measures were developed in order to further investigate different aspects of the control dynamics of relationships, including domineeringness and dominance (Rogers-Millar & Millar, 1979), message control intensity (Rogers, Courtright, &
Millar, 1980), transactional redundancy (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers,
1980), coefficient of variance (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers, 1983) and verbal conflict (Millar, Rogers, & Bavelas, 1984). Of these measures, domineeringness, dominance, and redundancy, formed an early and central focus of investigation. Domineeringness refers to the proportion of one-up
messages expressed by an individual during an ongoing interaction. Thus,
it represents a monadic measure and is indexed by an individuals number of one-up moves divided by their total number of messages. Dominance and redundancy represent dyadic measures of control and are
based on the members transactional patterns of message exchange. Dominance is based on the occurrence of one-up complementarity and indexes
the proportion of one-up behaviors by each member that are responded
to with a one-down message by the other. In the studies described here,
domineeringness and dominance were found to be independent variables,
such that enacting a high proportion of one-up control moves does not
necessarily lead to being dominant. Redundancy measures the amount of
transactional rigidity or flexibility evidenced in the over all conversation.
It rests on the number and variety of different transactional patterns manifested in the interaction. The fewer the observed types of transactions enacted, the more redundant the interaction, with more transactional patterns utilized, the more flexible the interaction pattern. Operationally,
transactional redundancy is defined as the sum of the absolute deviations
from random use of the nine transactional configurations. The possible
range of scores is from 0 to 177, with higher scores indicating higher redundancy. For instance, the overall mean score for the marital dyads was
54, which indicates a fairly flexible interaction pattern. By comparison, in
a study of managersubordinate dyads (Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987),
the average score was 83, suggesting a more structured, less flexible pattern of interaction in the organizational setting.
Based on the described control measures, the following results are from a
series of interrelated studies (Courtright, Millar, & Rogers-Millar, 1979; Millar,
88
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
Rogers-Millar, & Courtright, 1979; Rogers-Millar & Millar, 1979) and represent
an integrated set of findings from the analysis of the two research samples.
One of the consistent findings of this research was the inverse relationship
between wife domineeringness and marital satisfaction on the part of both
spouses. It was also the case that inverse relationships were found between
wife domineeringness and the partners satisfaction with their communication relation, and with their level of understanding one another. The more
domineering the wife, the more the couples interactions appeared to take on
a flavor of a demandwithdrawal pattern. This is suggested by several related findings. For instance, when wives expressed higher levels of one-up
messages, they gave fewer supportive messages to their husbands and in
turn received fewer supportive statements from their husbands. However,
when husbands were more domineering they offered more supportive statements than domineering wives. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that oneup behaviors on the part of the husband did not engender the level of dissatisfaction as was the case with wife domineeringness.
In contrast, the expression of nonsupportive messages was not consistently related to domineeringness. Thus, in combination, a more characteristic style, especially for domineering wives, was the withholding of support,
rather than the expression of nonsupport. This more veiled, unspoken form
of nonsupport may over time have contributed to the partners lack of
satisfaction and understanding of one another. For these couples, the benefits of not rocking the marital boat, appear to be offset by the unsettled
tensions of not openly dealing with their underlying differences. In intimate
relations, avoiding disagreements is often initially undertaken with the best
of intentions, only later to turn into a potentially problematic pattern in
which marital harmony at all costs, winds up too costly.
Interrupting and taking over the speakers position represented another
set of communication behaviors characteristic of a domineering style and
again, more so for wives than husbands. An analysis of talk-over behaviors
found that the total number of talk-overs, and importantly, the number of
successful talk-overs (taking over the conversational floor), were more
strongly associated with wife domineeringness than husband domineeringness. The use of interruptions are often cited as representing a more masculine language style (Eagly, 1987; Henley, 1977) thus, when wives more frequently interrupt their partner and take over the floor, this may be an
added irritant of wife domineeringness, as well as a style that disavows informational input from their husbands.
Note that talk-overs, and especially unsuccessful talk-overs which allow
the speaker to continue talking, were common features of the marital conversations. Unsuccessful talk-overs frequently served as brief expressions
of support, or signs of attention and involvement in the conversation. Comments such as, yeah, I agree, good, youre right, are typically made with-
89
out an intention to take over the speaker role. Thus, unsuccessful talk-overs
were part and parcel of satisfied couples behaviors, but not high levels of
successful talk-overs.
A corollary finding, supportive of the suggested demandwithdrawal
interactional nature of couples with domineering wives, was the inverse relation found between husband domineeringness and transactional redundancy. That is, the fewer one-up assertions made by the husband, the more
rigid the structuring of the couples message-exchange patterns. But, when
husbands enacted higher proportions of one-up messages, not only was the
couples interaction pattern more flexible, but as noted earlier in contrast
to domineering wives, these husbands gave more supportive messages to
their wives and interrupted less with fewer successful talk-overs. In combination, these differences imply that when husbands express more one-up
messages they are more actively involvement in the conversation than
when wives are more domineering. Given these findings, one-up behaviors
appear to function quite differently depending on which spouse enacts a
higher proportion of them. These results readily fit the research by Gottman (1979, 1994) in which he reports that in distressed marriages, husbands
are less emotionally responsive and more withdrawn, whereas wives are
more assertive and argumentative.
The results of the analysis of dominance found as expected that relatively equivalent, shared husbandwife patterns of dominance were positively related to marital satisfaction and understanding, but this association
was somewhat stronger, when husbands were slightly more dominant than
wives. A related finding was that when husbands were more dominant,
wives gave more supportive messages than husbands gave when the wives
were more dominant. It appears that to some degree traditional cultural
definitions of malefemale relations are evident in these differences. Even
with this variation, the dominance pattern related to couple satisfaction
represents a relatively balanced pattern of reciprocal complementarity,
one that is typically associated with relational harmony.
However, when either spouse was clearly more dominant, that is, when
their one-up assertions were more consistently responded to by the others
one-down movements, the less the couples reported relational satisfaction
and the less each spouse understood the other. With unequal patterns of
dominance, the more dominant member, even though reporting feelings of
being understood, had lower levels of understanding their partners view,
than the less dominant member. Thus, with a high dominance pattern, the
dominant members sense of understanding the other, was not matched
with their spouses perceptions.
From the foregoing results, we find the different forms of communication
enactments of domineeringness and dominance are reflected in the couples reported evaluations of the quality of their marriage relationship.
90
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
When the couples moved into these different patterned modes is not known,
but when either wife domineeringness or discrepant patterns of dominance
become habitual, they are associated with lower levels of communication
and marital satisfaction, perceptions of equity, and levels of understanding.
RELATIONAL CONTROL AND NONVERBAL

AFFECT
The sequence of studies described in this section were carried out in Spain
and are based on Spanish couple samples. Importantly, this set of investigations moves from an analysis of relational control to an examination of both
interactional control and nonverbal affect. The first of these investigations
(Escudero & Gutierrez, 1990; Escudero, Sobral, & Gutierrez, 1987) was designed to explore the control dynamics of marital conflict using the relational coding system (RCCCS). The research objectives were to describe
the relational patterns that were characteristic of conflict versus nonconflict marital interaction, and as well, provide a test of the cross-cultural application of the coding scheme.
Twelve couples formed the basis of this exploratory study. The couples
had been married for an average of 13 years, had 2 to 3 children and were
classified as middle social class. The couples discussions, based on a conflict and nonconflict topic selected from Olsen and Ryders (1970) Inventory
of Marital Conflict, were carried out in each of the couples homes with
their permission to audiotape their conversations. In total, 3,077 messages
were coded in accordance with the RCCCS procedures. Intercoder reliabilities, based on Cohens (1968) kappa, ranged from .72 to .80, which clearly
indicated adequate estimates of agreement. The interactions were analyzed
using lag-sequential analysis (Quera & Estany, 1984).
The results of this initial study, although limited in nature, firmly supported the predicted competitive nature of conflict-oriented discussions. In
the couples conflict interactions, compared to their nonconflict discussion,
there were significantly more competitive symmetrical transactions (hh)
and fewer one-down submissive transacts (ii). Also as predicted, there
was less enactment of transitory transactions, one-across combinations
with one-down and one-up messages, in the conflict situation. It was further
found that one-up messages in the conflict but not the nonconflict discussions, activated one-up moves on the part of both, the partners response
and the initiators following response, and thus set in motion a pattern of
escalating symmetry.
To investigate this potential escalating pattern, triadic sequences of oneup messages (hhh), the minimal unit for identifying relational conflict were
examined (Millar et al., 1984). A sequence of three consecutive one-up mes-
91
sages index a pattern of opposition in which one partners asserted definitional claim is rejected by the other, which in turn is opposed by the initial
speaker. Significantly more of these one-up sequences were found to occur
in the conflict interactions. However, when this sequence occurred in either
of the topic discussions, there was a high probability of this pattern being
followed by another sequence of three one-ups (.74 at lag one in the conflict
and .70 in the nonconflict condition). This pattern, while occurring less frequently in the nonconflict discussions, nevertheless retains a high escalating potential. Counterbalancing this potential, again in both types of discussions, was the finding that one-across messages activated a one-down
response and in turn one-down messages activated a one-across response,
thus producing one-across\one-down\one-across (gg) sequences. These
configurations allowed the couples interactions to move into a less competitive pattern, one of an extended and supported type of discussion.
Along with these initial, conflictnonconflict pattern descriptions resulting from this exploratory research, the cross-cultural utility of the RCCCS
was also confirmed. With the utility of the coding system established, an important research step was taken in the next two studies with the investigation of two central relational dimensions, relational control and nonverbal
affect. The research was designed to expand our descriptive base of the
interactional complexities of relationships by first analyzing each of these
dimensions separately, and then in combination.
The first study examined the control and affect interactional behaviors
of marital couples representing different levels of dyadic adjustment. Based
on previous research, a general expectation was that there would be an inverse relation between dyadic adjustment and competitive control patterns, and nonverbal affect negativity. That is, the lower the couples marital adjustment, the more their enactment of domineeringness, competitive
symmetry, and the exchange of negative affect. It was also expected that
higher levels of dyadic adjustment would be related to more positive and
neutral affect and one-down transitory patterns.
The sample for the first study (Escudero, Rogers, Gutierrez, & Caceres,
1992) was drawn from couples who contacted a family clinic seeking marital
counseling and consisted of 20 couples. From the interview and questionnaire information gathered during the initial session, the sample couples
were fairly similar in terms of the general nature of their relational problems and demographics; they were in the middle social class and on the average in their 30s with one or two children. They did, however, significantly
differ in their marital adjustment. Based on their scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) the couples formed three groups: a high
adjustment group (n = 5, x = 116), a medium group (n = 6, x = 102), and a low
adjustment group (n = 9, x = 63). The maximum range of DAS scores is 0 to
151, with 100 found to represent a midpoint between more adjusted and
92
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
less adjusted couples (Spanier & Filsinger, 1983). During each couples initial session, they were asked to discuss between themselves one of their
problems and try to solve the issue. These procedures, as well as videotaping the discussion, are part of the normal counseling protocol. The first 15
minutes of these videotaped interactions, in total over 2,300 messages, were
coded using Rogers relational control coding system and Gottmans (1979)
procedures for coding nonverbal affect. The affect coding is based on a
composite of three types of nonverbal observation: facial expression, voice
tone, and body position. Each unit is coded as either positive (+), neutral
(0), or negative (-) affect. The average kappa intercoder reliability values
were .78 for the control coding and .80 for the affect coding.
Base-rate comparisons of nonverbal affect found the couples mean proportion of positive affect steadily declined across the high, medium, and
low adjustment groups from 31% to 16% to 3%. For expressions of negative
affect, the proportions were reversed, with 15% in the high adjustment
group, 37% in the medium group, and 55% in the low group. With more than
half of the low adjustment couples nonverbal expressions being negative in
affect with minimal positive expressions, these couples lend continuing evidence of the relation between negativity and marital distress (Gottman,
1979; Gottman & Levenson, 1999). There were no significant differences
across the couple groups in the expression of neutral nonverbal affect.
For message control, the average proportions of one-up messages for
both husbands and wives in the high adjustment group (slightly less than
30%), were significantly lower than in the other two groups. In the medium
and low adjustment groups both husbands and wives had high levels of
domineeringness with more than half of their messages coded as one-up,
with wives enacting somewhat more one-up moves than husbands. It was
therefore, not surprising to find a significantly higher occurrence of triadic
sequences of one-up messages (hhh) in these two groups, with very few in
the high adjustment group.
The transactional analysis of the control and affect interactions resulted
in distinct pattern sets that were most representative of each of the three
couple groups. The high adjustment couples were characterized by positive and neutral affect reciprocity and one-down/one-across transitory control patterns. These couples engaged in less competitive symmetry and
rarely in escalating one-up sequences. The medium adjusted couples enacted competitive and escalating patterns of symmetry and nonverbal affect negativity. However, these couples also intermixed these patterns with
one-across symmetry (gg), one-down/one-across transitory transactions,
and positive affect reciprocity. With this offsetting mix of patterns, these
couples interactions were somewhat volatile without being overly destructive. In contrast, the low adjustment couples were characterized by two patterns, competitive symmetry and negative affect reciprocity, two patterns
93
that hold little potential for problem resolution. With these patterned differences, successful clinical intervention appears far more likely for the high
and medium couple groups than the low adjusted group.
The second study (Escudero, Rogers, & Gutierrez, 1997) incorporated yet
a further step in the analysis of control and affect. The two dimensions
were examined again separately, but most importantly in combination,
based on the concurrent controlaffect coding of each message. For this
study, the interactions of clinical and nonclinical couples formed the comparative basis of analysis. Three general types of questions guided this research. First, to what extent do control and affect behaviors convey nonredundant relational information about the interactional process? Second, do
the separate control and affect measures discriminate between clinical and
nonclinical couples in line with previous research? And third, do concurrent controlaffect measures discriminate between the two couple groups
in ways that lend further information beyond the separate measures?
The sample for this study consisted of 30 marital dyads, 18 clinical and
12 nonclinical couples. The clinical group, selected from couples who
sought marital counseling (with no overlap of the couples included in the
first study), were matched with similar couples from the same urban area
who did not seek counseling but agreed to participate in the study. As in
the previous study, demographic data and each persons response to the
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) were obtained during the initial interview.
Based on the intake information and educational level, the couples were all
of middle socioeconomic status. Between group comparisons of clinic and
nonclinic couples by age, length of marriage, and number of children resulted in no significant difference. Once again, on the average the participants were in their middle 30s, had been married between 7 to 9 years, and
had one to three children. The two groups of couples did differ significantly
on their DAS scores. The clinical group had a mean score of 76 (SD = 12.8)
and the nonclinical group, a mean of 110 (SD = 8.6).
After obtaining the self-report data, the couples were then asked to discuss a relevant relational issue. The problems discussed were of similar
types across the two groups and all couples indicated their interactions
were typical of their normal discussions of the problem. Based on the first
20 minutes of the couples conversations, the videotaped and transcribed
interactions were coded by two teams of coders applying the relational
control system (RCCCS) and Gottmans (1979) nonverbal affect coding procedures. A total of 5,389 messages were dual coded, 2,555 for the clinic
group and 2,834 for the nonclinic group. A comparison of the average messages generated per dyad, 142 for the clinic couples and 236 for the nonclinic couples, was significantly different and reflected the distress evident
in the clinical group and the more active turn-taking and conversational
flow in the nonclinical group. For relational control, all code category-by-
94
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
category intercoder reliabilities were above the acceptable levels; the response code observer agreement was .81 and Cohens (1968) kappa was .74,
with a control direction estimate of .84 and a kappa value of .74. For the
nonverbal affect codes, the intercoder agreement was .80 with a kappa estimate of .68. As described in chapter 2, kappas from .60 to .75 are considered
to be good indications of reliability, and above .75 as excellent indications
(Fleiss, 1981).
To answer the first research question, basic for this study, log-linear
tests were conducted to examine the interrelationship of the control and affect dimensions. Our assumption that the two dimensions would be related
but sufficiently distinct to provide unique interactional information, was
supported. Based on the two dimensional contingency table (three control
directions and three affect codes), the analysis indicated a significant relationship between control and affect. The estimate of the effect size resulted
in a Cramers V coefficient of .277 (with separate V values of .247 for clinic
and .270 for nonclinic), indicating that the relationship was in the low to
moderate range. Thus, the two dimensions are not empirically independent, but each provides information that is not indexed by the other. This becomes increasingly evident in the comparative analyses of the two couple
groups.
In response to the second question, couple group distinctions were evident from the analysis of both the control and affect dimensions. The baserate comparisons of control found significantly higher proportion of one-up
messages for clinic than nonclinic couples (45% vs. 31%) and lower proportions of one-across messages (30% vs. 44%), with no significant one-down
control differences. All nonverbal affect comparisons were significant. For
the clinic group, 51% of their messages were negative, 34% neutral, and 13%
were positive, whereas the nonclinic mean proportions were 13% negative,
58% neutral, and 28% positive. The inverse relationship between domineeringness and marital adjustment and satisfaction remains a constant across
the studies, as does the inverse relation between negative affect and marital adjustment.
With a comparison of the zero-order combination of control and affect
message codes, as shown in Table 4.1, the differences between the couple
groups become even more pronounced. Only 4% of the clinic couples oneup messages (52 out of 1,253 total one-up messages) were positive in affect,
with 71% of their one-up messages (890 of 1,253) expressed with negative affect. For nonclinic couples, 15% of their one-up messages were positive (135
of 895 total one-up messages), 30% were negative, and the majority (55%)
were neutral in affect. Comparison of the affect expressed with one-across
messages found 8% of these neutralizing messages in the clinical group
were positive in affect, with 54% negative, whereas for the nonclinic couples
27% were positive and 8% were negative. Even with one-down control
95

TABLE 4.1
Zero-Order Contingency Between Control and Nonverbal
Affect Message Codes for Clinic and Nonclinic Couple
Groups by Frequency and Percentage
Nonverbal Affect Codes
Couples
Clinic
Nonclinic
Control
Codes
h
g
i
h
g
i
+
52
65
116
135
330
300
(4%)
(8%)
(28%)
(15%)
(27%)
(47%)
0
311
289
159
491
807
322
(25%)
(37%)
(38%)
(55%)
(65%)
(50%)
890
419
139
269
103
18
(71%)
(54%)
(33%)
(30%)
(8%)
(3%)
Total
1253
773
414
895
1240
640
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Note. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd. From Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., and
Gutierrez, E. (1997). Patterns of relational control and nonverbal affect in clinical and nonclinical
couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 529. Copyright Sage Publications Ltd.,
1997.
moves, 33% were expressed with negative affect by the clinic couples, versus 3% by the nonclinic couples.
In addition, nonclinical couples significantly engaged in more neutral affect reciprocity, as well as neutral/positive affect sequences. In terms of
control, these couples enacted significantly more one-down/one-across
transitory transacts, sequences in which partners encourage or support the
continuing extension of their discussion, and they also engaged in more accepting or supporting, one-down symmetry (ii).
Turning to the third question guiding this research, the lag-sequential
analysis of the concurrent control-affect coded messages resulted in more
specific, significant pattern comparisons. A competitive, one-up-negative
pattern of symmetry (h-h-) was activated by both couple groups in their
discussions of relational issues, however, the nonclinic couples also enacted two other, counterbalancing symmetrical patterns, one-up-neutral affect (h0h0) and one-across-neutral (g0g0) symmetry. What was also particularly telling, were the additional 10 transitory transactional patterns
that were activated by the nonclinical couples, with all of these sequences
expressed with positive or neutral nonverbal affect and 7 of the 10 were
combinations of the one-down, one-across control transactional forms
(g0i+), (i+g+), (i+g0), etc. In contrast, for the clinic group only five transitory transactions were significantly activated, with three of these patterns
generated with negative affect and two based on one-up, one-across control
sequences (h-g-), (g-h-).
To examine the potential escalation of competitive-negative symmetry
activated in both groups of couples, the analytical procedures of Revens-
96
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
torf, Vogel, Wegener, Hahlweg, and Schindler (1980) were applied. With this
method, the unconditional probability of a one-up-negative message (h-)
was compared (through z-scores) with the conditional probability of a oneup-negative message occurring, given previous sequences of two (h-h-),
three (h-h-h-), or more one-up-negative messages, until no significance
is found. The results of this analysis found the escalating chain of negative
symmetry in the clinical group to be both stronger (i.e., higher probabilities) and longer sequences of occurrence than in the nonclinical group.
When this type of transaction occurred in the clinical group, the likelihood of moving to a three-message exchange was .58, compared to .37 for
nonclinic couples, and remained high, between .52 and .6.6, until dropping
off after a total exchange of eight messages. The nonclinic probability remained lower and ended with a four message chain. Thus, we see the
nonclinic couples not shying away from one-up negative expressions of
disagreement or differences when discussing relational problems, but at
the same time not caught in extended escalations, whereas the clinical
couples did not share this ability to readily pull out of these negative, symmetrical escalations.
The results from this set of studies, with the added feature of crosscultural verification, are consistent with previous research based on the
separate analyses of relational control and nonverbal affect. However,
based on the combined concurrent analysis of control and affect, the findings are expanded with the identification of more specific communication
pattern distinctions that are associated with different characteristics and
levels of adjustment of marital relationships. This research clearly moves
our efforts in the direction of the overall goal of relational research to explore in combination, multiple aspects of the central dimensions of interpersonal relationships.
PHYSICAL AGGRESSION
A final area of research included in this review is the application of the relational communication approach to the study of physical aggression in marriage relationships. The first of these studies was Gages (1988) investigation of 25 abusive couples with a history of domestic violence, during each
couples initial counseling session for treating physical aggression. At this
stage of the couples relationship, Gage found competitive symmetry to be
the most predominant, almost system absorbing, pattern of ongoing
spousal opposition to one anothers definitional assertions. In a comparative study of abusive and nonabusive couples interactions, based on their
discussion of a nonconflict topic, Sabourin (1995) found, even in this context, the enactment of one-up control moves, nonsupportive messages and
97
higher levels of competitive symmetry to be more prevalent interaction patterns among the abusive couples than nonabusive couples.
In contrast to the study of more abusive marriages, Rogers, Castleton,
and Lloyd (1996) focused on the control patterns of 25 relatively satisfied
couples who, in the year prior to this study, reported or did not report episodes of physical aggression, such as pushing, hitting, or throwing objects at one another. This study was the third phase of a longitudinal
study on marital aggression. In the first two phases, carried out by Lloyd,
husbands and wives from an original sample of 78 couples were interviewed separately to collect base-line information, and then through a series of over-time telephone interviews Lloyd tracked the everyday positive and negative behaviors reported by each of the husbands and wives to
study behavioral differences by levels of marital distress and aggression; 18
months later, similar procedures were used to investigate the couples behavioral changes. One of the findings by Lloyd (1990), in line with OLeary et
al. (1989), was the occurrence of aggression in relatively satisfied marriages. See Lloyd (1996) for a detailed description of the procedures and results of the first two phases.
Our goal in this third phase was to move to an investigation of the couples communication interactions. The sample consisted of couples from
the original sample who could still be contacted after 3 years, and who
agreed to participate in the study. The couples were from a western metropolitan area, and on the average, in their mid-30s, with 1 to 2 years of college, married for 11 years, with three children. The data gathering procedures were similar to those used in previous marital interaction studies.
The couples were interviewed in their home with each partner completing
the self-report, marital questionnaire first, then together discussing four
topics for at least 10 minutes each. The discussions included conflict and
nonconflict oriented topics. The transcriptions of the tape recorded conversations were coded using the relational control coding system, with an
overall intercoder kappa reliability estimate of .85 based on approximately
10% of the 11,644 total messages.
On the basis of the couples responses to the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(DAS; Spainer, 1976) and Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS; Strauss, 1979), three
couple groups were identified for this investigation: high adjustmentnonaggressive (n = 9, DAS x = 123), moderate adjustmentnonaggressive (n = 8,
DAS x = 113), moderate adjustmentaggressive (n = 8, DAS x = 111). Three
couples each were classified as low adjustmentnonaggressive (DAS x = 96)
and low adjustmentaggressive (DAS x = 75), but due to the limited number
of cases were not included in this analysis. Thus as indicated, this study focuses on couples with moderate to high DAS scores.
Even though all of the couples reported relatively satisfying relationships, in comparison with the two moderate groups the high adjustment
98
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
nonaggressive couples across all topic discussions expressed higher proportions of supportive messages, one-down moves, and one-across/onedown (gi, ig) transitory transacts, and in turn, lower enactments of
nonsupportive messages, one-up messages and competitive symmetry
(hh). Importantly, the dominance ratio for these couples was 1.10, which indicates a relatively equivalent pattern of dominance with the husband
slightly higher. The moderate adjustmentnonaggressive couples ratio of
.62 indicates higher wife dominance, whereas the moderate adjustmentaggressive couples ratio of 1.42 indicates a pattern of husband dominance.
What particularly stood out in this analysis, however, were the marked
differences in the couples interaction patterns during the conflict oriented
discussions compared to the nonconflict topic discussions. Across all topics, whether conflict and nonconflict topics, the high adjustment couples
continued to steadily maintained a low proportion (8%) of nonsupport messages (with a 3 to 1 ratio of support to nonsupport), an equivalent (shared)
dominance ratio and low levels of competitive interaction patterns (e.g., 4%
for one-up symmetry). In contrast, when the topic moved to discussing disagreements, the two moderate adjusted groups, but more so the physically
aggressive couples, shifted quickly and significantly into much higher levels
of nonsupport (for the aggressive couples, from 8% to 26%), one-up moves
(21% to 36%), and competitive symmetry (from 4% to 19%). For these couples, and again more pronounced for the aggressive couples, it was as if a
fuse had been lit when the topic turned to how they dealt with problem issues, with their discussions turning into a series of oppositional moves of
complaining and defending, a type of exchange not pronounced by either of
these groups in the nonconflict oriented topics.
The unequal dominance ratios of the two groups may play a part in the
move toward more competitive interaction in their conflict discussions, or
the topic itself triggers a pattern of conflict, seemingly an unproductive one,
that over time has become overly redundant and habituated. A relevant factor regarding the two moderate adjustment groups is that five of the eight
aggressive couples reported physically aggressive acts in all three phases
of the research project, and several of the presently classified nonaggressive couples reported aggressive acts in the first phase of the study. In addition, the aggression reported by these couples was predominantly mutual,
that is both partners engaged in physical acts of aggression, which could
further lend to the higher competitive nature of their discussions of disagreements.
If, as Stets (1980) proposed, verbal aggression carries the seed of physical
aggression (p. 513), these findings although limited, suggest that the aggressive couples in their discussions of conflict may more readily slip beyond a
point of sufficient containment of verbal escalation into physical aggression,
while the moderatenonaggressive couples may still be struggling with this
99
potential. How couples handle conflict is seen as a central aspect in maintaining viable, intimate relationships (Markman, 1991), and the key may not lie in
solving conflictive issues, but in not damaging the relationship in the process
of dealing with these issues (Gottman & Levenson, 1999).
CONCLUSIONS
In this program of research we have sought to advance the study of marital
interaction by examining the communication patterns of couples who represent different types of marital dyads, from a general population of couples in the active child-rearing stage, to couples in marital counseling, to
physically aggressive couples, to couples representing two different cultures, Spanish and American. Further, we have sought to expand the dimensions studied through the combined analysis of relational control and nonverbal affect, and to incorporate more of the temporal dimension of
interaction with the application of sequential analysis techniques for identifying longer sequences of communicative patterns. In many ways, these efforts represent small research steps, but across the span of the research
program, a consistent, integrated set of expanded findings has emerged.
In general, patterns of complementarity representing shared dominance,
one-down transitory transacts, supportive messages, relatively flexible control patterns accompanied by positive and neutral nonverbal affect reciprocity are associated with more satisfying and well adjusted marriage relationships. Conversely, domineering one-up messages, particularly wife
domineeringness, interruptions, unequal dominance, escalating competitive symmetry, in combination with nonverbal negative affect reciprocity
are related to lower levels of marital adjustment, understanding, perceived
equity and communication satisfaction.
From these comparative results, we gain a better understanding of the
influencing effect of different communication patterns on marital relationships. For instance, the ability of satisfied couples to express one-up messages and competitive symmetry with positive or neutral affect, more
clearly illustrate how these couples are able to discuss differences, disagreements, or disapproval without becoming entangled in destructive relational spirals. Or how these couples facilitate communication and relational harmony through the exchange of the less controlling, some what
innocent appearing, one-across/one-down sequences in which they give
positive strokes to one another while continuing to express thoughts,
points of view, or feelings. Through the use of these patterns, couples demonstrate, perhaps unknowingly, their relational wisdom. An understanding
of these everyday, communicative forms represent both important research and practical goals of the relational study of marital interaction.
100
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
REFERENCES
Bochner, A. P. (1976). Conceptual frontiers in the study of communication in families: An introduction to the literature. Human Communication Research, 2, 381397.
Cappella, J. N. (1987). Interpersonal communication: Definition and fundamental questions. In
C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 184238).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa nominal scale agreement with provisions for scales disagreement of partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213220.
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1983). A new measure of interactional control patterns. Communication, 12, 4768.
Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers-Millar, L. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: Replication and expansion. Communication Monographs, 46, 179192.
Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Palmer, M. T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational control.
Communication Monographs, 66, 4965.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Escudero, V., & Gutierrez, E. (1990, June). Relational communication in the family system: Dimensions and patterns of communication. Paper presented at the International Communication Association meetings, Dublin, Ireland.
Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., Gutierrez, E., & Caceres, J. (1992, May). Relational control and nonverbal affect in marital conflict: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the International Communication Association meetings, Miami, FL.
Escudero, V., Sobral, J., & Gutierrez, E. (1987). Conflicto interpersonal: Un estudio exploratorio
[Interpersonal conflict: An exploratory study]. Analisis y Modificacion de Conducto, 13, 111
128.
Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgment about the relationship. In M. M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp.
395415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.
Gage, R. B. (1988). An analysis of relational control patterns in abusive couples. Dissertation Abstracts International, 19, 10341048.
Gottman, J. M. (1982). Temporal form: Towards a new language for describing relationships.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 943962.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). How stable is marital interaction over time? Family
Process, 38, 159165.
Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hess, R. D., & Handel, G. (1959). Family worlds: A psychosocial approach to the family. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Hinde, R. A. (1995). A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships, 2,
115.
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
101
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family: Toward a theory of family process. New York:
Harper & Row.
Koestler, A. (1978). Janus: A summing up. New York: Vintage Books.
Laing, R. D. (1969). The politics of the family. New York: Vintage Books.
Lennard, H. L., & Bernstein, A. (1969). Patterns in human interaction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lloyd, S. A. (1990). Conflict types and strategies in violent marriages. Journal of Family Violence,
5, 269284.
Lloyd, S. A. (1996). Physical aggression, distress, and everyday marital interaction. In D. D. Cahn
& S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 177198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Markman, H. J. (1991). Constructive marital conflict is not an oxymoron. Behavioral Assessment,
13, 8396.
Markman, H. J., & Notarius, C. I. (1987). Coding marital and family interaction: Current status. In
T. Jacob (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology (pp. 329389). New York: Plenum.
Millar, F. E., Rogers, L. E., & Bavelas, J. B. (1984). Identifying patterns of verbal conflict in interpersonal dynamics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 232246.
Millar, F. E., Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Relational control and dyadic understanding: An exploratory predictive regression model. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 3 (pp. 213224). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
OLeary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and
stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263268.
Olson, D. H., & Cromwell, R. E. (1975). Power in families. In D. H. Olson & R. E. Cromwell (Eds.),
Power in families (pp. 311). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Olson, D. H., & Ryder, R. G. (1970). Inventory of marital conflict (IMC): An experimental interaction procedure. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 443448.
Quera, V., & Estany, E. (1984). ANSEC: A basic package for lag sequential analysis of observational data. Behavior Research, Methods, Instruments and Computers, 16, 303306.
Ransom, D. D., Fisher, L., Phillips, S. Kokes, R. F., & Weiss, R. (1990). The logic of measurement in
family research. In T. W. Draper & A. C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conception, measurement and use (pp. 4863). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. (1974). Communication, conflict, and marriage.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Revenstorf, D., Vogel, B., Wegener, C., Hahlweg, K., & Schindler, L. (1980). Escalation phenomena
in interaction sequences: An empirical comparison of distressed and nondistressed couples
behavior. Behavior Analysis and Modification, 2, 97116.
Rogers, L. E. (1972). Dyadic systems and transactional communication in a family context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Rogers, L. E., Castleton, A., & Lloyd, S. A. (1996). Relational control and physical aggression in
satisfying marital relationships. In D. D. Cahn & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 218239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogers, L. E., Millar, F. E., & Bavelas, J. B. (1985). Methods for analyzing marital conflict discourse: Implications of a systems approach. Family Process, 24, 5372.
102
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
Sabourin, T. C. (1995). The role of negative reciprocity in spouse abuse: A relational control analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 271283.
Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. Wolff, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 1528.
Spanier, G. B., & Filsinger, E. E. (1983). The dyadic adjustment scale. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy (pp. 155168). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Stets, J. E. (1980). Verbal and physical aggression in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
52, 501514.
Strauss, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)
Scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 7588.
C H A P T E R
5
From Dyads to Triads, and Beyond:
Relational Control in Individual
and Family Therapy
Laurie Heatherington
Williams College
Myrna L. Friedlander
University at Albany, State University of New York
In 1936, when Gregory Bateson described in Naven the patterned sequences

of behavior between the Iatmul people of New Guinea, the practice of individual psychotherapy was in its infancy and family therapy had not yet
been conceived. Yet Batesons notion that the meaning and pragmatic function of behavior could only be fully understood in their interactional context would later prove to profoundly influence the theories and techniques
of psychotherapy, as well as the research methods used to study it. From
this seminal work and subsequent elaboration by Bateson, Jackson, Haley,
and others (e.g., Sluzki & Beavin, 1965/1977; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson,
1967) was born a substantial body of literature on relational communication, also termed control theory, which refers to the aspects of message
exchange by which interactors reciprocally negotiate their positions relative to one another by redefining, constraining, adapting, accepting, and rejecting one anothers definitional presentations (Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983,
pp. 5152).
Psychotherapy is essentially a social interaction, albeit of a special type,
in which therapists and clients reciprocally negotiate their positions relative to one another . . . (Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983, pp. 5152). This notion
was shared by psychotherapists and communication researchers who
worked together in the 1960s and 1970s to apply interactional ideas to a science of psychotherapy (cf. Wilder-Mott & Weakland, 1981). From that theoretical soil, a body of research on relational communication in psychother103
104
HEATHERINGTON AND FRIEDLANDER
apy, especially family therapy, has grown. This chapter summarizes and
discusses that research.
IN INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOTHERAPY
Harry Stack Sullivan (1953), a psychoanalyst, introduced the term complementarity into the clinical literature to refer to situations in which one persons needs are met satisfactorily by anotherfriendly submissiveness met
with friendly domineeringness, for example. According to Sullivan (1953),
by eliciting complementary behaviors from each other, two people are able
to maintain a comfortable, harmonious balance in their social relationship.
Sullivans interpersonal theory had an important influence on analytic
thinking and practice, an influence that continues today (e.g., Kiesler, 1996;
Klerman & Weissman, 1993; Klerman, Weissman, Rounsaville, & Chevron,
1984). But in 1963, Jay Haley, a member of the Palo Alto group, criticized
Sullivan (1953) for describing interpersonal relations using intrapersonal
constructsmotivation, personality, affiliation, and so forth. Haley (1963) argued that interpersonal behaviors are better described by transactions, observable and quantifiable behaviors. (Unlike interpersonal theory, Haleys
relational control theory did not take into account the affiliative aspect of
the behavior [Friedlander, 1993]).
Although Haleys (1963) perspective on human communication was first
applied to the diagnosis and treatment of families as well as couples, the
earliest clinical research with the Relational Communication Control
Coding System (RCCCS; Ericson & Rogers, 1973; Rogers & Farace, 1975) was
designed to identify the interactional patterns in dyadsone client, one
therapist. To our knowledge, there have been six published (Friedlander,
Siegel, & Brenock, 1989; Heatherington & Allen, 1984; Lichtenberg & Bark,
1981; Lichtenberg & Heck, 1986; Tracey, 1991; Tracey & Miars, 1986) and
three unpublished (Heatherington, 1985; Lichtenberg, 1985; Thames & Johnson, 1982) studies of individual psychotherapy using the RCCCS and one
published (Beyebach & Escudero, 1997) and two unpublished (Beyebach,
de la Cueva, Ramos, & Rodrguez-Arias, 1990; Rodrguez-Arias, 1996) studies
of individual psychotherapy using a modified version of the RCCCS, the
Family Relational Communication Control Coding System1 (Heatherington &
Friedlander, 1987; Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989).2
1
Based on the results of Heatherington (1988) and other validity studies of the original
RCCCS, we revised the coding rules for certain types of questions and answers. Specifically,
whereas the RCCCS does not differentiate the coding or the assignment of control codes to open
and closed questions and the answers to them, the FRCCCS does, arguing that these have different control functions; see the coding manual (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987) for more details. Although most researchers have used the FRCCCS for family or family therapy studies,
5. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY THERAPY
105
The purpose of all the RCCCS studies was to learn what takes place in individual therapy in terms of relational control. The process of treatment
was not manipulated; rather, the naturally occurring discourse was analyzed for descriptive purposes. In the earliest study, Lichtenberg and Bark
(1981) compared the relational dynamics in demonstration films conducted
with three master therapistsAlbert Ellis, Fritz Perls, and Carl Rogersrepresenting distinctly different therapeutic approaches. All of the subsequent
studies were field investigations, that is, studies of actual therapy conducted by nonexperts with real clients.
The major question addressed by the investigators was: To what degree
are therapeutic transactions complementary? (Friedlander, 1993). In most
of the studies (Friedlander et al., 1989; Heatherington, 1985; Heatherington
& Allen, 1984; Lichtenberg, 1985; Tracey, 1991), complementarity was found
to be the predominant control pattern, but in two studies (Lichtenberg &
Bark, 1981; Thames & Johnson, 1982), symmetry was observed more frequently. In the studies in which complementarity was the primary pattern,
the transactions tended to be therapist h/client i, reflecting the proposition that for therapy to be successful, the balance of power must favor the
therapist (Haley, 1963; Strong & Claiborn, 1982). Two exceptions were
Heatherington and Allen (1984) and Tracey and Miars (1986), in which the
predominant pattern was therapist i/client h. As pointed out by Lichtenberg and Bark (1981), the finding of therapist i /client h may be because
therapists take control by relinquishing control to the client, a phenomenon that Haley (1963) termed metacomplementarity.
Other interesting findings underscore the complexity of relational control in the therapeutic setting. Thames and Johnson (1982) reported that relational control patterns varied across time in therapy. In their research,
the initial and termination stages were characterized by more complementarity and less symmetry than the middle stage. Analyzing only the
middle stage, Tracey (1991) applied 5 different control coding schemes to
26 sessions, and after the interviews participants completed questionnaires
assessing their perceptions of control during the session. The therapists
were 14 graduate student trainees at a community mental health training
center. RCCCS results showed that therapists had the most control, both in
terms of the frequency of one-up (h) messages and in terms of the frequency of therapist h/client i complementary exchanges. Furthermore,
some, including these authors, have chosen to use it for studies of individual therapy and other
dyadic communication as well.
2
Because the focus of this chapter is on psychotherapy, we have limited the review to that
body of research. We note, however, that there are important lines of research on relational
communication in other helping interactions, notably, school consultation (cf. Erchul, 1987;
Erchul & Chewning, 1990; Erchul, Covington, Hughes, & Meyers, 1996; Martens, Erchul, & Witt,
1992) and physicianpatient interaction (cf. Cegala, McNeilis, McGee, & Jonas, 1995; Lamude,
Scudder, & Dickson, 1994; McNeilis, Thompson, & OHair, 1995; Morris & Chenail, 1995).
106
there was consistency across the various observational measures when the
same data aggregation method was used, supporting the construct validity
of these instruments. On the other hand, the observational results were unrelated to the participants self-reported perceptions of control.
Various other studies used sequential analyses to draw conclusions
about how clients and therapists attempt communication control. Reanalyzing one of Carl Rogerss interviews, Lichtenberg and Heck (1986) demonstrated that h codes by one speaker tended to be neutralized by subsequent one-across (g) messages by the respondent, leading to no clear
pattern of either complementarity or symmetry. Heatherington (1985) and
Lichtenberg (1985) used RCCCS data from two interviews, Sessions 1 and 18,
with an experienced male therapist and a female client. Using the lag sequential analysis method (Sackett, 1977), Heatherington (1985) found nonrandom patterns of control codes in both sessions at a lag of 1 as well as at
subsequent lags. A high proportion of all interactions was stable complementarity, but the pattern was more pronounced in Session 1 than in Session 18. Using transitional probability matrices and measures of entropy
and redundancy from Shannon and Weavers (1947) mathematical communication theory, Lichtenberg (1985) reported that neither session evidenced
much structure or patterning, although Session 1 had more structure than
Session 18, as one might expect. Although in both sessions the therapist
had more i than h responses, the predominant control pattern was therapist h/client i complementarity. Interestingly, whereas in Session 1 therapist h responses had a strong excitatory effect on client h responses, by
Session 18 these same responses had a strong tendency to be followed by
client i responses.
Heatherington and Allen (1984) tested the association between gender
and control patterns in an outpatient therapy setting. This large-scale study
(N = 72 clients) of intake sessions found that dyads with men clients tended
to exchange h and i messages more frequently than did those with women
clients, who used more neutral g messages. Furthermore, contrary to prediction, dyads with women clients were not characterized by more therapist h/client i complementarity when the therapist was male than when the
therapist was female.
Whereas Heatherington and Allen showed that relational control patterns may be affected by gender, another study (Friedlander et al., 1989)
showed that the patterns are influenced by the type of social relationship.
In this study, the coding system was applied to supervision as well as psychotherapy. In an intensive case study, the relational control patterns of
one client, one therapist/trainee, and one supervisor (all women) were observed over an 8-week period as part of an investigation of parallel processes in supervision. Results showed that in both the therapy and supervisory dyads, there was more complementarity than competitive symmetry.
107
Interestingly, the therapist was h with her client but i with her supervisor,
underscoring the role-bound nature of relational communication. A reversal from therapist h/client i complementarity (in Sessions 1 and 3) to therapist i/client h (in Session 5) may have been related to problems in the therapeutic relationship, which terminated prematurely.
An active research program on relational communication as it relates to
psychotherapy dropout reflects some patterns noted in other more descriptive research.3 Beyebach, Rodriguez Morejn, Palenzuela, and Rodriguez-Arias (1996) found that in the information-gathering phase of first sessions, a consistent questionanswer pattern was more characteristic of
those who dropped out than of those who continued in therapy. The authors noted that, This form of interaction has also been described by
Heatherington and Allen (1984), who note that the cross-fire of questions
and answers is a type of exchange that produces a feeling of discomfort
and competition between participants (p. 312). They also reported that in
the first sessions of later dropouts, clients interrupted therapists more,
gave more nonsupport messages, and received less support from therapists. Analysis of transactional patterns showed that clients who subsequently dropped out asserted control more (i.e., more domineeringness)
than those who continued in treatment.
Beyebach and Escudero (1997) conducted another sophisticated comparison of relational control in 16 sessions in which the therapy terminated
prematurely versus 16 sessions in which it did not. It is notable that this is
the only study of relational communication in brief therapy based on a solution-focused approach (deShazer, 1982, 1991), one that is well-suited conceptually to systemic and relational research strategies. These authors distinguished, on the basis of other measures, successful and unsuccessful
dropout groups. The latter were clients who left treatment early but were
feeling better and generally satisfied with the therapy, whereas the former
were those who left early due to lack of progress and dissatisfaction. The
FRCCCS data showed that the sessions of successful dropouts were characterized by less support, more nonsupport, more successful talkovers, fewer
client i messages, and more client h messages during the informationgathering phase of the session. There was also less support and a higher
proportion of talkovers in the unsuccessful dropout sessions as compared
3
The review of this body of work might also have been placed in the family therapy section,
since family therapy can be defined by a particular theoretical approach rather than by the
number of people present in a therapy session. We chose to review it here because the methods
for coding interaction change somewhat when there are more than two people present. In this
section on relational communication in individual therapy, therefore, we discuss research on
therapy which included just one client and a therapist, acknowledging that some of the studies
concerned individual approaches while others focused on systemic, solution-focused, or other
approaches most typically identified with family therapy.
108
with the continuation group. In both dropout groups, the therapists tended
to use more questions in the information-gathering stage and were less
likely to be in a i complementary position than they were with clients who
continued in therapy. Moreover, there was more symmetrical interaction in
the dropout than in the continuation group. Lag sequential analysis indicated that in the continuation group clients domineering (h) behavior was
more likely to be met by therapist domineeringness than in the dropout
group and that overall, one-across g messages were most likely to be followed by other leveling (g) messages. This finding contrasted with those of
Beyebach et al. (1996), who reported that competitive symmetry and verbal
conflict were more characteristic of the first sessions of clients who later
dropped out of treatment than of those who did not. Beyebach and
Escudero noted that the study provides empirical support for the contention of Beyebach et al. (1996) that neutral comments or leveling messages
are more important in psychotherapy than previously realized and that
psychotherapy dropout should be conceptualized as a relational phenomenon, which seems to be associated with a particular configuration of therapeutic communication (p. 203).
RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION IN FAMILY

THERAPY
Although the literature on relational communication in individual therapy
is rich and complex, marital and family therapy interactions, as every family therapist knows, are also rich in communications that are redefining,
constraining, adapting, accepting, and rejecting (Rogers & Bagarozzi, 1983,
pp. 5152). Consider, for example, the following sequences of communication (Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989, p. 142):
Mother (to son): Jimmy, I thought you went out again after that. Did you?
Father (to son, intercepting): What in the world did you do that for?
Therapist (to son, intercepting): Jimmy, first I want to help you to answer your
mother. Her opinion is important.
or, another possible sequence of communication:

Therapist: So you girls and your mother dont get along.
Daughter: Im a bit cold in here.
Second daughter (to mother): See how she never listens to anybody?
Mother: You mind your own business. And your sister will answer the question,
now!
109
Theoretically, symptoms or other family problems are maintained by the

familys characteristic relational communication patterns, and changes in
these patterns are necessary to alleviate symptoms and promote the wellbeing of the family as a whole (e.g., Haley, 1963; Minuchin, 1974). Although
relational control is relevant to the understanding of the therapistclient relationship in individual therapy, the theories of client change in individual
therapy have little to do with interpersonal control dynamics. Psychoanalytic
theorists maintain that change comes with insight, for example, and cognitive therapists argue that change requires maladaptive thought patterns to
be altered. On the other hand, the original family systems theorists maintained that shifts in the balance of power in relationships promote client
change (e.g., Minuchin, 1974). For this reason, measures of relational control
are especially relevant for studying conjoint family treatment. By observing
meaningful shifts in transactional patterns between family members, we can
track the process of changes as they occur over time in a system.
Because the RCCCS was designed for dyads, we found it necessary to
expand the system to account for group interactions, preserv[ing] the assumptions inherent in the systemic perspective (Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989, p. 139). To this end, we created the Family Relational Communication Control Coding System (FRCCCS; Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989;
Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987). The next section describes the FRCCCS,
its development and its psychometric attributes, followed by a review of the
studies to date on relational control dynamics in family therapy interviews.
The Family Relational Communication

Control Coding System (FRCCCS)
The purpose, development, and uses of the Relational Communication Control Coding System are well documented in other chapters in this volume.
When we became intrigued by its potential use beyond dyadic interactions,
to triadic or larger group contexts, it was clear that the RCCCS needed to be
modified in order to handle the complexity of communication among three
or more speakers. In groups, messages are not always direct or reciprocal.
One person may talk to a second about a third, or one party may interrupt
the exchange of two others or may disqualify another party by turning to a
third person. Multiple messages may be sent that reflect a coalition (i.e., the
simultaneous support of one party and challenge of another; Friedlander &
Heatherington, 1989). New procedures were needed to handle such triadic
moves, speaking turns in which there are two or more targets, indicating
that the speaker is defining his or her relationship with two other people simultaneously.
110
Such interactions are of great theoretical import in family therapy. Bowen

(1976), for example, described triangulation, a three-person emotional configuration (pp. 7576) in which a conflict-ridden dyadic relationship typically
draws in a third party as a means of defusing, detouring, or avoiding conflict.
Minuchin (1974), likewise, described rigid triads, and Haley (1967) proposed
that perverse triangles (p. 16) may lead to symptoms, violence, or even destruction of the family system. Moreover, many family therapy techniques
(e.g., joining, forming alliances, circular questioning, indirect suggestions)
capitalize on the control dynamics in multiperson client systems.
Overview of the FRCCCS. The FRCCCS is largely based on, and retains
many features of the RCCCS (Ericson & Rogers, 1973; Rogers & Farace, 1975).
It has to do with the pragmatic use of language to attempt to gain or relinquish control of the definition of a social relationship. Coding of verbal messages is conducted by trained judges using videotapes or verbatim transcripts of family therapy sessions. The basic unit of analysis is the verbal
message, several of which may be contained within a given speaking turn.
Judges assign each message a message code, which involves judgments on
the same three dimensions as the RCCCS. The first dimension, Participants,
identifies the speaker and all targets (both direct and indirect) of the message. As in the RCCCS, the second dimension is the Format, or structure, of
the message (coded as either assertion, open or closed question, successful
or unsuccessful talkover, intercept, or noncomplete) and the dimension, Response Mode, refers to the pragmatic function of the message as it relates to
the immediately preceding message(s) of other speakers. Response modes
are categorized as either support, nonsupport, answer (to open or closed
questions), extension, instruction, order, disconfirmation, topic change, intercept block, or neutral (to the indirect target).
The FRCCCS coding of natural discourse was illustrated by Friedlander
and Heatherington (1989) in a segment of family therapy conducted by Salvador Minuchin (Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978, p. 185). As one example
from this vignette, Minuchin instructs an anorexic daughter that she should
not be in the middle of her parents, that she should resist her fathers attempts to resolve a problem with his wife by drawing her into the discussion. The daughter replies, I guess he values my opinion of things, to
which Minuchin responds, Yes, but they should value your opinions on
your things. They should not bring you in the middle, because you get
caught. Minuchins message was coded as an assertioninstruction to the
parents (the indirect targets) and as an assertionnonsupport to the daughter (the direct target of his intervention).
To use the FRCCCS, judges are trained with the coding manual (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987) to acceptable levels of interjudge reliability
111
based on Cohens (1960) kappa, a conservative estimate that takes into account chance agreement. In our research using the FRCCCS, kappas have
ranged from .93 to .96 (for the coding of participants), .84 (for the coding of
format), and .66 to .78 (for the coding of response mode) (Friedlander,
Heatherington, & Wildman, 1991; Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b; Raymond, Friedlander, Heatherington, Ellis, & Sargent, 1993).
Once the message codes are determined, the investigator applies established rules to each possible combination of format and response mode to
yield a control code. Following the RCCCS, control codes can either be oneup (h), for messages that attempt to gain control, one-down (i), for messages that seek to relinquish control, or one-across (g), for messages that
are relatively neutral with respect to control. For example, based on the
FRCCCS coding rules, a talkover giving an instruction is assigned a h code,
whereas an open question giving support is i.
The control codes can be analyzed in a variety of ways. Most simply,
the proportion of each individuals h, i, or g messages to every other individual can be determined. This provides information on individuals attempts at gaining or relinquishing control. For other purposes, such as examining the familys dance in terms of interpersonal control, the list of
control codes can be examined in sequence for dyadic transaction patterns. Specifically, symmetry is observed when two parties exchange messages with similar control codes (e.g., hh, or ii). Complementarity, on
the other hand, is observed when one partys h message is immediately
responded to by a i message or vice versa, yielding either hi or ih. Transitory patterns involve a single neutral control message followed or preceded by a h or i message (e.g., hg or gi). Note that sequential patterns
are identified only for reciprocal messages (A speaks to B, who responds
immediately to A, directly or indirectly). See Table 5.1 for a coded discourse segment that includes message codes, control codes, and transactional patterns.
The major feature of the FRCCCS that distinguishes it from the original
dyadic coding scheme is its ability to identify triadic moves, which reflect
an individuals attempt to define his or her social relationship with two others simultaneously. Triadic moves occur when, for example, one individual
intercepts the dialogue between two others or when one party, A, disconfirms another, B, by turning to a third party, C, rather than responding
to Bs previous question or challenge. One class of triadic behavior is a
coalitionary move, which occurs when a speaker goes one-up to one party
and one-down to another, directly or indirectly (Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989). In a group, for example, A may indirectly support (i) B by challenging (h) C. In response, D might intervene to support (i) C by challenging (h) A to listen to his viewpoint.
112
Note. Message codes: format and response mode are indicated in parentheses. The control
code assigned to each message code is determined by FRCCCS coding rules. Transactional patterns, formed by the sequence of reciprocal messages, are indicated. The three exchanges between Father and Son are complementary (h,i), symmetrical (i,i), and transitory (i,g). Mother
interrupts the dialogue between Father and Son; the MotherSon sequence is complementary
(Mother h/Son i).
Development and Validation of the FRCCCS. Extending the original

RCCCS to family (or any group) contexts proved to be more complex than
we had anticipated. First, it was necessary to take into account a major distinction between dyadic and group interaction. In a group, sequences of
verbal messages are not necessarily reciprocal. Whereas in a dyad the sequence of talk is ABABABAB . . . , in a group, it may be ABCABDBDABDC. . . .
Obviously interruptions are a major controlling maneuver in group talk.
Second, we recognized that the individual who is interrupted, although not
directly addressed by the speaker, is nonetheless involved in a control dynamic. Third, we noted several other triadic situations in which a family
member may be indirectly controlled by anothers behavior. When a question is ignored because the recipient (the target) of the question opts to
speak to someone else in the family, the first speakers definition of the conversational situation has indirectly been challenged.
Recognizing that these group aspects of relational control would need to
be incorporated into the FRCCCS, we used an inductive strategy to create
the coding rules. We selected one videotaped demonstration session by
theorist Carl Whitaker (one that had been used in a previous research effort) in which the issue of interpersonal control was clinically meaningful.
That is, the entire session was characterized by an explicit struggle for con-
113
trol between Whitaker and one of the family members, the father. Indeed,
other family members described the father as excessively controlling and
domineering. We expected that the constant interruptions, challenges, disqualifications, and indirect interventions that were observable clinically in
this interview would provide us with suitable examples from which to create our coding rules. We reasoned that if the resulting relational control
patterns (the FRCCCS coding of the transcript) indicated a struggle for control between Whitaker and the father, these results would support the face
validity of the coding system. The findings did, in fact, show a predominance of competitive symmetry between Whitaker and the father (as well
as between the father and his wife and son; Heatherington, Friedlander, &
Raymond, 1986). We were encouraged by these preliminary findings, because it was apparent to us that many of the FRCCCS indices reflected theoretically meaningful family phenomena, e.g., disqualification (Sluzki, Beavin,
Tarnopolsky, & Vern, 1977), intrusiveness (Riskin & Faunce, 1976), triangulation (Bowen, 1976), and the therapeutic use of indirectness (Friedlander,
Ellis, Raymond, Siegel, & Milford, 1987).
The following brief example illustrates the congruence between the
FRCCCS and a clinical understanding of the interaction:
Husband (to therapist): Do you see how my wife distorts everything?
Therapist (to wife, disconfirming husband): How do you feel about what he just
said? (Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989, p. 141)
Here, the husband indirectly challenges his wife while simultaneously

seeking to gain control over the therapist by using a closed question-topic
change. The therapist indirectly challenges the husband by disconfirming
him (i.e., not responding to his question). With the FRCCCS, their reciprocal
exchange would be coded as competitive symmetry. Furthermore, by asking the wife an open question, the therapist is relinquishing control of the
conversation to her. By simultaneously going one-down to the wife and
going one-up to the husband, the therapist has made, in FRCCCS terms, a
coalitionary move (Friedlander & Heatherington, 1989, p. 143). From a
clinical perspective, the therapist has, in this intervention, joined with the
wife and challenged the husbands attempt to control them both.
Although Rogerss original dyadic coding system had been subjected to
several construct validation tests (e.g., Heatherington, 1988), we believed
that the new coding rules we had created for the family context deserved
similar attention. The interjudge reliabilities of the FRCCCS were satisfactory, suggesting that trained coders tended to view therapy interactions
similarly. But did the FRCCCS codes indeed measure interpersonal control? To answer this question, we compared family therapists perceptions
of the control dynamics in videotaped interviews with the FRCCCS codes
114
for triadic interactions (Gaul, Simon, Friedlander, Heatherington, & Cutler,

1991).
Indeed, the results of this study supported the validity of the triadic coding rules. The study was essentially a criterion validity study of observer
accuracy (i.e., a test of the degree to which observers perceptions
matched preorchestrated . . . videotapes) (Suen, 1988, p. 378). Specifically,
we carefully constructed two videotaped vignettes in which the triadic indices of the FRCCCS (those that distinguish it from the original dyadic coding system) were embedded within the script. Participants, 25 experienced
family therapists, viewed each vignette and then rated specific verbal messages within the vignette as either h, i, or g. Several messages representing each FRCCCS triadic index (e.g., disconfirmation) were delivered by different family members (actors) so as to minimize the degree to which
participants would form global impressions of different family members as
domineering or submissive. Results indicated that the majority of participants responses reflected agreement with the coding rules. A z-test of Cohens kappa (.56) was statistically significant, p < .0001, indicating that subjects perceptions corresponded with the coding rules more closely than
would be expected by chance alone.
Extension to Nonverbal Behavior. The need for a nonverbal relational
control coding scheme has been pointed out repeatedly (e.g., Folger &
Poole, 1982; Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987; Wiener, Budney, Wood, &
Russell, 1989). In the family context, children communicate a great deal nonverbally. Many adult gestures also seem to have unambiguous relational
meaning. For example, X begins to answer a question Y had addressed to Z,
and Z points an index finger in Xs direction. The latter, understanding this
gesture as an instruction to stop interrupting, says, Sorry. Zs nonverbal
gesture was an attempt to direct the interaction in a particular way and, as
such, was a clearly communicated one-up message. In this context, the
gesture directly instructed X and indirectly supported Y. To extend the
FRCCCS so as to allow for the coding of nonverbal behaviors, we conducted
three studies (Siegel, Friedlander, & Heatherington, 1992). These involved
creating a means by which nonverbal relational control behaviors could be
reliably and validly coded and integrated with the existing verbal FRCCCS.
In Study 1, a pool of discrete nonverbal behaviors with potential relational control implications was identified (e.g., head nod, raised eyebrow)
from consultation with family therapy researchers and from the literature
on nonverbal communication and marital and family therapy. Then, a test
of the content validity of these behaviors was conducted with three independent samples to exclude those behaviors that were not easily identifiable or were not discrete with respect to relational meaning. Still other behaviors were eliminated based on the results of a cluster analysis. Once
115
this was accomplished, a means was developed for incorporating the empirically based clusters of nonverbal behaviors into the FRCCCS.
In Study 2, evidence of interjudge reliability was obtained. Five judges
were trained to identify and code nonverbal relational behaviors from videotaped family therapy session. Interjudge reliability was acceptable for
both the participants (k = .96) and response mode (k = .84) dimensions. (As
all nonverbal behaviors are coded as assertions, no reliability estimates are
needed on the format dimension.)
Finally, Study 3 was conducted to test the criterion validity of the combined verbal and nonverbal FRCCCS. Like our earlier test of the observer
accuracy (Suen, 1988, p. 358) of the verbal coding scheme (Gaul et al.,
1991), results indicated that the message stimuli were perceived in accord
with the FRCCCS coding rules. Specifically, we constructed brief (23 message) videotaped vignettes in which the verbal and nonverbal messages
were crossed. Thus, in some vignettes the verbal and nonverbal messages
were congruent, for example, both h, whereas in others they were incongruent, for example, a nonverbal message was h while the verbal message
was i. (In part, the latter evaluation was designed to provide information
about the impact of disparate verbal and nonverbal behaviors occurring simultaneously.)
Experienced family therapists observed each vignette and rated one
message in the vignette as a move toward either gaining or relinquishing
control. The significant nonverbal effect supported the validity of the nonverbal component of the FRCCCS, while the significant verbal effect supported the validity of the verbal coding system. Comparison of effect sizes
revealed that the variance accounted for by the nonverbal effect was twice
that accounted for by the verbal effect.
These findings, although not definitive, suggest that nonverbal messages
may carry more meaning (with respect to relational control) than do verbal
ones. This conclusion needs to be tempered, however, by the recognition
that the nonverbal behaviors included in our vignettes were, due to the nature of the FRCCCS, relatively discrete and obvious. More subtle nonverbal
behaviors may carry less meaning in the context of verbal behaviors.
Research on Relational Control in Family Therapy
The earliest studies using the FRCCCS were descriptive. For example, our
first family therapy study was conducted in a hospital-based outpatient
family therapy clinic known for its systemic approach and directed by
Carlos Sluzki (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b). The purpose of this
study was to refine the coding system as well as to identify the kinds of relational communication patterns that typify systemic family therapy. Because
of the interesting interactional patterns that we had observed between
116
Whitaker and individual family members in our development of the FRCCCS

coding rules (Heatherington et al., 1986), we speculated that therapist/family member control patterns might differ depending on the treatment modality (couples vs. family therapy) and on the clients gender.
We sampled 29 family sessions conducted between the 3rd and 5th
weeks of treatment by experienced therapists. Descriptive analyses
showed, first, that in the couples sessions as well as the family sessions the
predominant control pattern was complementarity, with Therapist h/Family Member i. Second, experienced therapists of both genders tended to engage in this control pattern somewhat more frequently with female clients
than with male clients (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b).
In a second, comparative descriptive study, we (Friedlander et al., 1991)
compared the consultative work of three leading structural therapists
(Charles Fishman, Ron Liebman, and Salvador Minuchin) with those of
three Milan systemic therapists (Luigi Boscolo, Gianfranco Cecchin, and
Mara Selvini Palazzoli). The focus was the relational control dynamics between therapists and family members. As hypothesized, in both approaches complementary relational control patterns predominated, with
therapists from both camps most often assuming a h position, and family
members a i position.
Other relational indices showed considerable divergence across approaches, however. Consistent with the respective theories, the systemic
therapists engaged in proportionately more complementarity than the
structural therapists, probably due to their greater use of questionanswer
sequences. By contrast, the structural therapists engaged in more competitive symmetry with family members. Systemic therapists encouraged or
permitted significantly less interaction among the family members. Rather,
much of the direct action was between the therapist and individual family
members. Moreover, while the structural therapists intervened in more
overtly controlling and unbalancing ways by, for example, ordering, instructing, interrupting, praising, and supporting family members (either directly or indirectly), the systemic therapists were, as expected, more neutral in their indirect communications.
Overall, these results were generally congruent with theory (i.e., therapists were generally doing what they say they do, interactionally). The results also reflected the hypothesized differences in the two approaches,
providing additional support for the validity of the FRCCCS and informing a
discussion about the advisability of integrating the two approaches.
Subsequently, we began to ask how change processes in family therapy
correspond to relational communication. In the first study of this type, we
predicted that therapist/family member relational control dynamics would
predict clients perceptions, specifically their overall evaluations of the session and their views on the therapeutic alliance. In 1986, Pinsof and Cath-
117
erall had published the first measure of the therapeutic alliance specifically
designed for couples and families. There was some evidence to suggest
that, measured early in treatment, the alliance in family therapy (like its
counterpart in individual treatment) is predictive of outcome (Pinsof &
Catherall, 1986). We speculated that because complementarity reflects mutuality in participants understanding of their relationship, therapist/family
member complementarity would predict a more favorable therapeutic alliance. Alternatively, less favorable alliances were expected to be related to
more frequent competitive symmetry, because this interactional pattern reflects disparate definitions of a social relationship.
To test these predictions, we (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b) asked
family members (over age 10) to complete Pinsof and Catheralls (1986) alliance scales immediately following each session, along with the Session
Evaluation Questionnaire (Stiles, 1980). Results did not support the hypotheses concerning the alliance, but a statistical trend suggested that complementarity in which the family member was dominant (h) and the therapist submissive (i) predicted a less favorable alliance. While this finding
has not been replicated, it makes sense intuitively in that one may expect a
controlling therapist to be an asset when the family is undergoing a great
deal of conflict. The more able the therapist is to assert control in a chaotic
session, the more he or she is likely to be viewed by family members as
possessing the requisite knowledge and skills to help them.
Although the verbal patterns were not strongly predictive of the alliance,
the latter was related to family members perceptions of the sessions value
(Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990c). We suspected that the leap from verbal patterns in just one session to these intermediate outcome (Greenberg,
1986) variables was too large. What was more likely to be observedand
possibly more meaningfulwas a shift in the quality of the communication
patterns themselves. Would, we wondered, the father in the Whitaker interview (Heatherington et al., 1986) begin to behave differently with his wife
and son over the course of treatment? If so, the competitive symmetry we
observed in the session might occur less frequently or might alternate with
other communication patterns over the course of treatment. These questions drew us away from averaging data across families and toward a more
intensive view of change over time in a single family.
We therefore conducted a case study (Raymond et al., 1993) to provide
information about the process of change in structural therapy with an
anorexic family. The structural approach was selected because it is considered to be clear, specific, and, with its emphasis on observable interaction,
relatively more amenable to empirical investigation than other leading
models of family therapy (Gurman, 1988; Heatherington & Friedlander,
1990a). Although the outcome literature has supported the effectiveness of
structural therapy for several disorders, few studies have been undertaken
118
to examine the approach as it is actually practiced. Other than the original

work upon which the theory was predicated (e.g., Minuchin et al., 1978), investigations of the process of change over the course of structural family
therapy are notably absent. An anorexic family was selected for intensive
study because many aspects of structural theory were developed from clinical work with these types of families (e.g., Minuchin et al., 1978) and because there is some evidence to suggest that structural treatment is successful with this difficult client population (e.g., Liebman, Minuchin, &
Baker, 1974).
The major feature of structural treatment explored in the case study was
the interactional communication patterns of family members with one another and with their therapists. According to structural theory (e.g., Minuchin, 1974), the goal of treatment is to alter specific patterns of dysfunctional
interaction (e.g., enmeshment, rigidity, intergenerational coalitions, detouring) that maintain symptoms. Thus, we expected that an examination of
changes over time in the observable interactional patterns of family members would provide information concerning whether the change process corresponds with theory. We also questioned whether structural therapists interact with family members in theoretically predictable ways by, for example,
challenging behaviors indicative of enmeshment or triangulation.
We reasoned that relational control has a close connection with structural theory inasmuch as relational control concerns how individuals use
language to influence one another (Ericson & Rogers, 1973) and the roots of
the construct can be traced to Batesons (1936/1958) proposition that interpersonal relations are reflected in the implicit hierarchy and structure of
the messages people exchange with one another (Rogers & Bagarozzi,
1983). Likewise, structural theorists emphasize the role of communicational
transactions in defining and reflecting hierarchical relations between and
among family members (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin et al., 1978; Minuchin &
Fishman, 1981).
In this single case design, John Sargent, well known for his inpatient
work with chronic families of this type (e.g., Sargent, Liebman, & Silver,
1985), conducted (with a co-therapist) 15 sessions of family treatment over
a 3-week period. Each of these 15 family interviews was examined separately and in entirety in terms of specific relational control variables reflecting transactional rigidity, enmeshment, intergenerational coalitions, and
interpersonal closenessdistance. Sessions from the three phases of treatment (beginning, middle, and end) were compared for changes in relational
control patterns (a) between the anorexic daughter and her parents and (b)
between Sargent and each of these three family members. Multidimensional scaling (MDS; Kruskal & Wish, 1978) provided spatial maps of the underlying interpersonal structure of the therapistfamily system; these maps
were examined for the predicted changes over time. Finally, therapist inter-
119
ventions following specific observable dysfunctional family communications (e.g., intergenerational coalitions) were examined.
Consistent with our earlier work (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990b)
on relational control dynamics, Therapist h/Family Member i complementarity predominated throughout this case. With the identified patient, this
pattern was observed more frequently in the early and late phases of treatment than in the middle, or restructuring, stage. The MDS maps showed
that Sargent maintained a central position in the system throughout treatment, with the cotherapist more peripheral. Hypothesized changes in alliances within the family were not evident in the maps, however.
Indeed, the findings did not confirm the majority of our theory-based hypotheses, particularly those concerning changes in family behavior over
time. Relational behaviors assumed to reflect intergenerational triangulation and enmeshment, two hallmarks of anorexic families according to
structural theorists (e.g., Minuchin et al., 1978), were expected to decrease
in frequency throughout treatment. Only three instances of these interactional behaviors were observed in the entire treatment. Indeed, given the
structural emphasis on family enactment (Minuchin et al., 1978), there
was surprisingly little family interaction throughout; family members addressed each other, on average, only 22% of the time.
Although few statistical tests could be conducted due to the low frequency of within-family interactions, a close inspection of the familys relational control patterns suggested that some changes in the familys rigid
communication style may have occurred over time. Specifically, the parents were observed to engage in more competitive symmetry over time,
possibly reflecting a struggle for control between them. At the same time,
the competitive symmetry between the anorexic daughter and each parent
decreased over time. We speculated that these shifts might reflect less detouring or conflict avoidance on the part of the parents and a consequent
detriangling of the symptomatic child (p. 323).
We also observed therapists responses to dysfunctional family communication patterns. The patterns of interest were those that theorists (e.g.,
Minuchin & Fishman, 1981) consider to reflect an underlying structural
problem in the family. It was hypothesized that, because the goal of structural treatment is to disrupt communication patterns reflecting boundary
violations or cross-generational triangulation, the therapists would intervene immediately by interpreting or confronting these behaviors or by educating or coaching the family toward more functional communication.
Based on the FRCCCS, the following indices were identified over the
course of the 15-session treatment: (a) intercepts, or attempts by the daughter to interrupt in her parents conversations with each other, and (b)
coalitionary moves in which the daughter supported one parent while challenging the other or in which (c) either parent supported the daughter
120
while challenging the spouse. Although only three such instances were observed, on each of these occasions, the therapists did respond immediately
as predicted. Their interventions either redirected the conversation, . . .
provided information, direct guidance or advice, or . . . sought information
from family members in a highly structuring, one-up manner (Raymond et
al., 1993, p. 322). In this research, that is, at the speech act level of the therapy process, all behaviors occurring during the samplebe it a segment, a
session, or an entire treatmentwere observed. The data provided a descriptive and comprehensive, but relatively flat, map of the terrain of relational control.
By contrast, in individual psychotherapy research a relatively new strategy was emerging that focuses on particular features of the terrain of interaction, change event research (Greenberg, 1986). In change event studies,
the assumption is that not all speech acts are of equal importance. Rather,
there is a focus on the psychotherapy event, an interactional sequence between the client and therapist . . . that has . . . a particular structure that
gives it meaning as an island of behavior distinguishable from the surrounding behaviors in the ongoing psychotherapeutic process. . . . The
event represents a therapeutic activity that comes to some closure in the
hour (Greenberg, 1984, pp. 137138). In this approach, a therapeutic episode with a clinically identifiable task, a beginning (the marker phase), and
an end (the resolution phase) is operationally defined. In the marker phase,
the therapist notices and sets out to address emotional, cognitive, or (most
important in family therapy) interactional problems. In the resolution phase,
there is observable evidence of a shift in emotional, cognitive, or interactional states, signaling the work done in the middle phase has been successful. The job of the researcher, then, is to analyze important aspects of the
eventbut particularly the middle phasein order to build a performance
model, or a delineation of the sequence of steps on the part of the therapists and client(s) that are necessary to produce change. By limiting ones
study to behaviors that surround such clinically meaningful moments, the
researcher can elucidate the actual mechanisms of therapeutic change.
Arguing that change event research strategies should also be applied to
family therapy research (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990a), we analyzed
two demonstration interviews by theorist Salvador Minuchin. We identified
a common task in both sessions as commitment to engage (p. 40). In
each case, the therapeutic event involved breaking an unproductive pursuedistance cycle that was hindering family members abilities to engage
effectively with one another in problem solving. In both sessions, by the
end of the event the interpersonal impasse was significantly modified such
that the parents no longer pursued and the son no longer distanced.
Rather, each boy began to express his feelings to his parent(s) voluntarily
and with deep feeling.
121
Interpersonal control is a key construct in structural family therapy, and

in these sessions, there were explicit power struggles surrounding the act
of communication itself. Thus, in each interview, the FRCCCS data were
compared for the marker and the resolution phases.
The marker phase of one interview was characterized almost exclusively
by complementary Mother h/Son i exchanges in which she was asking
highly structuring, somewhat blaming, closed questions. The sons responses were minimal closed answers, not giving much but also not attempting to change the topic or challenge her. During the resolution phase,
there were more different types of relational control exchanges; competitive symmetry increased, and the complementarity pattern reversed, with
Son h and Mother i, reflecting more a genuine give-and-take between them.
In the second interview, the parents exchanged no messages with each
other during the marker phase. The communication was marked by competitive symmetry, which comprised 40% of the FatherSon exchanges and
50% of the MotherSon exchanges. These reflected a power struggle, again
around communication, of the Tell me whats bothering you/No, I wont
variety (p. 43). The rest of the communication was marked by complementary sequences in which the sons message were h to the mother but i to
the father. In the resolution, the mother began to assert more control and
the roles of Mother and Son in the complementary exchanges reversed. In
addition, mother and father began to openly discuss their conflict, and their
interaction was characterized by competitive symmetry in this phase.
These relational control analyses proved useful in operationalizing the
interactional change that was clinically observable.
This was also true for a more extensive follow up study, conducted in a
field (clinic) setting (Friedlander, Heatherington, Johnson, & Skowron, 1994).
In this study, we called the task sustaining engagement to reflect family members engagement behaviors (rather than their motivation to engage). Specifically, the term engagement refers to a challenging phenomenon in which
familieseven those who have voluntarily sought psychotherapysometimes refuse to engage in productive collaboration with each other in the
session. At the point at which the therapist notes the interactional patterns
marking this situation, a sustaining engagement event may occur. That is,
given successful interventions, that impasse may be resolved, allowing the
family to move from disengagement to productive problem solving.
We compared four successful with four unsuccessful change events, and
defined sustained engagement as a sequence of at least 8 speaking turns in
which family members are observably willing to disclose thoughts or feelings on [a] designated topic, to share or cooperate, to show interest and involvement in the discussion, or to be responsive and attentive (i.e., emotionally present) (Friedlander et al., 1994, p. 9). On the basis of qualitative
and quantitative analyses of the successful and unsuccessful sessions, a
conceptual model of the process of change was created.
122
This performance model involved a series of five interrelated steps: acknowledging ones own contribution to the interpersonal impasse, communication of thoughts and feelings about the impasse, validation of those
feelings by other family members, development of new constructions of
one anothers behavior, and recognition of the potential benefits of engagement. We described various strategies and interventions that the therapists
used to facilitate engagement throughout the process using examples from
the four successful change events (Details can be found in Friedlander et
al., 1994).
Again, and of particular relevance to this chapter, there was a need for
interactional, behavioral measures to study the process of change. One
complex aspect of this type of change event was the fact that there were
clearly different styles of disengagement. In identifying the event (the initial
phase of this task analysis research), we noted three disengagement styles:
direct (e.g., refusing to speak), indirect (e.g., shifting the topic), and passive
(e.g., minimal responding, paying lip service to the issue). It is clear that
these styles of disengagement represent a mix of content (what is said) and
process (how it is said). All three styles were represented in the marker
phase in the successful sample as well as in the unsuccessful sample.
Relational communication in the marker phases of these sessions varied.
In some families, there was much family interaction during the marker
phase, whereas in others family members rarely spoke with one another.
Observations of the relational control maneuvers suggested that some family members were struggling for control. In other families, the pattern was
predominantly complementarity. We noted that active, direct disengagement
(arguing, topic changing, challenging) tends to be revealed by FRCCCS competitive symmetry; passive disengagement of the pursuedistance variety
tends to be reflected in stable complementarity, with one family member
consistently attempting to gain control and another party consistently going one-down. By the same token, there was diversity in the FRCCCS coding
in the resolution phase of the four successful events. No one kind of interaction or pattern of transactions characterized these resolutions.
As a consequence, and in contrast to some of findings on marital satisfaction and relational control (see chap. 4, this volume), we could not conclude that some patterns of family communication reflect a healthier resolution than others. Rather, the resolution was revealed by a marked shift
from the prior pattern of relating, a change that signaled a move from the
initial stuckness. In one event, for example, Mother and Son hardly interacted in the marker phase, reflecting their passive disengagement. In the
resolution phase, their control defining pattern was complementary; she
was asking questions, he was responding. By contrast, in another event, a
couples stable complementarity in the marker phase decreased in the resolution. This shift signaled progress for this couple inasmuch as the hus-
123
band began to challenge his wife a bit more and collaborate more fully in
the task at hand.
CONCLUSION
The important contributions of relational communication control theory
and measurement is its (a) insistence on the interactional, reciprocal nature of communication, (b) its recognition of interpersonal control as an important dimension in close relationships, and (c) its assumption that communication does not reflect, but rather builds and constructs, psychosocial
relationships. Although these ideas may seem self-evident today, they were
neither self-evident nor accepted in psychotherapy theory and research 20
years ago. Indeed, they were heretical. Psychotherapy, until the 1960s, was
individually and intrapsychically focused. The notion that interactive behaviors between multiple interactants was worthy of study or intervention
was limited to a few visionaries (e.g., Sullivan, 1953).
Happily but not coincidentally (because they grew from the same roots),
systemic theories of psychotherapy and relational control measurement
arose in a complementary fashion. Relational control theory proved to be a
rich source of conceptual and measurement tools that were compatible
with systemic approaches to psychotherapy, and allowed the kinds of research efforts reviewed in this chapter to be undertaken. To date, researchers have found that relational control in family therapy sessions can be observed reliably and accurately, and there seem to be some common
relational features in family therapy (e.g., the predominant control pattern
being Therapist h/Family Member i complementarity, at least in the traditional schools of family therapy), as well as some specific features that distinguish one approach from the other (e.g., structural family therapy from
Milan systemic therapy). Furthermore, changes over time in relational communication patterns correspond to clinically meaningful changes, as in the
resolution of sustaining engagement events.
We have also learned that generalizing across families about what kinds
of relational communication patterns are best, that is, correlated with a
good therapeutic alliance or indicative of healthy family functioning, is not
as fruitful as examining changes over time in relational control dynamics.
The former is analogous to a photographic snapshot, while the latter is
more like a running videotape of the dynamics of family interaction. Moreover, across families, there are differences in the specific kinds of patterns
that constitute therapeutic change. In some families, an increase in competitive symmetry may signal a healthy airing of conflict because until that
point one person was rigidly i, the other always h, with all conflict suppressed. In other families, competitive symmetry might signal the unwilling-
124
ness of individuals to compromise or yield to the others. Thus, to make the

same predictions for all families, or to average relational control indices
across families, would obscure important differences as well as prevent
meaningful conclusions about change. Following Safran, Greenberg, and
Rice (1988), we believe that intensive, discovery-oriented research strategies are the most appropriate methods for addressing clinically meaningful
question. This is nicely illustrated, with regard to relational processes in solution-focused therapy, by the work of Beyebach et al. (1996).
What does the future hold? We suggest a number of possibilities for continued understanding of relational control in psychotherapy. First, from Bateson on, the major point of relational control theory has been that isolated behaviors are meaninglessonly by studying any given behavior in relation to
the stream of behavior in which it is embedded, does its meaning becomes
evident. Following this reasoning, there is a need to pay more attention to
the larger contexts that surround the coding of relational control behavior.
Research is needed on both obvious and subtle nonverbal behaviors as well
as on the relationships between the nonverbal and verbal channels of communication. These may of course vary depending on gender, status, or cultural differences as well as on the context of the interaction. In the context of
an argument, nonverbal behaviors (walking out, using ridiculing or threatening gestures, and so forth) seem to carry more weight, but in a problem solving discussion, verbal messages may have more influence.
Moreover, we need to move beyond basic descriptive, summarizing
maps of relational communication in psychotherapy to more specific maps
of how relational control patterns between therapists and multiple family
members vary at different strategic points (e.g., in establishing alliances,
challenging coalitions, using indirect one-up moves). This work has barely
begun. The goal of such analysis should be a pragmatic one. That is, we
need to know whether the practice of a particular approach is consistent
with theory, and if so, exactly what it is about the discourse that is therapeutic, what actually happens that leads to client improvement.
Our final point concerns relational communication and evolving models
of psychotherapy. In the years since the inception of relational control theory, and even subsequent to most of the research reviewed in this chapter,
there has been a great deal of change and development in psychotherapy
theory and practice, particularly within the family therapy field. The earliest models of family therapy were based on cybernetics and general systems theory. As these enterprises concerned themselves with concepts like
control, feedback, and homeostasis in physical, biological, or ecological
systems, so too the original models of family therapy concerned themselves with these concepts in human systems. This way of thinking about
family and therapy interaction dovetailed with the popular behavioral research methods in psychology, and produced an approach to family ther-
125
apy (and family therapy research) which was concerned with the observable and sequential patterns of interaction between peoplewith the
pragmatics of human communication (Watzlawick et al., 1967).
In recent years, a new wave of concepts has been infused into therapy
practice and research. Variously known as postmodern, constructivist, constructionist, solution-focused, or narrative (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988,
1992; deShazer, 1982, 1991; McNamee & Gergen, 1992; OHanlon & WeinerDavis, 1988) approaches, they share a common focus on the socially constructed meanings of behaviorsincluding language behaviorrather than
on the behavior itself. In these theories, patterns of behavior are less meaningful than the interpretations or beliefs that people have about those patterns. Thus concepts like meaning-generated systems have produced various therapy techniques that focus on helping people construct new
stories about their relationships or problems rather than on changing
those systems or interactions themselves.
For psychotherapy researchers, this state of affairs is both exciting and
challenging. It is exciting because it broadens the domains of investigation
to understand the process of change. Not only interactional behavior, but
also cognitions and emotions must be incorporated into our research questions and designs. Relational communication remains an important piece of
the puzzle, but researchers are now also studying the subjective meanings
and emotional consequences of interactional patterns, including relational
control patterns. Escudero, Rogers, and Guterrez (1997), for example,
found that relational control and affect were moderately but certainly not
completely correlated, and each domain added interactional information.
Moreover, as noted earlier, context mattered. In this case, the context was
the quality of the ongoing relationship, the backdrop for the discussions
that were studied. For couples who were in treatment for marital problems,
escalating competitive symmetry was associated with negative affect, but
for nonclinic couples, this was not the case. Competitive symmetry was as
likely to be associated with neutral affect as it was with negative affect. In
our research on sustaining engagement (Friedlander et al., 1994), we found
that successful resolution of disengagement impasses included an affective
or hope component, when family members came to recognize their emotional bonds and their value. This seemed to motivate change in their actual behaviors with each other. The point is that supplementing a focus on
interactions with a focus, where appropriate, on feelings and beliefs, is necessary to capture the full meaning and import of psychotherapy processes.
The beauty of relational control theory is that it is congruent with the
theory of change in the early family therapy modelsthere is an isomorphism between the tools and the theories. The challenge for relational communication researchers in the 21st century will be one of integration: how
to use theoretical models, and combine measurement strategies from be-
126
havioral, cognitive, and affective domains in order to build a comprehensive science of the process of psychotherapeutic change.
REFERENCES
Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and
evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 317398.
Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1992). The client is the expert: A not knowing approach to
therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 2539).
Bateson, G. (1958). Naven. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published
1936).
Beyebach, M., de la Cueva, F., Ramos, M., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1990, June). Relational communication control in first interviews of systemic therapy. Paper presented at the International
Communication Association Meeting, Dublin, Ireland.
Beyebach, M., Rodrguez Morejn, A., Palenzuela, D. L., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Research
on the process of solution-focused therapy. In S. Miller, M. A. Hubble, & B. Duncan (Eds.),
Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy (pp. 299334). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, M. B. (1976). Theory in the practice of psychotherapy. In P. J. Guerin (Ed.), Family therapy: Theory and practice (pp. 4290). New York: Gardner.
Cegala, D. J., McNeilis, K. S., McGee, D. S., & Jonas, A. P. (1995). A study of doctors and patients
perceptions of information processing and communication competence during the medical
interview. Health Communication, 7, 179203.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 3746.
deShazer, S. (1982). Patterns of brief family therapy. New York: Norton.
deShazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York: Norton.
Erchul, W. P. (1987). A relational communication analysis of control in school consultation. Professional School Psychology, 2, 113124.
Erchul, W. P., & Chewning, T. G. (1990). Behavioral consultation from a request-centered relational communication perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 5, 120.
Erchul, W. P., Covington, C. G., Hughes, J. N., & Meyers, J. (1996). Further explorations of requestcentered relational communication within school consultation. School Psychology Review, 24,
621632.
Escudero, V., Rogers, L. E., & Guterrez, E. (1997). Patterns of relational control and nonverbal affect in clinic and nonclinic couples. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 14, 529.
Folger, J. P., & Poole, M. S. (1982). Relational coding schemes: The question of validity. In M.
Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 235257). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Friedlander, M. L. (1993). Does complementarity promote or hinder client change in brief therapy? A review of the evidence from two theoretical perspectives. The Counseling Psychologist,
21, 457486.
Friedlander, M. L., Ellis, M. V., Raymond, L., Siegel, S. M., & Milford, D. (1987). Convergence and
divergence in the process of interviewing families. Psychotherapy, 24, 335341.
127
Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1989). Analyzing relational control in family therapy interviews. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 139148.
Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., Johnson, B., & Skowron, E. (1994). Sustaining engagement:
A change event in family therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 438448.
Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Wildman, J. (1991). Interpersonal control in structural
and Milan systemic family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 395408.
Friedlander, M. L., Siegel, S. M., & Brenock, K. (1989). Parallel processes in counseling and supervision: A case study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 149157.
Gaul, R., Simon, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Cutler, C. (1991). Correspondence of
family therapists perceptions with the FRCCCS coding rules for triadic interactions. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 379394.
Greenberg, L. S. (1984). Task analysis: The general approach. In L. N. Rice & L. S. Greenberg
(Eds.), Patterns of change (pp. 124148). New York: Guilford.
Greenberg, L. S. (1986). Change process research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
54, 49.
Gurman, A. S. (1988). Issues in the specification of family therapy interventions. In L. C. Wynne
(Ed.), The state of the art in family therapy research: Controversies and recommendations (pp.
125138). New York: Family Process Press.
Haley, J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Haley, J. (1967). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In G. H. Zuk & I. Boszormenyi-Nagy
(Eds.), Family therapy and disturbed families (pp. 1127). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior
Books.
Heatherington, L. (1985, August). A descriptive and lag analysis of relational control in counseling.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Heatherington, L. (1988). Coding relational control in counseling: Criterion validity. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 35, 4146.
Heatherington, L., & Allen, G. J. (1984). Sex and relational communication patterns in counseling.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 287294.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family Relational Communication Control Coding
System manual. (Available from Laurie Heatherington, Psychology Department, Bronfman
Science Center, Williams College, Williamstown, MA 01267 USA).
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990a). Applying task analysis to structural family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 3648.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990b). Complementarity and symmetry in family therapy communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 261286.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990c). Couple and family psychotherapy alliance scales:
Empirical considerations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 299306.
Heatherington, L., Friedlander, M. L., & Raymond, L. (1986, August). Methods for investigating relational control in family therapy interviews. Paper presented at the annual convention, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research. New York: Wiley.
Klerman, G. L., & Weissman, M. M. (Eds.). (1993). New applications of interpersonal psychotherapy.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, Inc.
Klerman, G. L., Weissman, M. M., Rounsaville, B. J., & Chevron, E. (Eds.). (1984). Interpersonal psychotherapy of depression. Northvale: Jason Aronson Press.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-011). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lamude, K. G., Scudder, J., & Dickson, R. (1994). Relational communication messages of Type-A
scoring physicians. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 985986.
Lichtenberg, J. W. (1985, August). A structural analysis of counseling interaction. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
128
Lichtenberg, J. W., & Bark, K. H. (1981). Investigation of transactional communication relationship patterns in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 471480.
Lichtenberg, J. W., & Heck, E. J. (1986). Analysis of sequence and pattern in process research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 170181.
Liebman, R., Minuchin, S., & Baker, L. (1974). An integrated treatment program for anorexia
nervosa. American Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 4143.
Mark, R. A. (1971). Coding communication at the relational level. The Journal of Communication,
21, 221232.
Martens, B. K., Erchul, W. P., & Witt, J. C. (1992). Quantifying verbal interactions in school-based
consultation: A comparison of four coding schemes. School Psychology Review, 21, 109124.
McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1992). Therapy as social construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McNeilis, K. S., Thompson, T. L., & OHair, D. (1995). Implications of relational communication for
therapeutic discourse. In G. H. Morris & R. J. Chenail (Eds.), The talk of the clinic: Explorations
in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse (pp. 291313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., & Fishman, C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., Rosman, B. L., & Baker, L. (1978). Psychosomatic families: Anorexia nervosa in context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morris, G. H., & Chenail, R. J. (Eds.). (1995). The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
OHanlon, W. H., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1988). In search of solutions: A new direction in psychotherapy.
New York: Norton.
Pinsof, W. M., & Catherall, D. R. (1986). The integrative psychotherapy alliance: Family, couple,
and individual therapy scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12, 137151.
Raymond, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., Ellis, M. V., & Sargent, J. (1993). Communication processes in structural family therapy: Case study of an anorexic family. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 308326.
Riskin, J., & Faunce, E. E. (1977). Family interaction scales. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds. &
Trans.), The interactional view (pp. 101127). New York: Norton.
Rodriguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Investigaciones sobre control relacional y interaccion terapeutica [Investigations on relational control and therapeutic interaction]. Paper presented at the conference Research on the Process of Therapeutic Interaction, La Corua, Spain.
Rogers, L. E., & Bagarozzi, D. A. (1983). An overview of relational communication and implications for theory. In D. A. Bagarozzi, A. P. Jurovich, & R. W. Jackson (Eds.), Marital and family
therapy (pp. 4878). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222239.
Sackett, G. P. (1977). Measurement in observational research. In G. P. Sackett (Ed.), Observing behavior: Data collection and analysis methods (pp. 1524). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Safran, J. D., Greenberg, L. S., & Rice, L. N. (1988). Integrating psychotherapy research and practice: Modeling the change process. Psychotherapy, 25, 117.
Sargent, J., Liebman, R., & Silver, M. (1985). Family therapy for anorexia. In M. Garner & P.
Garfinkel (Eds.), Treatment of anorexia nervosa and bulimia (pp. 257279). New York: Guilford.
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1947). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 117139.
Sluzki, C. E., & Beavin, J. (1977). Symmetry and complementarity: An operational definition and a
typology of dyads. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds. & Trans.), The interactional view (pp.
129
7187). New York: Norton. (Reprinted from Acta psiquiatrica y psicologica de America Latina,
1965, 11, 321330).
Sluzki, C. E., Beavin, J., Tarnopolsky, A., & Veron, E. (1977). Transactional disqualification: Research on the double bind. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds. & Trans.), The interactional
view (pp. 208277). New York: Norton.
Stiles, W. (1980). Measurement of the impact of psychotherapy sessions. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 48, 176185.
Strong, S. R., & Claiborn, C. D. (1982). Change through interaction: Social psychological processes of
counseling and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.
Suen, H. K. (1988). Agreement, reliability, accuracy, and validity: Toward a clarification. Behavioral Assessment, 10, 343366.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Thames, T., & Johnson, D. (1982, August). The dynamics of relationship control during termination
in time-limited therapy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Tracey, T. J. (1991). The structure of control and influence in counseling and psychotherapy: A
comparison of several definitions and measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 265
278.
Tracey, T. J., & Miars, R. D. (1986). Interpersonal control in psychotherapy: A comparison of two
definitions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 585592.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New
York: Norton.
Weiner, N., Budney, S., Wood, L., & Russell, R. L. (1989). Nonverbal events in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 487504.
Wilder-Mott, C., & Weakland, J. H. (Eds.). (1981). Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of
Gregory Bateson. New York: Praeger.
C H A P T E R
6
Relational Research in Brief Family
Therapy: Clinical Implications
Jos Luis Rodrguez-Arias
Vir xe da Xunqueria Hospital, Spain
In 1986, after completing my doctoral thesis, I seriously considered the

need to open up a new line of research with the aim of exploring the empirical implications for the set of assumptions and criteria that were guiding
my clinical decisions. At that time I was teaching family therapy in the Faculty of Psychology at the Universidad Pontificia in Salamanca (Spain), while
at the same time, working as a clinical psychologist in a private psychotherapy center which was a pioneer in Spain in the training of family therapists.
During that period both my colleagues and myself held the belief that the
therapeutic relation was absolutely fundamental to the successful outcome
of psychotherapeutic treatment, yet we had no solid empirical evidence on
which to base our assertion.
However, in the discussions and evaluations of our clinical cases, the
centrality of the therapistclient relationship was repeatedly emphasized
with comments such as, Its necessary to wait until the therapeutic relation is better established so that . . . , or Im doing this in order to improve the relation, or I proposed more change than the therapeutic relation can handle. These practical understandings carried over into our
teaching and training of students, by stressing that in the first sessions of
therapy, priority should be given to establishing a therapeutic relationship which would facilitate the subsequent process of implementing
change within the family system. Although this made intuitive sense, the
question of whether this would be empirically supported remained. In
combination, these concerns indicated the need for research and spurred
131
132
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
my interest in investigating the therapeutic relationship, its interactive

processes and clinical consequences.
Brief Family Therapy, the theoretical model that guided and continues to
guide our clinical practice, is based on the idea that problems occur between
people, not within people. This approach both analyzes and intervenes in the
interpersonal side of family problems and considers the intrapsychic aspects
to be of secondary importance. Therefore, in order to carry out the line of research envisioned, it was necessary to find a methodology for the collection
of data that would focus on the relational aspects of therapy.
In contrast, the majority of the methodological procedures currently in
use assess individual behavior and are founded on the idea that through
these analytical tests it is possible to discover what a person is like or how
they usually behave and then, attempt to predict their behavior based on
the acquired information of the characteristics or traits that make up what
is known as a persons personality. I feel there are two crucial reasons
why this type of measurement is inappropriate for evaluating the different
elements of the psychotherapeutic process. First, such tests require a
mechanistic procedure based on evaluating each person, or each variable,
separately and then attempting to put them together, thereby violating the
holistic or totality principle of General Systems Theory (Bertalanffy, 1968).
Second, and most important, such tests are inadequate, because they evaluate only individual behavior and ignore the relational aspects of behavior
that are precisely what Brief Family Therapy focuses on.
At this critical point in my thinking, I came into contact with the Relational Communication Control Coding System (Rogers, 1972), a system that
operationalizes the concepts of symmetry and complementarity which are
defined in the communication axiom put forward by Watzlawick, Beavin, and
Jackson (1967) that All communicational exchanges are either symmetrical
or complementary, depending on whether they are based on equality or difference (p. 70). Thus, symmetry and complementarity are defined as characteristics of communicative exchanges, not individual behavior. An isolated
message can be neither symmetrical nor complementary, but rather merges,
in relation to the combination of message exchange, into message sequences
which become symmetrical or complementary, hence, these patterns represent dyadic concepts.
According to Watzlawick et al. (1967), a relational pattern is considered
pathological when it becomes rigidly symmetrical or complementary. The
case of the former is referred to as symmetrical escalation while the latter
is known as rigid complementarity. A progressive pattern of symmetry,
however, is interrupted when complementarity is introduced and vice
versa. By applying these ideas to therapy sessions, a therapist can propose
submissive maneuvers when he or she perceives that relational members
are overengaging in symmetrical exchange; likewise, if the therapist notes a
6. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
133
relation of rigid complementarity, he or she can direct the exchanges toward increased opposition.
The Relational Communication Control Coding System (RCCCS) defines
three communicative maneuvers for each interlocutor: one-up (h), onedown (i) and one-across (g), and nine dyadic exchanges: three symmetrical (hh/ii/gg), two complementary (hi/ih) and four transitional (hg/
gh/ig/gi) transacts. With this perspective, the basic, communicative behavior patterns defined in The Pragmatics of Human Communication by
Watzlawick et al. (1967) are considerably enriched. When these authors
speak of symmetry they are referring only to competitive symmetry (hh);
the RCCCS also defines submissive symmetry (ii) and leveling symmetry
(gg). Furthermore, patterns of escalating symmetry can be altered with
enactments of one-across transitory exchanges as well as complementary
transacts, and rigid complementarity can also be modified through different modes of transitory and symmetrical transacts. By defining new relational communicative maneuvers, the range of communicational strategies
available to a therapist (and/or researcher) is considerably broadened.
From the standpoint of family therapy, the chief limitation of the RCCCS is
that it was designed to be applied mainly to dyadic interaction; for clinical
sessions with more than one family member present, this limitation clearly
represents a problem. However, of the Brief Family Therapy cases available
for the present research, sessions involving the whole family were, in fact,
quite rare, whereas individual sessions represented more than 40% of all
cases (Fontecilla, Ramos, & Rodrguez-Arias, 1993; Gonzlez et al., 1998; Rodrguez-Arias et al., 2000). Thus, for cases involving individual family member
sessions, the RCCCS methodology was appropriate, and these cases provided a sufficient number of sessions for exploring the communication processes at work within the clienttherapist relationship (Beyebach, de la
Cueva, Ramos, & Rodrguez-Arias, 1990). Although limited to a dyadic unit,
the potential therapeutic value of the insights gained is augmented by the
general principle, that when even one element of a system (e.g., family)
changes, this affects the rest of the system in its entirety (Bertalanffy, 1968).
In applying Brief Family Therapy, as the name implies, it is customary
practice to approach treatment with a view toward keeping the required
number of therapy sessions limited. Likewise, the therapist typically agrees
to work with whoever comes to consult, but in setting the conditions for implementing treatment, emphasizes that only those who firmly want to collaborate with the treatment should participate. In this way, although we
speak of family therapy, the make-up of each session may be quite variable
with the whole family, part of the family, or one member attending. The
view of those who attend is taken into consideration by the therapist, based
on the information that each has to offer. Obviously, a balanced view of the
family system is necessary in order to achieve a stable therapy outcome. If
134
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
a therapeutic intervention favors the interests of one or some members to

the detriment of others, the added dissatisfaction or system disturbance
will negatively affect the treatment process and increase the likelihood of
an unsuccessful outcome.
To investigate the processes involved in the therapeutic relationship, I
was fortunate, in coordinating these efforts, to be associated with a group
of students studying family therapy at the Universidad Pontificia who were
eager to participate in carrying out the research. At the same time at the
private family therapy center, I was one of a group of therapists who were
willing to have their clinical cases provide the database for the proposed
process-oriented studies which, based on the results, would allow an evaluation of the psychotherapy approach taken. The value of the insights
gained carried potential benefits both for doing therapy, and for teaching
therapeutic procedures. All of the clinical cases were directed by therapists
following a Brief Family Therapy model. In addition, all case sessions were
videotaped as a regular practice at the clinic and thus, available for being
transcribed and coded according to the relational control coding system.
All therapy sessions utilized in the research were coded by trained coders,
with acceptable interrater reliabilities achieved in all cases.
For the present research, initial, individual format sessions were selected
for analysis in which two phases are distinguished, information and intervention, which are generally separated by a consultation break. During the information phase, the client expresses his or her complaints and the therapist directs the topic of conversation to those matters that are clinically relevant to
the clients view of defining goals and how the family has tried to solve the
problem up to the point (Fontecilla, Gonzalez, Ramos, & Rodrguez-Arias,
1996). Two types of solutions are distinguished in Brief Family Therapy: those
that partially solve the problem, known as exceptions (de Shazer, 1985), and
those that invoke, intensify or worsen the problem, that are referred to as attempted solutions (Fisch, Weakland, & Segal, 1982). During this initial phase
the therapists attention is aimed at both constructing the therapy system
and organizing the information in such a way that a new form of solution can
be designed to solve the problem. In this phase, priority is given to the relational aspects over solely informative ones, and if the two come into conflict,
the therapist will opt for maneuvers that focus on the therapeutic relationship rather than those that simply elicit further information.
The first phase is concluded when the therapist decides he or she has
sufficient information to begin intervention and feels that a therapeutic relation has been established that will enable them to enter into the family
system. At this point there is a consultation break so that the therapist can
meet with the rest of the therapy team who have been observing the session in a separate room through a one-way window. These observers have
been taking note of both the pertinent information elements regarding
goals, complaints, solutions attempted, and exceptions, as well as the rela-
135
tional elements, including the notions of posture (Fisch et al., 1982) and
buyer orientation (de Shazer, 1985). During the consultation break they
discuss these issues and agree on a general strategy of intervention, which
will be specified in the final segment of the intervention phase.
After the break the therapist rejoins the client and explains the intervention that has been designed by the team. The intervention is made up of
two elements: praise (de Shazer, 1985) and prescription. The praise element
refers to the therapists remarks that imply an acceptance of the clients
point of view, and express recognition and appreciation of the clients resourcefulness and efforts. The intention here is to avoid positions of criticism on the part of the therapist and to establish a precedent of acceptance so that, in a reciprocal manner, the client will do the same with the
prescription they will hear a few moments later. The prescription can be
formulated in terms of an order, instruction, a suggestion, trial, or experimentation; it may even be expressed metaphorically, depending on the
evaluation of the nature of the therapy relation that has been reached in
the first part of the session.
With this introduction to the research setting, a description of a series of
studies focused on the therapistclient relationship follows. The goal of this
chapter is not only to report the main findings of these investigations but,
in a sense, to tell the story of the lessons learned from applying the relational control system to the study of the therapeutic process, and how this
information influenced the communicative practices used in our clinical
work. Thus, what follows is an overview of the research findings and an illustration of the practical aspects of the research. For a through description of the research details underlying these studies see Beyebach,
Rodrguez Morejon, Palenzuela, and Rodrguez-Arias (1996).
This program of research was carried out over a period of years. The first
study paved the way for the later, more methodologically sound research
studies. It was also the case, that the therapeutic implications of the earlier
research results were incorporated into the therapeutic practices of subsequent clinical cases on which the later studies were based. Hence, the differences between the findings of the earlier and later studies can be attributed
to both, the methodological differences, and the changes in the communicative style and interaction patterns derived from the earlier study.
RELATIONAL RESEARCH ON THERAPEUTIC
PROCESSES
The Initial Study
For the first of the investigations of the therapeutic relationship (Altuna,
Beyebach, Piqueras, & Rodrguez-Arias, 1988a, 1988b), the initial interviews
of 28 different clinical cases were studied. These sessions corresponded to
136
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
the following therapy outcomes: 9 of the cases were judged to be successful,

8 unsuccessful, 5 dropout (premature client termination), and 6 relapse (later
return to therapy). Once the interviews were transcribed, they were coded in
accordance with the rules set by the Rogers system of relational communication control coding. For this exploratory, largely descriptive study, the coded
messages and control patterns were analyzed in several different ways. For
an overall description, the 28 sessions were examined as a total group, and
by the two interaction phases, the information and intervention segments of
the interview, and then for more specific information the sessions were
grouped according to the therapeutic outcome of the case.
Based on the overall analysis, the therapeutic relation was characterized, in general, as being more submissive than competitive, with more onedown messages and more submissive (ii) than competitive (hh) symmetry, and with more complementary (hi/ih) than symmetrical transacts. As
for the differentiation by phases, in the opening segment, where the therapists goal is to gain an understanding of the clients problem, submissive
symmetry was the most frequent relational pattern, while in the following
intervention phase, an increased pattern of complementarity was observed.
Thus, in line with the different therapy goals, the information phase was
characterized by a submissive tone and the intervention phase by an increase in effective dominance on the part of the therapist.
For the comparison of the sessions grouped according to the final outcome of the clinical case, a number of differences became apparent. In the
initial therapy sessions of the successful cases, the clienttherapist interactions were characterized by the therapist adopting a more directive position with a greater proportion of orders and instructions. Furthermore,
these interactions were more flexible with no notable repetitive (redundant) pattern as occurred in the other outcome groups. With the unsuccessful cases there was a relative increase in competitive symmetry in
which the therapist and client seemed to rival one another for relational
control of the interview.
In the initial sessions of the dropout cases, what stood out was a question/answer pattern, as if the tone of these interviews was more like an interrogation than a therapy session. For these cases, we also found a lack of
sufficient acceptance or empathy by the therapist for the development of a
climate of confidence, which based on the outcome of these cases, appears
to be related to the continuation of the therapy. In contrast, the first interviews in the cases of relapse differed precisely as a result of the increase in
submissive symmetry, which led us to coin the term submissive joining to refer to the characteristic submissiveness of these therapy sessions. This
type of relation was seen as being very accepting, but not particularly effective; it appeared to foster a relation in which the client felt supported and
137
understood by the therapist, but one in which the client seemed unable to
carry out the problem-solving strategies necessary in order to confront
their problems without this support.
The chief methodological problem of this study was the small number of
cases in each of the outcome groups. Also, the therapists directing the
cases were not equally distributed across the outcome groups so that the
differences described may be attributed to the personal style of the therapist. Nevertheless, the resulting observed pattern differences coincided
with the different therapy outcomes.
Although we were aware of the limitations of this first study, we felt the
consistency of the results offered sufficient insight to apply these conclusions to our clinical work. Because an increase in competitive symmetry
seemed to be associated with an unsuccessful outcome, we began to avoid
direct disagreements and debates with the clients and developed therapeutic strategies for this express purpose. We learned to give way if an argument was indicated. The therapist could manifest or show some contrary
opinion to what the client was saying but if the latter stood their ground the
therapist would back down, indicating agreement or recognition of the clients view, and wait for a more favorable therapeutic moment to introduce
a different view. With this end in mind, we replaced adversative formulas
such as, But I think that, . . . with conjunctive expressions like, Yes, and
besides I think that. . . .
We also attempted to avoid falling into the question/answer pattern,
because this appeared to be related to dropout. To do this we devised a
series of comments to fit in between question and answer and thus break
such sequences. The comments could be quite varied, but they all followed two general rules. They either alluded to what the client had just
said, such as, Of course, what you are telling me is something that you
think of when you are dealing with your wife. In what other situations
might you also apply it? or they introduced the therapists follow-up
question, for example, I want to pose a question that may be rather hard
for you to talk about. How does having too much work affect your personal relations? In this way, as soon as a therapist realizes he or she is
asking more than two consecutive questions, some comment or remark is
introduced to alter this type of sequence.
Lastly, although the benefits of a session having an acceptive tone were
recognized, for the purpose of avoiding excessive sequences of submissiveness with its potential association with a relapse outcome, we encouraged
the use of directive, one-up messages such as instructions and orders, particularly during the intervention phase. With the appropriate assertion of
one-up control messages an overly submissive, one-down stance of a therapist would become more effectively balanced.
138
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
All of these ideas were included in the therapy training programs that
were developed at the private center and at the Universidad Pontificia, and
new therapists continue to be trained under the guide of these relational insights. Even today, in my clinical work, as well as in that of other colleagues
who were trained using these programs, the mark made by this initial research is still clearly present.
The Second Set of Studies

Based on the encouragement of the initial results, three new research studies
were undertaken to expand the original work. These studies were designed
to address prior methodological limitations, to find out whether the previous
results would be upheld or in need of correction, or if additional relational
nuances would be found. All of the cases studied, as in the original study,
were conducted according to the brief therapy approach. Furthermore, these
studies were structured to annul the effect of the therapist variable by having
the cases of therapists equally distributed in each of the outcome comparison groups. In this way, different results could no longer be potentially attributed to the therapeutic style of one particular therapist.
The first of these studies, carried out by de la Cueva (1993), replicated
the original study. For this research, 54 initial sessions were analyzed corresponding to the final therapy outcome, with 18 cases each in the successful,
unsuccessful, and dropout groups. The second study by Beyebach (1993) focused on the dropout group in order to learn more about the therapeutic relationship related to these cases in comparison to those completing therapy.
With dropout, the therapy was ended by the client in a rather unexpected
fashion within one to three sessions, whereas with completed therapy,
whether considered successful or unsuccessful, the sessions continued until the therapist and client mutually decided to conclude the therapy. Hence,
this study was designed to compare the initial therapy sessions, which
were later followed by dropout, with those followed by continued treatment. Thirty-two initial therapy sessions were studied, 16 corresponding to
the dropout group, and 16 to continued treatment.
Lastly, a critical aspect of the therapeutic relation is whether the intervention phase of a therapy session is related to the clients compliance with
the therapists prescribed intervention. The third study was an investigation of this aspect of the therapeutic process. In the prior research only the
initial sessions were studied. With this research, the intervention phase of
each of the sessions of a clinical case was examined and analyzed in terms
of the prescription compliance on the part of the client. This investigation
was undertaken by Bailn (1995) in which 38 cases, comprising a total of 132
therapy sessions were studied.
139
This series of investigations differed from the original research in several

ways. First, as previously mentioned, the therapists, whose cases served as
the research base for this set of studies, were familiar with the results of
the initial research and had attempted to apply the suggested therapeutic
guidelines in these subsequent clinical cases. Second, a modification in the
coding of questions, based on the adaption by Heatherington and Friedlander (1987), distinguished between open questions (i) and closed questions (h), which to some degree influenced the results. We also made additional clarifications in coding monosyllabic responses (e.g., yeah, O.K., uh
huh) between those that indicated approval (i) from those functioning to
continue the communicative flow (g). With these changes, more of these
messages were coded as one-across than in the original study. Third, the
data analysis was enhanced with the utilization of Bakeman and Queras
(1996) sequential analysis program for analyzing speaker-ordered sequences, thus allowing more finely tuned process analyses.
Before reviewing the specific results of this second set of studies, several
general findings regarding the use of questions and the overall interaction
patterns of the initial therapy sessions are presented. In these initial sessions, far fewer questions than assertions were made; 16% of the therapists
messages were questions and 64% were assertions, whereas 8% of the clients messages were questions and 70% were assertions. As expected, therapists posed more questions than clients, however, of particular interest,
therapists used open questions less frequently than closed questions, with
a ratio of one to three. Typically, the therapist directed the therapeutic conversation by posing a topic with an open question, followed by several
closed questions to clarify the clients response, with various types of assertions intermixed in the discussion. Clients rarely asked an open question, thus most were closed. A comparison of interview phases found therapists, again as expected, asked more questions in the information phase
than in the second, intervention phase. The therapist used very few open
questions in the second phase and also slightly decreased the proportion
of closed questions. The clients use of questions was relatively constant
across the two phases.
As for the overall patterns of interaction, one-up maneuvers by the therapist (h) activated one-down maneuvers (i) by the client, and likewise the
therapists one-down messages (i) activated one-up moves (h) by the client. In this way, patterns of complementarity were more frequently formed
by clients adopting positions that were complementary to the therapist. On
the other hand, one-down messages by the client activated one-down
moves by the therapist, thus defining sequences of submissive symmetry
(ii), which were notable in the initial study. A third characteristic pattern
was leveling symmetry (gg) in which both therapist and client one-across
messages activated one-across messages by the other.
140
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
These patterns are similar to those found in the first study, but the sequential analysis of the interactive formation of the patterns allowed a
more specific description of the processes than in the original study. Thus
overall, complementarity more frequently resulted from the client taking a
complementary position, submissive symmetry was more often formed by
the therapists submissive response to a clients submissive move, and patterns of leveling symmetry resulted from each of the interlocutors following
the flow of the others one-across comments.
Turning now to the specific findings of this second series of studies
based on a comparison of therapy outcomes, de la Cueva (1993) found that
the patterned exchange of the therapists one-down response to a clients
one-up message differentiated the sessions of the successful cases from the
other therapy groups. This pattern was noted in both the information and
intervention phases, plus in the intervention phase the reverse form of
complementarity was activated with the therapists one-down (i) messages
followed by the clients one-up (h) moves. These patterns suggest the benefits, in line with previous results, of a noncompetitive stance by the therapist and the avoidance of patterns of competitive symmetry by responding
to clients one-up messages with submissive maneuvers.
For the unsuccessful cases, no specific information phase pattern could
be discerned. In the intervention phase, the clients one-up moves (h) activated one-down moves (i) by the therapist, as in the successful group,
but as well, the clients one-down messages (i) activated one-up maneuvers (h) by the therapist. Although no strong case can be made, a suggested interpretation of the intervention pattern difference, although subtle, might reflect a movement toward a potentially ineffective structuring
of the therapeutic relation in which the therapist was reacting to the clients maneuvers instead of the client being guided by maneuvers of the
therapist.
With the dropout group, it was also the case that no characteristic pattern for the information phase was found. However, in the intervention
phase the therapists one-down maneuvers (i) activated one-down maneuvers (i) by the client, but the therapist reacted with one-up maneuvers (h)
to both the clients one-down messages (i) and one-across messages (g).
Thus, submissive sequences were enacted with the one-down response of
the client, but a one-up response was taken by the therapist in relation to
the clients submissive and neutralized relational messages.
In de la Cuevas study, the differences between the outcome groups basically rested on the enactment of different types of complementarity. In
comparing these pattern differences across the three outcomes, what stood
out was that in the successful group, the pattern represented an alternating
complementary exchange with the therapist taking a one-down position
(Ch/Ti and Ti/Ch). There were no distinguishing competitive moves on
141
the part of the therapist. Thus, it appears more effective to be respectful of

the clients expressed views, to accept and work with the information they
offer, in bringing about a successful outcome.
The unsuccessful group differed from the successful group with the therapist responding to the clients one-down messages with a one-up, while in
the dropout group, the client responded with a one-down to the therapists
one-down, but the therapist responded with a one-up messages to the clients one-down and one-across moves. Again, it seems advisable for a therapist to avoid repeated one-up message responses to clients in constructing
a more productive therapeutic relationship.
In the Beyebach (1993) study this advice is more clearly supported by
the initial therapy session interaction comparisons of the dropout cases
versus the cases continuing therapy. A distinct pattern of one-up competitiveness, characterizing the dropout cases, was found to differentiate these
two types of outcome groups. For the dropout group there were more oneup messages and fewer one-down messages by both the therapist and client. A noted, corollary difference was a lower proportion of supportive
messages by both participants in the dropout group than in the group continuing therapy. There were also slightly (but significant) higher proportions of nonsupportive messages and talk-over interruptions in the dropout
sessions.
At the dyadic level, significantly more sequences of competitive symmetry (hh) and fewer one-across/one-down sequences (gi) were observed in
the sessions followed by dropout than in those followed by continued therapy. Also a noted group difference in the two phases of these sessions, was
a higher proportion of the questionanswer exchange in the information
phase of the dropout group, as was the case in the original study.
The results of Beyebachs study indicate the ineffectiveness of a competitive therapeutic interaction style and the downside of a lack of pattern
alteration in moving the sequence of patterns toward a more conducive
therapistclient relation of problem solving. The patterns observed in the
dropout sessions, appeared similar to the escalating type of pattern that often bring relational partners into therapy. These results corroborate the initial study findings regarding the relational patterns that work against a successful therapeutic outcome.
In the third study, Bailin (1995) examined the communication patterns
associated with the clients type of compliance to the therapists intervention prescriptions. The clients responses to the tasks set out by the therapist were classified according to five cooperation modes defined by de
Shazer (1985) as literal, modified, opposite/opposed, vague, and null/non
cooperation. Thus, the therapistclient interaction patterns during each intervention phase were analyzed in relation to the cooperation mode exhibited by the client in the following therapy session.
142
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
In successive sessions, the effect of the prescription formulated in the

previous session is evaluated in terms of the current situation of the clients problem, whether or not progress has been made in reaching designated goals and how the client has adapted to the prescribed instructions.
Following de Shazers (1985) guide, the clients response is considered to
be his or her way of cooperating. Noncompliance is not viewed as negative, rather the client did what he or she felt like doing, nor is the client
considered resistant in opposing orders or not following instructions.
On the contrary, these behaviors are looked upon as different modalities
of cooperation which the therapist takes into account in fashioning a
mode of intervention.
In response to a therapeutic prescription, the client may react by doing
precisely what the therapists prescribed, with literal cooperation; the client may do something along the lines of what was prescribed with modified cooperation; or the client may do exactly the opposite of what the
therapist instructed in opposite cooperation. Sometimes it is not clear
just what the client has actually done in regard to the prescription, implying vague cooperation. Lastly, there are times when the client simply
does nothing, ignores or rejects the instructions or doesnt remember what
the therapist said, resulting in null cooperation.
The therapists response is based on the cooperation mode shown by
the client (Rodrguez-Arias, Real, Castillo, & Real, 2001). Thus, in accordance
with the therapeutic approach, if the cooperation has been literal, the therapist reacts with direct prescriptions, in the form of orders; when the cooperation is modified, the therapist responds with indirect indications, with
instructions, or broad, easily modifiable guidelines. If the cooperation mode
is vague, the therapist may tell stories, use evocative metaphors as to what
the client can do, or give the prescription in a tangle of difficult-to-understand jargon with which this type of client feels comfortable. If the client
manifests opposition or null cooperation, the most appropriate response is
not to give any prescription at all and simply limit the intervention phase to
praise; another possibility is to propose a set of optional alternatives, one
of which is not doing, or taking into consideration any of the alternatives
suggested.
In the investigation of the intervention phase, Bailin (1995) found a similar relational pattern characterizing the literal and modified modes of cooperation. These cases, in comparison to other modes, were distinguished by
a relatively higher proportion of complementary exchange with the therapist in the one-up position and the client one-down. This result corresponds
with the patterns of complementarity previously found to be associated
with the successful outcome group. In combination, these findings raise the
consideration of a possible sequential interlinking of these events; but
clearly, the design of the present study does not provide the necessary evi-
143
dence for this type of association, only a suggested one. However, given
that the coded interaction patterns are based on the therapy sessions prior
to those in which the cooperation mode is identified, and that the clients
mode of cooperation occurs considerably before the resulting therapeutic
outcome, a potential interrelationship of this set of events is that complementarity promotes literal or modified cooperation and this type of cooperation facilitates therapeutic success. If so, this would suggest that the interactive patterns created in the initial sessions may well set the tone for the
sequential unfolding of the therapy process. This type of investigation represents an important future research direction.
In consideration of the opposite mode of compliance, it would seem logical (and was hypothesized) that this modality would be associated with frequent sequences of opposition, however, this was not the case in the data
analyzed here. For the interaction sessions preceding the clients adoption
of an opposite mode, there was a relatively low level of opposition sequences, similar to the proportions in the literal, modified, and vague
modes. Furthermore, for this mode there were fewer sequences of competitive symmetry (hh) and less leveling symmetry (gg) than in the sessions
followed by null cooperation. These results enabled us to better differentiate between opposition and opposed forms of cooperation, in that, the clients who did not offer much opposition to the therapists prescription
when it was given, often did the opposite of what was prescribed, and thus
reacted with opposite cooperation, whereas those who opposed the prescription the strongest at the time it was given, simply did not follow the
therapists instructions, in other words, responded with null cooperation.
When the cooperation mode was vague a relative increase in submissive
symmetry was observed (ii). A similar pattern occurred in the first study
in the sessions followed by relapse. It seems likely that this reciprocal acceptance of the messages by the therapist and the client is of little use in
clarifying the ways in which clients carried out the therapists instructions.
In these cases, if the therapist had taken a more directive stance, for instance, using closed questions (h) to ask the client to explain his or her
messages, this would break the submissive sequences (ii). But rather the
results indicate, the therapist accepted the clients reports almost unconditionally and as a result, failed to elicit information regarding the clients situation or interpretation of the intervention. This pattern is not only associated with, but seems to invite a vague mode of compliance.
With the null cooperation mode in which the client does not follow the
therapists instructions, there was an increase in the proportion of competitive symmetry (hh), compared to other modes. When a therapist and client
were caught up in this type of escalating pattern during the intervention
phase, the likelihood increased that the client would not follow the therapists instructions. This pattern is similar to the one described for the ses-
144
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
sions corresponding to the unsuccessful and dropout cases. Once again, a

suggested interrelationship may exist such that competitive patterns may
trigger null cooperation, which in turn progressively moves the therapeutic
process toward unsuccessful outcomes. Whether this sequence is the case
or not, across this series of studies, it becomes increasingly clear that competitive symmetry is not a recommended relational pattern for gaining either prescription compliance or a successful outcome.
A Final Analysis
This analysis rests on a consideration of the rules for the transposition of
message codes into control directions (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987).
For one-up control messages, it can be noted that the direction of these
messages arise from regulative maneuvers such as, closed questions, responses to open questions, instructions, orders and topic changes, and
from oppositional maneuvers representing domineering messages, nonsupport and disconfirmation. Although there may clearly be some overlap in
relational meaning and function, regulative messages tend to organize and
structure the conversation whereas oppositional messages tend to oppose
or indicate a superior position vis--vis the other. In view of this distinction,
it was thought that an additional analysis, including the two types of one-up
messages along with one-down and one-across messages would provide a
useful expansion for the description of the therapeutic relation. This analysis (Rodrguez-Arias, 1996) was based on the recoding of the one-up messages of the existing pool of clinical cases utilized in the first three studies
investigating therapy outcomes. The database for this effort consisted of 76
initial therapy sessions which resulted in 27 successful, 26 unsuccessful,
and 23 dropout cases.
Based on an analysis of the total sample, therapists and clients, as expected, used regulative and oppositional one-up messages differently.
Whereas in the case of the client, the proportion of both types of one-up
messages was roughly the same (3% and 4% respectively), the therapist
used a greater proportion of regulative one-ups (9%) than oppositional oneups (3%). This difference was even more pronounced in the intervention
phase, in which the use of regulative messages on the part of the therapist
made up 16% of the total communication maneuvers, compared to only 2%
for oppositional one-ups. In addition, it was found that regulative one-up
moves, whether expressed by the therapist or client, activated one-down
responses by the other, whereas this did not happen with oppositional oneup messages.
When these message differences were considered in relation to the sessions classified according to therapeutic outcome, it was observed that in the
145
successful cases, the therapist used more regulative one-ups and fewer
oppositional one-ups while the client employed fewer oppositional one-ups
than in any of the other therapeutic outcome conditions. During the information phase of the successful group, the client responded to the therapists
oppositional one-up moves with submissive maneuvers (i), by which the client indicated an acceptance of the therapists messages of opposition. At the
same time, the therapist responded to the clients regulative one-ups with
regulative one-ups and, in doing so, established the directive role of the therapist in this phase of the therapeutic conversation. With an established definition of the therapeutic role in the first phase, it appeared this allowed the
pattern found in the intervention phase of the therapist responding to the clients oppositional one-up messages with one-down messages.
In the sessions followed by dropout, when the therapist expressed opposition one-ups, the client adopted a similar response resulting in an
oppositional symmetrical stance (ThCh) rather than a one-down response
forming a complementary exchange (ThCi) as occurred in the successful
therapy group. Furthermore, in the dropout cases the therapist inhibited
their one-down messages and responded with one-across moves to the clients oppositional one-ups. As before, the results indicate that a decrease in
complementarity and an increase in competitive symmetry, particularly
oppositional symmetry, tend to be associated with dropout.
The analysis of the different nuances in the patterns of outcome group
interactions during the intervention phase, offer additional clinically relevant information. For the successful group as indicated earlier, in this
phase the therapist responded with one-down maneuvers to the clients opposition one-up, however, this pattern was not observed in either the unsuccessful nor the dropout group intervention phase. For the unsuccessful
group, as well as the dropout group, a relative increase was seen in the
oppositional, symmetrical sequences with the client reacting with oppositional one-ups to the therapists oppositional maneuvers, and moreover,
the therapist responded with oppositional one-ups to the clients regulative
one-up messages. The insights gained from this analysis of the patterned
differences between these two forms of one-up messages indicate the importance of attending to this distinction, not only in future research but in
therapy training.
CONCLUSIONS
After many years of research in applying the relational communication system to therapeutic interaction, the lessons learned from the clinical implications of these interactive processes have progressively been accumulating. My intention here, in drawing the results of this research program
146
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
together, is to sum up what those of us who took part in the research described in this chapter have learned over the years.
We have found that the saying, the client is always right, can also be
applied to the therapeutic relationship. And, when the client is not right,
the fastest way to have them change their mind is to act as if they are. We
have learned to use submissive and one-across maneuvers when we find
ourselves involved in sequences of opposition. In doing so we resort to language devices as simple as substituting conjunctive forms like, yes, and besides . . . for adversative forms like, yes, but . . .
We have come to realize that a clinical session cannot be merely an interview sequence of questions and answers. The therapeutic relationship
improves notably when comments in an affirmative format are interspersed
in the conversation. In this way, we more often reply with comments on the
clients answers and explanations, rather than continue to pose unbroken
sequences of questions about unexplained details of the clients story. The
effect that these behaviors of the therapists have on the session is that the
conversation flows naturally between the participants; the client provides
the information that they deem opportune in terms of the degree of familiarity that gradually develops between the two of them, without any apparent effort exerted on the part of the therapist.
We know that most clinical sessions have a general submissive tone, and
recognize the therapeutic value of reciprocal acceptance, but if over done
this pattern can be ineffectual. We further find that complementary patterns facilitate, as well as indicate, a clients willingness to comply with
therapeutic regulative messages, and in the long run, these patterns are related to successful therapeutic outcomes. In creating complementary sequences, we have learned that in response to a client giving a one-down
message, an appropriate move by the therapist is to offer a one-up message, but in response to a clients one-up message, a therapists reply with a
one-up message, especially if in opposition, is to be avoided in structuring
an effective therapeutic relationship. A clear lesson from the research is
that patterns of competitive symmetry are detrimental in moving the therapeutic process toward a successful outcome.
The results of the last analysis provide evidence that a therapist demonstrates directiveness through the use of regulative one-ups, such as orders
and instructions, and not through oppositional one-ups indicating disapproval or challenge. With a more practical awareness of the different implications of the two forms of one-up moves, a therapist can utilize different
criteria in guiding communicative behavior depending on the goals he or
she has set, as well as the therapeutic moment.
One area of research that remains relatively unexplored concerns the relational pattern of submissive symmetry, which was noted in cases of relapse. These cases were included in the initial study, but have not since
147
been taken up in later research. Nor has specific research been done on the
communicative pattern of submissiveness in cases of therapeutic joining,
that is, those cases in which the client continue in treatment even though
the therapeutic goals have been reached or continue to demand sessions
despite there being no further signs of complaint. This particular pattern,
identified in the first study as submissive joining, is also the same pattern
that was found to be related to the vague cooperation mode. Thus, a research issue yet to be examined concerns the potential interrelationship
between relapse, therapeutic joining, vague cooperation, and submissive
symmetry.
The conclusions reached regarding the relational processes underlying
the therapeutic relationship, may not seem much after more than a decade
of research. Nonetheless, I have long lost count of the multiple number of
therapists who have been trained in Brief Family Therapy under the influence of these ideas. In their clinical practice, they have been guided by the
insights offered by both the communicative techniques and therapeutic criteria based on this research program. It is likewise impossible for me to calculate the number of families who have no doubt benefited by the work of
these therapists.
REFERENCES
Altuna, A., Beyebach, M., Piqueras, R., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1988a, June). La relacin
teraputica y su incidencia en el resultado de la intervencin sistmica [The therapeutic relationship and outcome result of systemic intervention]. Paper presented at the Congreso
Internacional de Orientadores Familiares, Salamanca, Spain.
Altuna, A., Beyebach, M., Piqueras, R., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1988b). La relacin teraputica en
la primera entrevista de terapia sistmica: Anlisis por fases [The therapeutic relationship in
the first session of systemic therapy: Phase analysis]. In M. Beyebach & J. L. Rodrguez-Arias
(Eds.), Terapia familiar: Lecturas I (pp. 97116). Salamanca: Kadmos.
Bailn, M. C. (1995). Estudio sobre el cumplimiento de prescripciones en un modelo de terapia
sistmica [A study on prescription compliance in systemic therapy]. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1996). Anlisis de la interaccin: Anlisis secuencial con SDIS y GSEC. Madrid: Ra-Ma.
Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General system theory. New York: Brazillier.
Beyebach, M. (1993). Relacin teraputica y abandono en terapia sistmica breve [Therapeutic relationship and dropout in brief systemic therapy]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Beyebach, M., de la Cueva, F., Ramos, M., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1990, June). Relational communication control in first interview of systemic therapy. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual conference, Dublin, Ireland.
Beyebach, M., Rodrguez Morejon, A., Palenzuela, D. L., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Research
on the process of solution-focused therapy. In S. Miller, M. A. Hubble, & B. Duncan (Eds.),
Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy (pp. 299334). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
148
RODRGUEZ-ARIAS
de la Cueva, F. (1993). Anlisis de primeras entrevistas de MRI mediante el sistema de codificacin

del control de la comunicacin relacional [Analysis of first interviews of MRI therapy with the
Relational Control Communication Coding System]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
Fisch, R., Weakland, J. H., & Segal, L. (1982). The tactic of change: Doing therapy briefly. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fontecilla, G., Ramos, M. M., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1993, November). Evaluacin de resultados
en terapia familiar breve [Evaluation of outcomes in brief family therapy]. Paper presented at
the XIV Jornadas Nacionales de Terapia Familiar, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Fontecilla, G., Gonzlez, M., Ramos, M. M., & Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1996). Aplicacin de un modelo
de terapia familiar breve en una U.S.M. [Application of brief family therapy in a U.S.M.]. In A.
Espina & B. Pumar (Eds.), A terapia familiar sistmica: Teora, clnica e investigacin (pp.
271286). Madrid: Fundamentos.
Gonzlez, M., Revuelta, C., Rodrguez-Arias, J. L., Fontecilla, G., Aparicio, M., Rueda, A., & Ramos,
M. M. (1998, May). Terapia familiar breve: Evaluacin de resultados y estudio de seguimiento
[Brief family therapy: Evaluation of outcomes and ongoing research]. Paper presented at the
Congreso Nacional de la Asociacin para la Investigacin y el Desarrollo de la Terapia Familiar, Seville, Spain.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family relational communication control coding system manual. Unpublished manuscript. Williams College, Williamstown, MA.
Rodrguez-Arias, J. L. (1996, June). Control relacional y resultados en terapia breve: Un estudio
centrado en las maniobras regulativas versus de oposicion [Relational control and brief therapy results: A focus on regulative maneuvers versus opposition]. Paper presented at the
Primer Simposio sobre Investigacin de Procesos de Interaccion Terapeutica, La Corua,
Spain.
Rodrguez-Arias, J. L., Agra, S., Arauxo, A., Balea, F. J., Garca, M. J., Vicente, D., Grovas, I., &
Andaluz, L. V. (2000, October). Anlisis de la demanda de psicoterapia en la U.S.M. del Hospital
Virxe da Xunqueira [Analysis of psychotherapy demand in the U.S.M. Hospital Virxe da
Xunqueira]. Paper presented at the Congreso Nacional de la Asociacin para la Investigacin y el Desarrollo de la Terapia Familiar, Madrid, Spain.
Rodrguez-Arias, J. L., Real, M., Castillo, J. M., & Real, M. A. (2001). Psicoterapia familiar breve:
Cmo facilitar el cumplimiento teraputico a travs de la modalidad de cooperacin de los
pacientes [Brief family psychotherapy: How to facilitate therapeutic compliance across the
patients modality of cooperation]. Atencin Primaria, 27, 514520.
Rogers, L. E. (1972). Relational communication control coding manual. Unpublished manuscript.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication. New
York: Norton.
C H A P T E R
7
Expressed Emotion and Interpersonal
Control in Families of Persons
With Mental Illness
Anne K. Wuerker
University of California, Los Angeles
Expressed Emotion (EE) is a measure of a relatives attitude toward a person with schizophrenia. The Camberwell Family Interview (CFI; Vaughn &
Leff, 1976), the original instrument for measuring EE, was developed in 1958
by Brown and Rutter (1966) and was designed to elucidate factors in the
family environment of persons with schizophrenia that influenced their
course of illness. Research has shown unequivocally that persons with
schizophrenia who live with relatives who are high EE, that is, relatives who
are critical, hostile, or emotionally overinvolved, are far more likely to relapse or have a severe course of illness than patients living with relatives
without negative attitudes. Although through much of the history of this intriguing concept, EE research has focused on schizophrenia, recent research has shown the same links to relapse or more severe illness in other
disorders, such as depression (Hooley, Richters, Weintraub, & Neale, 1987),
asthma (Wamboldt, Wamboldt, Gavin, Roesler, & Brugman, 1995), and juvenile diabetes (Koenigsberg, Klausner, Pelino, Rosnick, & Campbell, 1993).
The original method, and still the gold standard, of measuring EE has
been the CFI. The CFI consisted of a very long loosely structured dialogue
with a relative of a person with schizophrenia who had just been hospitalized. Later, Vaughn and Leff (1976) revised the CFI, shortening it to 1 to 2
hours. A group of researchers at UCLA have since developed a very short
version, the Five Minute Speech Sample (FMSS; Magana et al., 1986), which
correlates quite well with the CFI but underestimates high EE to a considerable degree (Kazarian, 1992).
149
150
WUERKER
Although the link between EE and course of illness is real, robust, and
remarkably resilient (Hooley & Hiller, 1998, p. 450), the underlying mechanism continues to be poorly understood. It is generally thought that high EE
represents a unique form of psychosocial stress, to which persons with
schizophrenia are extremely vulnerable. That still leaves the question of
why living with a high-EE family member is so stressful. There is some evidence that EE attitudes are reflective of actual behavior in the family; a series of studies by UCLA researchers found that EE attitudes are likely to reflect verbal transactions between the relative and the patient. For example,
Miklowitz et al. (1989) and Strachan, Feingold, Goldstein, Miklowitz, and
Nuechterlein (1989) found that relatives coded as high EE because of critical comments made about the patient were also likely to make critical comments to the patient during problem-solving dialogues. Patients with highEE relatives were also likely to be critical. However, these studies examined
rates of specific behaviors by the patient and the relative, but not what follows what, so the studies implied but did not document transactional processes (Strachan et al., 1989).
Attribution theorists have found that high-EE relatives are likely to believe that the patient can control his or her symptom behavior, but low-EE
relatives are more likely to ascribe problematic behavior to the illness (e.g.,
Brewin, MacCarthy, Duda, & Vaughn, 1991; Harrison & Dadds, 1992; Harrison, Dadds, & Smith, 1998; Hooley, 1987). Thus high-EE relatives would be
more likely to push or try to control the patient to behave differently. A related idea is that high-EE attitudes reflect high-intensity social control
(Greenley, 1986). Naturally, relatives who are living with and caring for a
person with schizophrenia are concerned about their offsprings behavior,
but a caregivers suggestions, nags, or criticisms may be very stressful to
patients, particularly if the criticized behavior is not under the patients
control. Other researchers have investigated personality characteristics of
the relatives and found that high-EE relatives are more likely to be rigid and
controlling (Hooley & Hiller, 2000). Recently, Hinrichsen and Lieberman
(1999) reported that high-EE relatives were likely to use coercive management strategies in dealing with their offspring with schizophrenia.
In a sense, the focus of all these approaches to understanding EE has
been on determining what high-EE relatives are doing wrong. This runs the
risk of continuing the parent-blaming that has been associated with schizophrenia for many years (Lefley, 1992). There has been little attention to the
role the patient plays, and also little attention to what low-EE parents are
doing right (Hooley & Hiller, 1998).
This chapter describes a program of research on EE and schizophrenia
that uses the Relational Communication Control Coding System (RCCCS;
Ericson & Rogers, 1973; Rogers & Farace, 1975) to understand the process of
interpersonal control in families of persons with schizophrenia and other se-
7. MENTAL ILLNESS AND EXPRESSED EMOTION
151
vere mental disorders. This approach offers several advantages. The first advantage is that interpersonal control processes are highly relevant to all the
theories described earlier. The second is that the focus shifts to the process
between patient and parent, rather than focusing on the parent. Third, interpersonal control processes are examined for high- and low-EE families, so it
becomes possible to examine what low-EE relatives are doing right.
Interpersonal processes cannot be described without sequentially ordered data; order matters (Rogers, Millar, & Bavelas, 1985). EE researchers
often collect sequential data, but studies reporting sequential analysis are
surprisingly rare. This is partly because of the complexity of sequential
analysis, but also because the coding systems used for coding dialogue are
likely to have many categories, and thus are not suitable for sequential
analysis. In the studies described, the RCCCS codes dialogue into three general categories (h, or asserting control; i, or giving up control, and g, neither giving up nor asserting control). Thus sequential analysis is possible
without sacrificing information. The few sequential studies that have been
done with EE other than the ones described have used much more complex
coding schemes, and then collapsed codes into positive and negative. However, as seen in the RCCCS studies, the neutral category is very important
in understanding process.
EE AND RELATIONAL CONTROL IN FAMILIES

OF PERSONS WITH BIPOLAR DISORDER
AND WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA
The first two studies on EE and interpersonal control used data from two
UCLA research projects (Wuerker, 1994, 1996). The schizophrenia sample
consisted of data from 16 patients and their families who participated in the
Developmental Processes in Schizophrenic Disorders Project (Nuechterlein, Edell, Norris, & Dawson, 1986; Nuechterlein et al., 1986). The bipolar
sample consisted of data from 24 patients and their families who participated in a study by Miklowitz and colleagues (Miklowitz, Goldstein, Nuechterlein, Snyder, & Mintz, 1988). Thus, data from 40 patients and their parents are presented in these analyses. Of the 16 families of patients with
schizophrenia, there were 8 in which both the mother and father participated in the interaction task and 8 in which one parent participated. Among
the families of bipolar patients, there were 14 with both parents participating and 10 with one parent. For details of the study procedures including
sample selection and inclusion criteria, see Nuechterlein, Snyder et al. (1986)
and Miklowitz et al. (1988).
The data for the study were collected as follows: A family assessment
session was held a short time after the patient was discharged from the
152
WUERKER
hospital. EE was measured at that time with the Five Minute Speech Sample.
Each person was asked to speak without interruption for 5 minutes about
what kind of a person (the patient) is and how you two get along together.
These speech samples were coded according to a system developed by
Magana (Magana et al., 1986), rating them on several dimensions including
critical comments, hostility, emotional overinvolvement, and the emotional
valence of the patientparent relationship.
The assessment session also included a direct interaction task, in which
two conflictual issues, one brought up by the patient and one by the family,
were each discussed by the patient and parent(s) for 10 minutes. The resulting dialogues, recorded on audiotape and subsequently transcribed,
served as the primary data set. The data were next coded, preserving the
sequential nature of the interaction, into the RCCCS. Two research assistants were trained in the RCCCS by the investigator over 1 month, at which
time agreement for all codes exceeded 85%. Each coder coded one of the
two dialogues for each family; whether the problem discussed was one
brought up by the patient or by the parents was random. Coders were blind
to EE status and diagnosis. Interrater reliability was checked several times
during the coding procedure, as was consistency over time. Reliability as
measured by unweighted kappa was .85 for grammatical form codes, .79 for
response mode codes, and .76 for control direction. An inspection of errors
in each set of codes revealed an essentially random pattern.
Log-Linear Analysis of MessageResponse Sequences
A sequential data set was constructed consisting of each interaction unit
(message) and the interaction unit following (response). Information about
each message and each response was the control direction, who initiated
the message, and to whom the message was directed. The total number of
sequences was 3,547 patient initiated and 4,333 parent initiated. Log-linear
modeling was then used to examine the relationship between messages and
responses as that relationship varied by EE and diagnosis of the son or
daughter. Dyadic (one parent and the patient) interactions were modeled
separately because early analyses showed dyadic and triadic data to have
very different characteristics. As described earlier, 18 of the families in this
study were single-parent, while 22 were dual-parent.
Dyadic Family Results. Log-linear analysis of the sequential patterning
of messages and responses in dyadic families showed that parents were significantly more likely to respond to controlling messages with symmetrical
assertions of control. On the other hand, neutral messages by patients were
likely followed by parents statements yielding control. Bipolar patients and
their parents were more likely to assert control compared to schizophrenia
153
patients and their parents. The patterning of control also varied with diagnosis, in that families of persons with bipolar illness were more likely to interact with competitive symmetry, and families of persons with schizophrenia were more likely to interact with complementarity. Thus families of
persons with bipolar disorder appeared to be more competitive, and families of persons with schizophrenia appeared to treat control more gingerly.
However, when EE status was considered, high-EE parents of persons with
schizophrenia were the most likely to respond in a controlling manner.
Triadic Family Results. As in the dyadic data, patients were significantly
more likely to assert dominance than to give messages yielding or neutralizing control but parents responded with neutral statements more than in any
other control direction. However, there are striking differences between families with high- and low-EE parents. Families with high-EE parents interacted
more quickly, competing for control. Patients were more competitive than
their parents; parents often responded neutrally. This pattern was significantly more likely to be present in families with a schizophrenic patient.
Patterning of Relational Control. To illustrate the patterning in triadic
families of persons with schizophrenia, Table 7.1 shows cross-tabulations of
messages and responses in two of the study families, one with high-EE parents and one with low-EE parents. Responses by the patients are shown
separately for messages from the mother and from the father. The messages from the mother were control attempts more than half of the time
and neutral less often, but rarely yielding control. Responses by the patient
were even more controlling or challenging control, with 60% one-up. The
patterning was one of the patient rigidly asserting control to either controlling or submissive statements by the mother, although neutral statements
were somewhat less likely to get that response. Responses to the father
were quite similar, except that 37% of his messages were submissive and
they were almost uniformly responded to by a control attempt. Mother and
father did not interact.
In the family with low-EE parents, the patterning was strongly complementary, with a submissive message from the mother eliciting a dominating
response from the patient, and an assertion of control followed by a response yielding control. The father gave even more neutral messages than
the mother but the patient responded less submissively to him. There was
again complementarity in the patients one-down response to the fathers
one-up message, but the patient was rarely dominating, no matter what the
message. Again, the mother and father did not interact.
Discussion. The primary issue addressed by this study was whether EE
reflects high intensity interpersonal social control. Patterning of relational
control in families of low- and high-EE parents indicates that EE may be a
154
WUERKER
TABLE 7.1
Percentage of Control Direction of Patients Response by Mothers
and Fathers Messages in a High-EE and Low-EE Family
EE Level
Control Direction of Patients Response
Family A (High-EE)
Total
Control direction of mothers response
h
i
g
Total
77%
78
50
69%
9%
11
22
13%
15%
11
28
18%
56%
15
29
N = 61
Control direction of fathers response
h
i
g
Total
60%
94
50
71%
8%
6
0
6%
32%
0
50
22%
51%
37
12
N = 49
Family B (Low-EE)
Total
Control direction of mothers response
h
i
g
Total
30%
67
8
23%
60%
33
85
69%
10%
0
8
8%
38%
12
50
N = 26
Control direction of fathers response
h
i
g
Total
14%
12
13
13%
86%
13
61
55%
0%
75
26
32%
18%
21
61
N = 38
h = dominance attempt; i = inviting/allowing dominance; g = neutralizing control.
form of control, but it is clearly not a unidirectional process of parents trying to control their young adult children. Patients are more verbally controlling than their parents, and the picture that emerges, particularly in
triadic families of schizophrenic patients, is one similar to Haleys idea of
confused hierarchies and parents struggling unsuccessfully to gain control
(Madanes, 1980).
Low-EE families, particularly parents, seem able to respond neutrally
and thus avoid negative escalation. This finding parallels results reported
by Hahlweg and colleagues (Hahlweg et al., 1989) examining nonverbal interaction in the same families in which high-EE families escalated negativity, while low-EE families were able to dampen the escalation.
Relational patterns in families of bipolar patients differed from families
of schizophrenic patients in important respects. Control patterns differ by
EE status in both types of families but bipolar families were highly controlling across EE status. Social control may be only one dimension of EE, or
the family qualities tapped by EE may vary by diagnostic groups. For example, social control behaviors, or really, the battle for control, may be the
155
most important element of high EE in families of schizophrenic patients,

while the element of criticism may be more salient in affective disorders.
The data on the same bipolar families presented by Miklowitz and colleagues (Miklowitz et al., 1988) pointed to this; only patients with low-EE
parents whose parents also primarily used benign (noncritical) statements
during the discussions were unlikely to relapse.
Expressed emotion seemed clearly to reflect a transactional process; patients were as much a part of it as parents. Parents in low-EE families
seemed better able to stay neutral, however, while patients in low-EE families often yielded control.
There were intriguing differences between dyadic and triadic families. Although the control patterning was similar, the triadic situation seemed to
be more intense in several ways. The question arises as to whether that
was a laboratory effect, with two against one intensifying control struggles, or whether it represented more stable qualities of one- versus twoparent families. The early studies of families of schizophrenic patients were
couched almost entirely in terms of triads (e.g., Bowen, 1978; Haley, 1977).
Because the number of single-parent families is increasing dramatically, the
special problems (or possibly advantages) posed by this family structure
will become increasingly relevant.
Markov Models of EE and Communication Patterns
A second study compared communication patterns in the study families using Markov model analyses. As Rogers, Millar, and Bavelas (1985) noted, the
study of family patterns on a systems level requires system level analysis.
Data must be collected and analyzed sequentially to understand process at
the most basic level of message and response. However, analysis of data on
a true systems level also requires the inclusion of change over time to capture the dynamics of a process. Markov process analysis allows the researcher to incorporate time, and thus dynamics, in a truly systemic fashion, without concepts of linear causality and with a probabilistic framework
that seems to suit human communication systems very well. Communication patterns generally, and relational control patterns specifically, have
been shown to be Markovian (Manderscheid, McCarrick, Rae, & Silbergeld,
1982; Vuchinich, 1984).
Markov Models. A Markov process is a sequence of events in which
each event, or state, depends on one or more previous states. The probabilistic nature of the process can be represented by an initial distribution of
states and a transition matrix that specifies the probabilities of moving
from one state to another. A simple example would be the probabilities that
a control attempt by a patient would be followed by either a parents at-
156
WUERKER
tempt to control, to yield control, or to neutralize control. An important

quality of Markov models is indeterminacy: although individuals may vary
widely, the overall pattern is maintained, resulting in a statistical approach
that may be more reflective of actual behavior. Discrete-state, discrete-time
Markov models have appeal in part because they allow for both the indeterminacy of human interaction and the dependency of one persons response
on the other.
The standard assumptions underlying Markov models are order, stationarity, and homogeneity. Order refers to the number of states needed for
prediction of the present state of the system. First-order means that only
the immediately prior state and the transition probabilities representing
the dynamics of the system are needed; second-order means that information from two prior time points is required. Stationarity means that the transition probabilities do not change over time, although the distribution of
the states might. Homogeneity means that the same transition probabilities
hold for all members of the population.
Order, stationarity, and homogeneity can be readily assessed with loglinear models. The assumptions of order, stationarity, and homogeneity can
be used as hypotheses in a study or the focus may be on the transitions
probabilities that define the dynamics of the system (Gottman & Roy, 1990).
See Gottman and Roy (1990) for a general discussion of the use of log-linear
models for sequential analysis and McCarrick and Manderscheid (1990) for
examples using relational communication control.
To form the dataset for the Markov analysis, contingency tables were
constructed with four dimensions; the control direction at t, t + 1, t + 2, and
t + 3 (A, B, C, and D, respectively), using a moving window approach, in
which t is moved successively by single coding units. Dyadic data, in which
there was one parent and the patient, and triadic data, in which there were
two parents and the patient, were analyzed separately. Mother and father
were collapsed to parent in the triadic sequences. Parent to parent interaction (of which there was very little) was excluded. In previous analyses,
patterns of parents responses in any given family did not differ markedly
from one another, so collapsing across parents was unlikely to distort sequential patterning. The total number of four-unit interacts from dyadic
families was 3,598; the total number from triadic families was 2,716. Loglinear analyses were then used to assess order, stationarity, and homogeneity, as well as to compare the stochastic models statistically.
Dyadic FamiliesTesting for Order. Order was assessed for low- and
high-EE families, combining diagnostic groups. The results suggested that
for low-EE families, the process of relational control was second order. The
process in high-EE families was second-order as well, but more complex effects were significant, implying more responsiveness in high-EE families.
7. HOW TEXTS COME INTO BEING
157
The analyses for homogeneity and stationarity demonstrated that the process of negotiation of control in single-parent families did not change during
the discussion and was also stable across roles.
The tests for order, homogeneity, and stationarity examine differences in
the patterning of communication in the study families. Differences in the patterns of relational control were examined by again using log-linear analysis.
These analyses showed that families with bipolar disorder differed slightly
by EE status in that high-EE families were likely to respond to neutral messages with a control attempt. Patterns in families of persons with schizophrenia differed more by EE status, in that low-EE families were very unlikely to
compete for control, and high-EE families were likely to respond to either a
neutral or a dominating message with a statement asserting control.
In comparing low- and high-EE families, there were clear differences in
pathways to neutral symmetry. In low-EE families, both one-up, one-across
and one-down, one-across often led to neutral symmetry. In high-EE families, only one-up, one-across did. An interesting feature of the high-EE families was that the system often moved from complementarity (hi) to neutral
transitions (ig) to more competitive transitions (gh) to competitive symmetry (hh). In this series of slow shifts toward dominance, neutral
speeches had quite a different function than to dampen escalation; rather
they seemed to be a way to gradually assert control. In examining parameter estimates of the effects that differentiate low- and high-EE families of
persons with schizophrenia, this use of neutral to shift from submissive to
competitive was statistically significant in high-EE families.
To summarize the dynamics in the dyadic families of persons with schizophrenia, the high-EE families were more competitive than the low-EE families, and were less apt to move to neutral symmetry than low-EE families.
The most striking difference in the high-EE families, however, was the use of
neutral to escalate control rather than to dampen it.
Triadic Families. Tests of order in the low-EE dual-parent families
showed that the structure of communication was second order, similar to
the dyadic low-EE families. However, high-EE families showed third-order
structure, implying more responsiveness in these families. Patterning in
both high- and low-EE families was stable across the dialogues and across
roles.
Comparison of patterns showed that hhh was more common in high-EE
families, as was igh, while low-EE families were more likely to show sequences ending in g or i. Low-EE families of persons with bipolar disorder
were more likely to show patterns of competitive symmetry compared to
low-EE families of persons with schizophrenia. However, in high-EE families,
it is the families of persons with schizophrenia who show more pathways to
dominance with sequences such as gih or igh.
158
WUERKER
Digraphs using observed transitions probabilities were constructed to illustrate the processes in each set of families. In the digraph for high-EE families of persons with schizophrenia, virtually every state eventually led to
competitive symmetry (see Fig. 7.1). The digraph for high-EE families of persons with bipolar disorder also showed a strong tendency toward competitive symmetry, but there were more possibilities for interaction to move toward neutral symmetry in these families (see Fig. 7.2).
Discussion. In this study, it was expected that the communication process in high-EE families would exhibit more sequential dependency, that is,
would be a higher order Markov process. This was not true of dyadic families, although they did show more complex dependencies than low-EE families. The process in triadic high-EE families was of a higher order, however.
The importance of this difference in structure is that it is indicative that EE
is not just a pattern of parental attitudes, or even a family emotional climate, but that high-EE families have a different type of family system, a
more tightly joined system, than low-EE families.
FIG. 7.1. Diagraph of transitions for triadic high-expressed emotion families,

schizophrenia (n = 585 sequences; 4 families).
159
FIG. 7.2. Digraph of transitions for triadic high-expressed emotion families, bipolar disorder (n = 1,225 sequences; 7 families).
Single- and dual-parent families showed similar patterning, but the patterns were more intense in the dual-parent families. In the single-parent
families, high-EE families showed some tendency toward greater responsiveness and competition for control. Families of persons with bipolar disorder were more competitive in general than families of persons with
schizophrenia, with the only difference by EE status the moves from neutral
to control attempts in high-EE families. In contrast, in families of persons
with schizophrenia, low-EE families avoided attempting control, and highEE families were likely to respond to either control attempts or neutral
statements with assertions of control.
Patterns in triadic families were similar but more dramatic. High-EE family patterns showed much more serial dependency (i.e., more responsiveness). Control patterning differed in the same way as in the single-parent
160
WUERKER
families, but more strongly. High- and low-EE families of persons with bipolar disorder were competitive, low-EE families of persons with schizophrenia rarely competed, and high-EE families strongly competed for control.
The digraph shown in Fig. 7.1 illustrates the rigid patterning in these latter
families.
Thus, families high in expressed emotion seemed to have a family system that is both more responsive and more conflictual. Dual-parent families
with sons or daughters with schizophrenia show these qualities most dramatically and are reminiscent of the family systems early family therapists
described (e.g., Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956). However, these
differences were not limited to families of persons with schizophrenia, but
were displayed by families of offspring with bipolar disorders as well, and
the patient is as much a part of the system as the parents. Furthermore, although these early formulations of family processes in schizophrenia proposed that faulty communication patterns caused the illness, it is likely
they are instead a result of the problem.
Digraphs are like maps, illustrations of the most heavily traveled routes
and the most common destinations. For high-EE families, most routes led to
competitive symmetry, one-upmanship. In fact, for triadic families with a
person with schizophrenia, all routes led to one-upmanship. This might be
considered a desperate attempt to assert control on the part of the parents,
as Greenley (1986) posited, but because the patient was as much a part of
the process as the parents, using the same routes, it seems more like an
intense battle for control in a system with too few options. Families with
sons or daughters with bipolar disorders showed very similar differences in
structure and dynamics according to EE status and are more generally controlling, but the triadic bipolar families were not as extreme nor as rigid as
the families of persons with schizophrenia.
These findings expand on the research of Hahlweg et al. (1989), which
was based on interaction in some of the same families. The escalation of
negativity reported in high-EE families by Hahlweg and colleagues may reflect the power struggle between parents and patients, whereas low-EE families may be able to handle control issues better, perhaps because the parents are able to stay neutral.
The differences between dyadic and triadic families remain intriguing.
Having an adult child with a major mental illness would seem to be a
greater burden in a single-parent family, but the results in this study point
to a somewhat less constricted system. An exception is the study by Parker,
Johnson, and Hayward (1988) in which EE was related to outcome only in
single-parent families. There are several possibilities for these disparate
findings. One is that these results reflect a task effect of conversation in
which there are two parents and one patient. Another is that communication in the laboratory accurately reflects communication in more ordinary
161
circumstances, and that the presence of two parents intensifies control

struggles, particularly when their control patterns are alike, as they were
with these parents. However, it is also quite possible that the gradual shift
toward control in high-EE dyadic families, that is, the use of neutral as a
stepping stone to attempted dominance, may have reflected a situation in
which a single parent and child had to deal with one another more gingerly.
In other words, perhaps single- and dual-parent high-EE families simply deal
with control issues differently, with dual-parent families dealing with control more directly.
Why responsiveness should be greater in these high-EE dual-parent families is more difficult to understand. As Parker et al. (1988) pointed out, it is often assumed that single parents are more emotionally involved with their
children. Of course, emotional involvement and responsiveness in communication patterns are not the same phenomena. At any rate, the influence of
composition of families on EE, control patterns, and outcome needs to be
studied as the understanding of EE moves beyond the relationship of one relatives attitudes and relapse in schizophrenia. Further research might illuminate the differences in single- and dual-parent family systems as parents and
children struggle with the consequences of a major mental disorder.
Jenkins and Karno (1992) commented on the disparate elements of hostility, criticism, and emotional overinvolvement in the EE construct. These
components of high-EE may not be disparate, but rather part of the communication patterns characterizing these families. Although emotional overinvolvement did not always contribute to the high-EE score, all of the highEE family types (bipolar disorder, schizophrenia; dyadic, triadic) in the
current study showed some degree of increased responsiveness to one another and a greater tendency to compete for control. This combination may
create more stress than either overresponsiveness or control struggles
would alone.
STUDIES BASED ON DATA FROM THE TREATMENT

STRATEGIES IN SCHIZOPHRENIA (TSS) STUDY
The remaining studies used data from the National Institute of Mental
Health (NIMH)-funded Treatment Strategies in Schizophrenia (TSS) Collaborative Study (Schooler et al., 1997). In the TSS study, subjects had to have a
family member willing to participate in the family therapy component of the
study; this family member was usually a parent, but could be an relative
serving in loco parentis (e.g., an aunt, an uncle, or a grandparent). All families in the TSS study were first invited to attend a psychoeducational workshop modeled on the survival skills workshop developed by Anderson and
coworkers (Anderson, Reiss, & Hogarty, 1986). They were then assigned to
162
WUERKER
a family management clinician. Families assigned to the Supportive Family

Management (SFM) condition were encouraged to attend monthly family group meetings that continued through the 2 years of the study. The
family management clinician also provided case management and consultation for problems when the family asked for assistance. Families assigned
to Applied Family Management (AFM) had the same opportunities but in
addition they received family treatment sessions in their homes for the first
year. All families received either AFM or SFM. At the conclusion of the
study, the investigators reported there were no clinical or outcome differences in the two groups (Schooler et al., 1997). The studies of relational control used the audio portion of videotapes collected by Bellack and colleagues (Bellack, Haas, & Tierney, 1996) in the context of the larger study.
Gender and Racial Differences in EE
and Interpersonal Control
A major issue in EE research is that most of the studies have been of White
middle-class patients, despite the number of countries in which this research has taken place (Jenkins & Karno, 1992). The few exceptions have
found interesting differences, in that Mexican-American families (Karno et
al., 1987) and families in India (Leff et al., 1987) have far lower levels of high
EE. With the exception of one study (Moline, Singh, Morris, & Meltzer, 1985),
few have included African Americans. Jenkins and Karno (1992) argued that
culture defines what kind of behavior deserves criticism, and that crosscultural studies of EE could provide some of the theoretical grounding that
EE research needs.
Although most of the subjects in the earlier studies were male, more recent research has included substantial numbers of females. However, none
of the studies has examined gender differences except to point out that the
relationship between EE and relapse seems to hold equally for men and
women. The problems in a family might well differ depending on whether
the young adult with schizophrenia is a son or daughter. To address these
two issues, gender and racial differences, this study examined differences
in family patterns of interpersonal control with respect to EE level in families of persons with schizophrenia, comparing patterns of families with
sons to families with daughters, and patterns of Caucasian families to those
of African-American families.
Relational control patterns have been shown to differ between men and
women (e.g., McCarrick, Manderscheid, & Silbergeld, 1981). In the McCarrick et al. study, men were found to compete verbally with both other men
and women, but women competed only with men and only when challenged. The ample literature on gender differences in communication
shows that men are more competitive in conversation, whereas women are
163
more deferring and work to keep the conversation going (Steen & Schwartz,
1995). For example, men are more likely than women to issue directives in a
conversation. Women are more likely to use tag questions (e.g., Okay?
dont you agree? or isnt that so?) which convey a need for confirmation
from the other and thus a more submissive rather than dominant position
vis--vis the other speaker (Lakoff, 1973; Steen & Schwartz, 1995).
Most of the literature on gender differences in communication considers
relations between peers. There is less understanding of what is normative
in dialogues between parents and children, particularly adult children.
However, Davis, Goldstein, and Nuechterlein (1996) reported that, in a
group of 110 recent-onset patients with schizophrenia, males were more
likely to be recipients of harsh criticism compared to females, and, in general, parents were more critical of their ill sons than their ill daughters.
Unlike gender, differences in communication style between African
Americans and Caucasians have rarely been studied in terms of control.
However, in his classic Black and White Styles in Conflict, Kochman (1981)
wrote of African Americans being more comfortable with expressing emotion compared to Caucasians. Kochman noted that emotionally intensive
expressions are favored in African-American culture as long as they reflect
genuine feelings, while restraining the expression of feelings is considered
cold, or not for real (Kochman, p. 107). In a similar vein, McGoldrick
(1993) wrote of African Americans being more emotionally aware and comfortable with the full range of their feelings, in comparison to Irish Americans. These observations suggest that the association between EE attitudes
and interaction in African-American families could very likely differ from
that in Caucasian families, and that African-American high-EE parents might
be more likely to express critical attitudes directly during interaction, and
so be more verbally controlling. Negative feelings do not necessarily result
in attempts at control, but, as attribution theorists point out, if a parents
criticism is based on a behavior that the parent believes is controllable,
that critical attitude may be reflected in controlling interaction.
The sample for the study consisted of 60 families, 30 that were low EE at
the first assessment at which interaction data were obtained, and 30 that
were borderline high EE or high EE at that first assessment. Data from the 6
families (3 Hispanic, 2 Asian, 1 other) who were neither African American
nor Caucasian were excluded, because earlier analyses showed interaction
patterns that differed between Asians and Hispanics, as well as from Caucasians and African Americans. Thus data for the study were from 54 families;
34 Caucasian and 20 African-American families.
Forty-one (76%) of the patients were male, of which 27 were Caucasian
and 14 African American; 13 (24%) of the patients were female, of which 7
were Caucasian and 6 African American. The primary relative was the
mother in 38 (70%) of the families, the father in 9 (17%). The remaining 7
164
WUERKER
family members who were acting in loco parentis were 4 sisters, a grandmother, an uncle, and one women identified as other. All four of the patients with sisters as the primary caregiver were Caucasian men. The mean
age of the patients was 29.1 years. The analyses were based on interaction
and FMSS (Expressed Emotion) data from each of 139 assessments (2 or 3
per family) rather than aggregating by family, because a parent could be
high EE at one point and low EE at another. Thus the focus was on how the
interaction at the time of the FMSS assessment reflected the EE level of the
parent at that time. Log-linear analysis was then used to examine gender
and racial differences in control patterns.
Results. Results from the log-linear analyses showed that AfricanAmerican patients in high-EE families were significantly more likely to assert control compared to Caucasian patients in high-EE families. High-EE
African-American parents are also significantly more likely to be verbally
controlling, and patients in high-EE African-American families were significantly more likely to respond symmetrically. Thus there was evidence that
high EE and competitive control patterns were more strongly related in African-American families.
There were also interesting gender differences. Male patients in families
with high-EE parents were significantly more likely to assert control compared to female patients with high-EE parents. High-EE parents were very
likely to attempt control with sons but responded in a submissive manner
to daughters. To illustrate the findings, cross-tabulations of messages and
responses by level of EE, race, and gender are shown in Table 7.2. Interactions from assessment points at which parents were low EE did not vary
substantially by either race or gender of the patient, nor did borderline
high-EE interactions. However, interactions from high-EE assessments varied considerably. Patterns in Caucasian high-EE families of male patients
were not remarkable, but interactions in African-American families at highEE assessments showed a high level of competitive symmetry; patients and
parents seemed to be challenging one another for control.
High-EE patterns in families of female patients appeared to be quite different from those in families of males. In both Caucasian and AfricanAmerican families, parents responded submissively to their daughters. The
description of this submissive patterning in families of daughters with highEE parents was based on relatively few familiesfour Caucasian and two African-American familiesbut the results were quite interesting and should
be explored further with a larger sample.
Control patterns were also compared according to whether the parent
was a mother or father. Mothers and fathers interacted with their sons and
daughters very similarly, but both sons and daughters were more controlling and less neutral when the parent was a mother, compared to interac-
165
35.7%
39.1
34.4
36.0%
32.1%
37.2
23.2
29.6%
g
Total
g
Total
Wuerker, Haas, and Bellack (1999).
Control direction of
patients message
Female
aFrom
patients message
Male
Sex of
Patient
36.8%
31.4
40.8
37.1%
30.5%
30.1
29.1
29.8%
31.1%
31.4
35.9
33.2%
(n = 334)
33.8%
30.8
36.4
34.2%
(n = 1957)
31.7%
25.7
42.5
100%
34.2%
24.2
44.6
100%
Total
Caucasian Families
Control Direction of Relatives Response
26.1%
23.7
25.0
25.0%
53.9%
49.3
44.2
49.5%
54.4%
50.0
46.3
49.4%
23.4%
30.4
31.4
27.5%
19.6%
26.3
28.7
25.6%
(n = 164)
22.7%
20.3
24.4
22.9%
(n = 944)
28.1%
23.2
48.8
100%
46.2%
15.7
38.2
100%
Total
African-American Families
Control Direction of Relatives Response
TABLE 7.2
Differences by Race and Sex in Control Directions of Patients Message
and Parents Response, for Interactions at High-EE Assessment Pointsa
166
WUERKER
tions with a father. Thus in terms of patients and parents, gender differences were largely as expected, with women less controlling than men.
Both men and women patients were more controlling with mothers than
with fathers, reflecting the conventional power balance, although it is interesting that this usual pattern was maintained despite the fact that the patients are adult children who are chronically mentally ill.
These patterns were stronger in African-American families than in Caucasian families, and stronger in families of male patients, particularly males in
African-American families. Families with high-EE parents and women patients showed quite different patterns, with parents responding submissively. The dialogues between high-EE parents and their daughters reveal
that the parents tended to plead with their daughters to change their behavior, rather than ask or order them to change.
High-EE relatives were equally or more controlling when the rating was
based on emotional overinvolvement. Perhaps it does not matter whether
the basis for asserting control is disapproval of a behavior or concern for
consequences of that behavior. For example, a common theme in the dialogues was the worry of aging parents that their offspring would not be able
to care for themselves when the parent could no longer do it.
The relationship of control patterns and EE levels was similar to past
findings, as described earlier, even though the sample was quite different.
The earlier studies were of younger, mostly middle-class patients, who had
not been ill for long. The patients in this study were, on the average, 7 years
older and more diverse racially. These findings again pointed to the possibility that interpersonal control is central to the transactional patterns underlying EE.
Markov Analyses: Change Over Time
in EE and Interpersonal Control
Many studies have shown that family interventions decrease the relapse
rate of persons with schizophrenia who have high-EE parents. Nevertheless, several problems remain, the most serious of which is that relapse
may be simply postponed rather than avoided. At least two studies have reported that positive results failed to be maintained beyond the first year
(Hogary, 1985; Lam, 1991). A second problem is that the whole process is
poorly understood. Why EE should be such a powerful predictor is not
clear, nor is it clear why family interventions are helpful.
Another important issue is that EE is often measured only once, and designating families or households as high- or low-EE adds to the impression
that EE is a stable marker of a family attitude. The studies that measure EE
at more than one time point show that there is a great deal of change in EE
attitudes. Most studies show EE moving from high to low, but Dulz and
167
Hand (1986) and Scazufca and Kuipers (1998) reported shifts from low to
high ranging from 11% to 18% of study families. One explanation offered by
Hooley and Richters (1995) for change over time in EE is that there are both
trait and state elements in EE. For example, a parent may have a critical
view of the patient in general but it may become heightened when symptoms increase.
In this study, communication patterns in families of persons with schizophrenia were described as they changed over the 2 years of the study. They
were described in terms of interpersonal control, assessed through the use
of the RCCS at each of the assessment points. The resulting communication
sequences were then analyzed as a Markov process.
Most Markov studies of dyadic communication have found second- or
third-order patterning (e.g., Manderscheid et al., 1982; Vuchinich, 1984). Previous studies of transactions in high-EE families have found a more tightly
joined system (Cook, Strachan, Goldstein, & Miklowitz, 1989) and greater
serial dependency (Hahlweg et al., 1989), implying a higher order structure.
In the study described earlier in this chapter, patterns in low-EE families
were second order, but patterns in high-EE dual-parent families were third
order, perhaps reflecting this more tightly joined system. Most of these
studies found that the patterns were homogeneous and stationary. Based
on previous studies, therefore, it was expected that the low-EE families in
the current study would show second-order patterning and the high-EE families would initially show third-order structure. We also expected communication patterns in all families to be homogeneous and stationary initially,
because these were relatives and patients who had been relating with each
other for years, and would be expected to have very stable patterns. However, participation in a study could affect patients and relatives differently,
so we expected there would be change in homogeneity over time.
Stationarity could change as well, although it is less likely than is the case
for homogeneity, because the dialogues on which the patterns are based
are short (10 minutes).
Because EE was assessed at all three time points, and EE status of many
of the relatives changed during the study, the patientrelative dyads were
grouped according to their patterns of EE. Group 1, designated as LLL, were
dyads in which the relatives were low EE throughout the study (n = 23);
Group 2 (HHH) relatives were high EE at all three points (n = 9). Group 3
(LHL, n = 9) relatives were low EE at baseline, high EE at Year 1, and low EE
again at Year 2. Conversely, Group 4 relatives (HLH, n = 5) were high EE,
then low EE, then high EE again at Year 2. The remaining families were categorized by their initial EE level and their Year 2 level only. Group 5 (L H, n
= 5) were low EE initially but high EE at Year 2, and Group 6 (H L, n = 11)
were initially high EE but low EE at Year 2. The six groups of families did not
differ significantly in terms of age, gender, or race. The symptoms and func-
168
WUERKER
tioning of the patients were measured at each of the assessment points during the TSS study (Schooler et al., 1997). There were no significant differences among the six groups in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS;
Overall & Gorham, 1988), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS; Andreasen, 1989), or the adjustment measures of the Social Adjustment Scale (SAS II; Schooler & Hogarty, 1986) at any of the assessment
points. However, both the relatives and the interviewers report of the degree of satisfaction the relative felt with the patient varied with the EE
groups at baseline and Year 2. At baseline, relatives in groups who were
high EE were somewhat less satisfied than those who were low EE. At Year
2, relatives in groups who were high EE at that point were significantly less
satisfied with their offspring. Interestingly, the EE group with the highest
(least satisfied) mean score for satisfaction (5.2 in a 1 to 7 scale) was the
group that was low EE initially and then were high EE, closely followed by
the group of relatives that stayed high EE throughout the study (mean 5.1).
Results. The first analyses addressed the issue of structure of the six
sets of dialogues. Each set of dialogues was assessed for order, stationarity,
and role homogeneity separately (that is, dialogues of stable low-EE families at baseline, stable low-EE families at Year 1, and so forth). Table 7.3 displays results from the analyses of order for all six groups. Dialogues in the
stable low-EE and the stable high-EE dyads were rather similar initially.
Both were second order and homogeneous, although the low-EE parents
and patients differed in their immediate responses to each other, and the
high-EE dyads did not. After the first year of the study, both sets of families
showed more responsivity in the dialogues, and both processes were third
order. However, in Year 2 of the study, low-EE and high-EE dyads differed
greatly. The low-EE dyads appeared to continue to develop complexity, but
the process in high-EE dyads was once again second order with no sequential dependencies beyond the tendency to stay in the same control mode.
The high-EE dyads also differed from the low-EE dyads in that by the second assessment and continuing in the third assessment, the process difTABLE 7.3
Results of Tests of Order
EE at
BaseYear 1Year 2
Base Year
Year 1
Year 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
23
9
9
5
5
11
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
<
<
<
<
<
<
3rd < .01

3rd < .01
2nd < .001
2nd < .01
2nd < .001
3rd < .001
3rd < .001

2nd < .001
3rd < .01
2nd < .01
2nd < .001
3rd < .001
LLL
HHH
LHL
HLH
LH
HL
.001
.01
.001
.01
.001
.001
7. HOW TEXTS COME INTO BEING
169
fered considerably for patient and relative. Thus the expectation that dyads
with high-EE relatives would show more sequential structure initially was
not supported. In fact, the reverse was found, in that at Year 2, the structure
of all of the high-EE dyads was second order, and that of the low-EE dyads
was third order. The expectation that heterogeneity would increase was
supported, however, and all dialogues were stationary, as expected.
Results thus far have focused on the structure of the dialogues, but understanding the process of interpersonal control was equally important.
Earlier research led us to expect that there would be more competitive
symmetry and less neutral symmetry in the high-EE dyads. Initially, patterns in the low-EE dyads showed flexibility with some competitive symmetry but more neutral symmetry, as expected. However, the high-EE dyads
showed little patterning, except that the patients were likely to assert control. Between the initial assessment and the assessment at the end of the
first year, patterns in both groups changed, leading to more flexibility, more
neutral responses, and fewer control attempts by both patients and parents. After the second year of the study, the high-EE and low-EE dyads diverged considerably, with high-EE relatives rigidly controlling and patients
with high-EE relatives persistently asserting control, while low-EE dyads
were continuing to become more responsive to each other.
Table 7.4 displays simple crosstabulations of observed frequencies of
control direction for messageresponse sequences for the base year and
Year 2. Note that for these frequencies, only the sequences in which the
patient is the initiator are used. Otherwise, in dyadic communication, message and response overlap and the separate contribution of patient and
relative to the dialogue cannot be understood. Because initial tables
showed strong similarities, frequencies from the stable low dyads and the
low-high-low dyads are combined, as are those from the stable high and
the high-low-high dyads.
In the base year, high-EE relatives asserted control (h) more often than
low-EE relatives, and competitive symmetry (hh) was somewhat more frequent. Patients in the stable high-EE dyads also asserted control more frequently. In Year 2, relatives in the stable high-EE dyads responded to more
than half the messages from the patients with assertions of control, no matter what the control direction of the message was. Oddly, the group of relatives who were low EE and then changed to high in Year 2 responded almost as rigidly, but submissively.
Discussion. Earlier studies of communication patterns in families of persons with schizophrenia showed that families with high-EE parents were
more responsive to one another, rather than less (e.g., Cook et al., 1989;
Hahlweg et al., 1989; Wuerker, 1996). These studies were of families of young
patients who had just been hospitalized for the first time, who were proba-
170
patients message
patients message
patients message
Stable High
EEc
Low to
High EE
High to
Low EE
38.4%
33.3
29.7
33.9%
42.8%
34.6
33.7
38.2%
31.1%
34.0
23.0
29.0%
43.5%
42.9
29.4
38.7%
h
i
g
h
i
g
h
i
g
bIncludes
27.3%
32.8
37.9
32.3%
41.1%
36.2
40.7
39.4%
29.4%
38.9
31.8
31.9%
32.5%
29.5
33.2
31.9%
29.2%
24.4
32.7
29.0%
27.8%
29.8
36.3
31.6%
27.8%
26.5
34.5
29.7%
29.0%
37.2
37.1
34.1%
39.3%
28.7
32.4
100%
(N = 839)
30.3%
31.6
38.0
100%
(N = 297)
47.5%
17.5
35.0
100%
(N = 1060)
37.3%
27.1
35.0
100%
(N = 3058)
Total
31.6%
38.2
35.3
34.2%
20.3%
21.2
20.4
20.6%
51.3%
58.7
50.9
52.5%
45.1%
30.9
32.1
36.9%
36.2%
30.6
29.0
32.1%
48.7%
42.5
39.5
43.2%
27.0%
22.1
20.8
23.7%
31.5%
27.3
32.8
31.0%
32.2%
31.2
35.7
33.6%
31.0%
36.2
40.1
36.2%
21.7%
19.2
28.3
23.7%
23.3%
41.7
35.1
32.1%
40.2%
14.5
45.2
100%
(N = 990)
33.2%
23.5
43.2
100%
(N = 340)
43.2%
18.9
38.0
100%
(N = 885)
38.6%
23.3%
38.1%
100%
(N = 2751)
Total
Control Direction of Parents Response
Control Direction of Parents Response
h
i
g
Total
indicates percentages discussed in text.

L L L and L H L.
cIncludes H H H and H L H.
aBolding
patients message
Stable Low
EEb
EE Group
Year 2
Base Year
TABLE 7.4
Percentage of Categories of Control Direction of Patients Message by
Control Direction of Parents Response by EE Group and Year of Studya
171
bly quite different from the older, more chronic patients in the TSS study.
The too tightly joined patterns described in the earlier studies were also
highly conflictual, different from the flexible patterns shown by the dyads
with low-EE relatives described in the current chapter. It may be that
heightened responsiveness is functional in a family as long as it is combined with flexibility. In fact, the absence of responsiveness in the high-EE
dyads at baseline may reflect the creation of interpersonal distance as a
way to cope with a difficult situation.
In general, there is very little known of how and why EE evolves over
time (Hooley & Richters, 1995). Many of the relatives who were high EE at
the beginning of the TSS study changed to low EE. The stable high-EE
group might represent a subset of high-EE parents who have particular
difficulty maintaining change. For example, Docherty (1995) described a
quality of some high-EE parents called cognitive immutability, referring
to a difficulty in accommodating new information displayed by these parents. High-EE parents in Dochertys sample showed higher levels of thought
disorder and ambiguous communication, which she thinks may be linked
to a genetic liability for schizophrenia. Goldsteins (1995) observations
about stable high-EE families being more likely to have histories of mental
illness makes a similar point. Thus, research combining behavioral, genetic, and physiological approaches might be very useful in understanding EE attitudes.
Control patterns in the five families who were low EE initially and then
changed to high EE were quite different from the others. Initially, patients in
these dyads were somewhat controlling toward their relatives who frequently yielded control. In Year 2, the patterns were stronger, with the relatives extremely submissive. The high-EE attitudes and lower levels of satisfaction at Year 2 may reflect the relatives discontent with a reverse
hierarchy, that is, with a son or daughter being in charge. However, given
that the mean age of patients in this study was over 29 years, there is no
ideal hierarchical arrangement. Even families with more functional adult
children at home have problems with whos in charge, and the problem is
much more complex with chronic mental illness.
Some of the divergence in responses between patients and high-EE relatives in Year 1 and Year 2 was because the patients moderated their responses more than the relatives did. Why this occurred is unknown, but it
points to the importance of attending to the relative, the patient, and the
relationship between them in any intervention. Otherwise gains for one
person in the dyad may be offset by processes that impact both members
negatively.
Some researchers argue too little attention is paid to the protective effects of low-EE attitudes, and that low EE may have a stronger influence on
course of illness than high EE. This study demonstrates the importance of
172
WUERKER
family support for low-EE as well as high-EE relatives. In fact, the benefits
for low-EE relatives seemed to have been more long lasting.
It is remarkable that family group interventions were able to impact interpersonal communication patterns to the extent that they did, given that
there was no clear tie between the interaction task and the intervention.
The study demonstrates, though, that relatives who remain high EE may
need long-term support. Education about symptoms and help with problem
solving may not be sufficient for these relatives, if control is the issue. Perhaps very specific interventions targeting the symptoms that are most
bothersome to the relative would be more helpful.
Multilevel Models: EE, Interpersonal Control,
and Changes in Symptoms and Functioning
One other uncompleted study is described briefly. This study based on TSS
data uses Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) to
examine change in symptoms over time in relation to interpersonal control
and EE. An important issue is whether or how EE and interpersonal control
patterns impact the patients symptoms or functioning. Although the highEE attitudes of parents of persons with schizophrenia are strongly and consistently related to relapse, it is not clear why. EE has not generally been
found to be related to symptom level, nor have specific transactional patterns. Nevertheless, one would expect that the conflictual or rigid patterns
associated with high EE would have some impact on the patients symptoms. An analysis was done to test this possibility using HLM.
In log-linear models of relational control, the dependent variable is a
cross-tabulation of message and response. HLM requires an interval level
variable as the response variable, so the percentages of assertive and submissive responses by the parents were used in the analysis. Other variables
in the analysis were EE level in the base year, the scores on the Thought
Disturbance and the Suspiciousness-Hostility factors of the BPRS, and the
scores on the SANS assessing negative symptoms, both at all three time
points.
Results from the HLM analysis showed that although high-EE parents were
more controlling, there was no evidence that control patterns contributed to
a worse outcome. However, high-EE parents seemed to respond more
strongly to changes in symptoms than low-EE parents. For example, both
high-EE and low-EE parents responded to increasing negative symptoms by
decreasing control attempts. However, high-EE parents responded much
more strongly. Conversely, high-EE and low-EE parents responded in opposite ways to increasing thought disturbance, in that high-EE parents became
more controlling and low-EE parents more submissive. The results again
point to increased responsiveness as characteristic of high-EE relatives.
173
There was a puzzling but interesting discrepancy between the younger

patients and their parents in the UCLA sample and the older, more diverse
sample from the TSS sample. In the UCLA sample, high-EE parents and their
offspring competed for control in an escalating process. In the TSS study,
rigid one-up or rigid one-down responses were characteristic of high-EE
parents, with very little relationship between message and response. An ongoing analysis of the TSS data using Multilevel Modeling (MlwiN; Rasbash et
al., 2000) shows that the relationship between message and response diminishes with the patients age, and that this effect is much stronger in high-EE
families. Age is strongly related to the length of time the relative has been
caring for their son or daughter with schizophrenia. It may be that the lack
of a tie between messages and response reflects disengagement or detachment, a response to dealing with a difficult situation for a long time.
Summary and Discussion
A program of research on EE and interpersonal control in the families of
persons with severe mental disorders has been described. Although EE remains a black box in many respects, the research reported in this chapter
has added to the increasing knowledge of how EE attitudes impact the lives
of patients and their relatives.
Some of the important findings were:
1. EE reflects transactional processes that may vary by diagnosis of the
patient. Although families of bipolar patients were more competitive overall,
schizophrenia patients with high-EE parents were the most controlling
group.
2. Markov models of the same sample of families showed that high-EE
families of both bipolar and schizophrenia patients were characterized by
high responsiveness, a more tightly joined system, and conflict over
whos in charge. However, transactions in the high-EE families of schizophrenia patients were less flexible than those in the high-EE families of bipolar patients.
3. High-EE attitudes are reflected in control patterns that may vary by
gender of the patient and race of the family. The relationship between control and EE was stronger in African-American families with patients and highEE parents competing for control. High-EE parents of daughters with schizophrenia responded submissively to their daughters, and daughters were less
competitive and more differential to their parents.
4. In the study of EE over time, low-EE parents and their offspring became
increasingly flexible in terms of control. However, a subgroup of high-EE parents who remained high EE over the 2 years of the study was more rigid at
the end of the study.
174
WUERKER
Overall, the series of studies demonstrated that EE does reflect interpersonal control, but that control is not the mediating variable between EE and
relapse. Rather, high-EE attitudes seem to be reflective of a high level of responsiveness and a tendency toward rigidity. It is possible that those qualities are linked to genetic vulnerability to schizophrenia. In other words,
some high-EE parents may have some of the same problems their offspring
have, but not have the disorder itself.
Analyzing sequential interaction in terms of interpersonal control processes has provided a great deal of insight into the important concept of Expressed Emotion and its link to relapse in schizophrenia. The utility of the
RCCCS is evident in this summary of findings.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. M., Reiss, D. J., & Hogarty, G. (1986). Schizophrenia in the family. New York: Guilford
Press.
Andreasen, N. (1989). Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS). British Journal of
Psychiatry, 155(Suppl. 7), 9398.
Bateson, G., Jackson, D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 253254.
Bellack, A. S., Haas, G. L., & Tierney, A. M. (1996). A strategy for assessing family interaction patterns in schizophrenia. Psychological Assessment, 8, 190199.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Brewin, C. R., MacCarthy, B., Duda, K., & Vaughn, C. (1991). Attribution and expressed emotion in
the relatives of patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 546554.
Brown, G. W., & Rutter, M. L. (1966). The measurement of family activities and relationships. Human Relations, 19, 241263.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cook, W. L., Strachan, A. M., Goldstein, M. J., & Miklowitz, D. J. (1989). Expressed emotion and reciprocal affective relationships in families of disturbed adolescents. Family Process, 28,
337348.
Davis, J. A., Goldstein, M. J., & Nuechterlein, K. H. (1996). Gender differences in family attitudes
about schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 26, 689696.
Docherty, N. (1995). Expressed emotion and language disturbance in parents of stable schizophrenia patients. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 21(3), 411418.
Dulz, B., & Hand, I. (1986). Short-term relapse in young schizophrenics: Can it be predicted and
affected by family, patient, and treatment variables? In M. J. Goldstein, I. Hand, & K. Hahlweg
(Eds.), Treatment of schizophrenia: Family assessment and intervention (pp. 6975). Berlin:
Springer.
Goldstein, M. J. (1995). Transaction processes associated with relatives expressed emotion. International Journal of Mental Health, 24, 245267.
Gottman, J., & Roy, A. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
175
Greenley, J. R. (1986). Social control and expressed emotion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 2430.
Hahlweg, K., Goldstein, M. J., Nuechterlein, K. H., Magana-Amato, A. B., Mintz, J., Doane, A.,
Miklowitz, D. J., & Snyder, K. S. (1989). Expressed emotion and patient-relative interaction in
families of recent onset schizophrenics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57,
1118.
Haley, J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J. H. Weakland
(Eds.), The interactional view (pp. 3149). New York: Norton.
Harrison, C. A., & Dadds, M. R. (1992). Attributions of symptomatology: An exploration of family
factors associated with the course of schizophrenia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 26, 408416.
Harrison, C. A., Dadds, M. R., & Smith, G. (1998). Family caregivers criticism of patients with
schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, 49, 918924.
Hinrichsen, G. A., & Lieberman, J. A. (1999). Family attributions and coping in the prediction of
emotional adjustment in family members of patients with first-episode schizophrenia. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 100, 359366.
Hogary, G. E. (1985). Expressed emotion and schizophrenic relapse: Implications from the Pittsburgh study. In M. Alpert (Ed.), Controversies in schizophrenia (pp. 354365). New York:
Guilford Press.
Hooley, J. M. (1987). The nature and origins of expressed emotion. In K. Hahlweg & M. J.
Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorder: The contribution of family interaction research (pp. 176194). New York: Family Process Press.
Hooley, J. M., & Hiller, J. B. (1998). Expressed emotion and the pathogenesis of relapse in schizophrenia. In M. F. Lenzenweger (Ed.), Origins and development of schizophrenia (pp. 447491).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hooley, J. M., & Hiller, J. B. (2000). Expressed emotion and personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 4044.
Hooley, J. M., & Richters, J. E. (1995). Expressed emotion: A developmental prospective. In D.
Cicchetti & S. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology (Vol. 6, pp.
133166). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Hooley, J. M., Richters, J. E., Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. M. (1987). Psychopathology and marital
distress: The positive side of positive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 2733.
Jenkins, J., & Karno, M. (1992). The meaning of expressed emotion: Theoretical issues raised by
cross-cultural research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 921.
Karno, M., Jenkins, J., de la Selva, A., Santana, F., Telles, C., Lopez, S., & Mintz, J. (1987). Expressed emotion and schizophrenia outcome among Mexican-American families. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 143151.
Kazarian, S. S. (1992). The measurement of expressed emotion: A review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 5156.
Kochman, T. (1981). Black and white styles of conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Koenigsberg, H. W., Klausner, E., Pelino, D., Rosnick, P., & Campbell, R. (1993). Expressed emotion and glucose control in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(7), 11141115.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and womens place. Language in Society, 2, 4579.
Lam, D. H. (1991). Psychosocial intervention in schizophrenia: A review of empirical studies. Psychological Medicine, 21, 423441.
Leff, J., Wig, N., Ghosh, A., Bedi, H., Menon, D., Kuipers, L., Korten, A., Ernberg, G., Day, R.,
Satorius, N., & Jablensky, A. (1987). Influence of relatives expressed emotion on the course
of schizophrenia in Chandigarh. British Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 166173.
Lefley, H. (1992). Expressed emotion: Conceptual, clinical, and social policy issues. Hospital and
Community Psychiatry, 43, 591598.
176
WUERKER
Madanes, C. (1980). The prevention of rehospitalization of adolescents and young adults. Family
Process, 19, 179191.
Magana, A. B., Goldstein, M. J., Karno, M., Miklowitz, D. J., Jenkins, J., & Falloon, I. R. H. (1986). A
brief method for assessing expressed emotion in relatives of psychiatric patients. Psychiatric
Research, 17, 203212.
Manderscheid, R. W., McCarrick, A. K., Rae, D., & Silbergeld, S. (1982). A stochastic model of relational control in dyadic interaction. American Sociological Review, 47, 164177.
McCarrick, A. K., & Manderscheid, R. W. (1990). Log-linear techniques for the analysis of interaction. In T. W. Draper & A. C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement,
and risk (pp. 143106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McCarrick, A. K., Manderscheid, R. W., & Silbergeld, S. (1981). Gender differences in competition
and dominance during marital group therapy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 164177.
McGoldrick, M. (1993). Ethnicity, cultural diversity, and normality. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (2nd ed., pp. 331360). New York: Guilford Press.
Miklowitz, D. J., Goldstein, M. J., Nuechterlein, K. H., Snyder, K. S., & Mintz, J. (1988). Family factors and the course of bipolar disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 223231.
Miklowitz, D. J., Goldstein, M. J., Doane, J. A., Nuechterlein, K. H., Strachan, A. M., Snyder, K. S., &
Magana-Amato, A. (1989). Is expressed emotion an index of transactional process? I. Parents
affective style. Family Process, 28, 153167.
Moline, R. A., Singh, S., Morris, A., & Meltzer, H. (1985). Family expressed emotion and relapse in
schizophrenia in 24 urban American patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 10781081.
Nuechterlein, K. H., Edell, W. S., Norris, M., & Dawson, M. E. (1986). Attentional vulnerability indicators, thought disorder, and negative symptoms. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 12, 408426.
Nuechterlein, K. H., Snyder, K. S., Dawson, M. E., Rappe, S., Gitlin, M., & Fogelson, D. (1986). Expressed emotion, fixed dose fluphenazine decanoate maintenance and relapse in recent onset schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 22, 622639.
Overall, J. E., & Gorham, D. R. (1988). IntroductionThe Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): Recent developments in ascertainment and scaling. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 24, 9799.
Parker, G., Johnston, P., & Hayward, L. (1988). Parental expressed emotion as a predictor of
schizophrenic relapse. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 806813.
Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M., Woodhouse, G., Draper, D.,
Langford, I., & Lewis, T. (2000). A users guide to MLwiN. Multilevel Models Project, Institute of
Education, University of London, London.
Rogers, L. E., Millar, F. E., & Bavelas, J. B. (1985). Methods for analyzing conflict discourse: Implications of a systems approach. Family Process, 24, 175187.
Scazufca, M., & Kuipers, L. (1998). Stability of expressed emotion in relatives of those with
schizophrenia and its relationship with burden of care and perception of patients social
functioning. Psychological Medicine, 28, 154158.
Schooler, N., & Hogarty, G. (1986). Social Adjustment Scale II. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Pittsburgh.
Schooler, N. R., Keith, S. J., Severe, J. B., Matthews, S., Bellack, A. S., Glick, I. D., Hargreaves, W. A.,
Kane, J. M., Ninan, P. T., Frances, A., Jacob, M., Lieberman, J. A., Mance, R., Simpson, G. M., &
Woerner, M. G. (1997). Relapse and rehospitalization during maintenance treatment of
schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 453463.
Steen, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). Communication, gender, and power. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L.
Vangelista (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 310343). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strachan, A. M., Feingold, D., Goldstein, M. J., Miklowitz, D. J., & Nuechterlein, K. H. (1989). Is expressed emotion an index of a transactional process? II. Patients coping style. Family Process, 28, 169181.
177
Vaughn, C. E., & Leff, J. P. (1976). The influence of family and social factors on the course of psychiatric illness: A comparison of schizophrenic and depressed neurotic patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 157165.
Vuchinich, S. (1984). Sequencing and social structure in family conflict. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 217234.
Wamboldt, F. S., Wamboldt, M. Z., Gavin, L. A., Roesler, T. A., & Brugman, S. M. (1995). Parental
criticism and treatment outcome in adolescents hospitalized for severe, chronic asthma.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 39, 9951005.
Wuerker, A. K. (1994). Relational control patterns and expressed emotion in families of persons
with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Family Process, 33, 389407.
Wuerker, A. K. (1996). Communication patterns and EE in families of persons with mental disorders: The negotiation of whos in charge. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 22, 671690.
Wuerker, A. K., Haas, G. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1999). Racial and gender differences in expressed
emotion and interpersonal control in families of persons with schizophrenia. Family Process,
38(4), 477496.
C H A P T E R
8
Relational Control
in PhysicianPatient Interaction
Denise Wigginton Cecil
Flathead Valley Community College
Marlene M. von Friederichs-Fitzwater

California State University, Sacramento
Effective communication between physicians and patients is a crucial determinant in optimum health care delivery (Bennet & Irwin, 1997; Bertakis,
Roter, & Putnam, 1991; Inui & Carter, 1985; Stiles, 1989; Street, 1992). Increasing evidence indicates that effective physicianpatient communication not only facilitates more accurate diagnosis and faster healing, but also
improves patient understanding and comfort (Brown, Stewart, & Tessier
1995; Comstock, Hooper, Goodwin, & Goodwin, 1982; Husserl, 1984; Parrot,
1994). However, it has only been since the mid-1960s that investigators began to study the interpersonal dynamics of physicianpatient dyads (Roter
& Hall, 1989; Roter, Hall, & Katz, 1988).
Over the years, the research of physicianpatient encounters have resulted in methodological diversity, a lack of theoretical cohesiveness or rational progression, and inconsistent, contradictory findings (Gilgun, 1997).
For example, Roter et al. (1988) stated that due to the exploratory, atheoretical nature of physicianpatient dyadic research, the result has been a
profusion of variables, a common lack of hypotheses regarding anticipated
relationships, and a tendency for investigators to correlate everything with
everything else. In addition, out of 60 independent studies Roter and Hall
(1992) reviewed that used some form of process analysis, they identified 28
different coding systems, 247 different communication process variables,
and an overwhelming number of results with little conceptual framework
for their meaning. Gilgun (1997) argued that a major problem exists in that
investigators have been trying to capture the fullness of communication
179
180
WIGGINTON CECIL AND VON FRIEDERICHS-FITZWATER
subtleties and complexities with a reductionist approach. Process analysis

requires complex, dynamic phenomena to be subdivided into process components or units of analysis without subsequent reintegration of the individual parts in order to understand the conversation as a whole (Charon,
Greene, & Adelman, 1994).
The need for new and better methods to study physicianpatient interactions have not only come out of these past research issues, but also from
significant changes in the health care model and in how health care is delivered. In an effort to benefit both the physician and patient, health care researchers are now striving to aid in the development of competent interaction and quality medical decision making among health care providers and
patients. This goal is being more closely realized through the promotion of
what has now been termed patient-centered medicine. Patient-centered medicine, also known as reformed or transformed medicine, has attempted
to broaden the conventional biomedical approach (or disease-centered
medicine) to include psychosocial issues of the patient and the family as
well as the physician (Stewart & Weston, 1995). The patient-centered model
not only includes the biomedical model, but also integrates all of the determinants of health in its method (Weston & Brown, 1995). This new model
maximizes a collaborative partnership between doctors and patients (Roter
& Hall, 1992) so that doctors may better understand their patients and their
patients needs and expectations.
In this model, patients are encouraged to go through their own agenda,
not just the physicians (Tate, 1983; Wigginton Cecil & Boyce, 2000) and the
patient is prompted to provide as much information as possible. Physicians
need to allow patients to express ideas, expectations, fears, and feelings
about their illness (von Friederichs-Fitzwater, Callahan, Flynn, & Williams,
1991). Physician behaviors deemed inappropriate include interrupting, discounting, or disregarding patient input or cutting off patient expression of
ideas, expectations, feelings, or prompts (Levenstein et al., 1989; von
Friederichs-Fitzwater et al., 1991). Control thus becomes a central feature of
agenda-setting. In other words, the person who controls the conversation
through communicative acts such as interrupting or changing the topic also
controls the agenda of the encounter. Learning the skills and strategies for
ensuring that the patients agenda is identified and acknowledged in the encounter becomes the first step to empowering the patient. Then, the physician can communicate in ways that promote patient involvement and keep
the control of the conversation and relationships shifting back and forth between the physician and patient. This represents a more patient-centered
interaction.
Much of the past research attention has been overwhelmingly focused
on the interpersonal communication needs of providers, often overlooking
the patients needs (Kreps, 1988). Relational communication control meth-
8. PHYSICIANPATIENT INTERACTION
181
odology provides a means for studying the physicianpatient interaction as

a relationship, broadening the focus of attention to include the patient as
well as the physician. To be patient-centered, the practitioner must be able
to empower the patient, to share the power in the relationship; this means
renouncing control that traditionally has been in the hands of the professional (Stewart et al., 1995, p. 7). Traditional studies established on contextual power (i.e., power based on authority tied to ones social position), are
less insightful than those that would study relational control developed and
maintained in the interaction between physicians and patients.
In 1989, OHair argued that health care systems could benefit from the direct application of relational communication theory with both medical and
legal implications. The tendency for patients to take a more active role in
the communicative relationship could be indexed by observing and analyzing control strategies attempted by patients (p. 102). Several studies followed OHairs suggestion to apply the Relational Communication Control
Coding Scheme (RCCCS) to physicianpatient interactions. What follows is
a review of each of the published studies design, results, and implications
for understanding the role relational communication control plays in the
physicianpatient encounter.
REVIEW OF PHYSICIANPATIENT RELATIONAL

CONTROL RESEARCH
OHair (1989) began the application of the relational communication approach to the medical encounter with a pilot investigation of 11 primarycare physicianpatient interactions with 251 message exchanges. These
interactions took place during office visits for scheduled check-ups or examinations and treatments of minor acute illness. OHair concluded that the
patients in his study were not passive participants in this type of relationship and instead seem willing to assert themselves with messages that attempt control or that neutralize control of the transaction (p. 110). His results indicate the predominant relational control transaction of competitive
symmetry. OHair stated, it is interesting that patients attempted control
almost as often as physicians (p. 107). Further, transitory exchanges revealed physicians responsible for almost all of the neutralized toward oneup exchanges (hg). However, patients were twice as willing to yield control
of the interaction after control was sought by the physician. Likewise, physicians were twice as willing to assume control when given the opportunity.
OHair suggested that much of this control seeking by physicians and control yielding by patients is due to the nature of the medical interview in
that physicians give a great deal of instructions and orders and patients
subsequently provide supports. Further, patients may have a tendency to
182
ask questions that extend the topic, resulting in a downward control direction (p. 108). Although, of the times physicians attempt one-up control of
the exchange patients only followed with a one-down move 24% of the time
and instead would most often reciprocate or neutralize their control attempts.
To further OHairs work, von Friederichs-Fitzwater, Callahan, Flynn, and
Williams (1991) studied 30 conversations with almost 6,000 message exchanges in four contexts, including an AIDS clinic, home hospice program,
family practice clinic, and a physicians office (93% of the patients were diagnosed as terminally ill). The results indicate a predominant message exchange of transitory transactions (ghgi), along with a substantial amount
of neutralized symmetry (gg) with neither physician nor patient seeking
control. This contrasts OHairs (1989) results with a predominant message
exchange of competitive symmetry. However, similarities were found to
OHairs claim that physicians were more willing to assume control of the
transaction when such control was offered by the patient and patients
largely responded with submissiveness to physician control assertions. von
Friederichs-Fitzwater et al. also found that when physicians were neutral,
patients were more than twice as willing to assume control, indicating a
willingness on the part of the patient to assert one-up control if the physician assumes a neutral stance.
McNeilis, Thompson, and OHair (1995) added to the relational control
research by providing an analysis of exemplar conversations of three residents during four interviews at a university family medical center. These researchers focused on the negotiation of the therapeutic plan and thus only
coded the final portions of each interview inclusive of 188 message exchanges. The coding began immediately after the medical examination was
concluded and the physician begin talking about what he or she thought
the patient could do to manage the condition or illness (p. 299). Results indicate the most common exchanges for the ending portions of the interview
were transitory (gighg). Results also indicated a substantial number of
patients taking control when control was offered by physicians, similar to
OHair (1989) and von Friederichs-Fitzwater et al. (1991).
Wigginton Cecil (1998) continued the study of physicianpatient relational control by collecting data from 50 family practice nonacute visits in a
Utah clinic, resulting in 7,500 messages for analysis. Similar to OHairs findings, Wigginton Cecil posits a deviation from traditional hierarchical views
of the medical encounter. In this study, overall relational control patterns
indicate physicians enacting greater control submission and patients engaging in greater control dominance. Patients asserted control 1 1 2 times
more than physicians and were almost twice as likely to have one-up statements met with one-down responses from physicians. The predominant
transaction exchange was transitory similar to the findings of von Fried-
183
erichs-Fitzwater et al. (1991). Also as in OHairs study, physicians were

more willing than patients to neutralize a one-up control assertion and
three times as likely to provide one-down responses to one-across patient
initiations.
Wigginton Cecil replicated the 1998 family practice study in a Kansas
clinic producing similar results (Wigginton Cecil & Boyce, 2000). Using 54
videotaped clinical visits (10,590 messages), results indicate patients once
again asserting control more often than physicians who showed more accepting control behaviors. Furthermore, results indicate neutral symmetry
(gg) and transitory exchanges (gigh) were most common. Along with
the most likely time for a patient to take control was if a physician offered a
submissive statement. However, slight differences were found within the
message exchanges where it was discovered that when either physicians or
patients asserted control, the most likely response was to neutralize. Also,
if a patient offered a submissive statement, the most likely physician response was one-across indicating less dominance and more neutrality than
the previous study.
Overall relational control coding results of these studies correspond
with patient-centered interviewing approaches in which physicians enhance their relationships with patients through the sharing of power. In
fact, the studies by OHair (1989) and Wigginton Cecil (1998) indicated a converse of the traditional view finding results indicating more assertive control behavior from patients and greater control acceptance from physicians. These results are helpful in understanding the direction being taken
during the medical interview with attention to the observable communication patterns rather than survey data, which leaves us wondering what actually occurs during the conversation between physician and patient.
Taking the relational control methodology a step further, Wigginton
Cecil (1998) began exploring the relationship between relational control
and health outcome variables of patient compliance and satisfaction. Patient compliance is defined as the extent to which the patients behavior
(in terms of taking medications, following diets, or executing lifestyle
changes) coincides with medical or health advice (Haynes, Sackett, & Taylor, 1979, p. 10). Even though adherence to physician-prescribed treatment
instructions may appear to serve a patients own best interest, the extent to
which patients do not comply with treatment regimens is staggering (Lane,
1983). Regardless of the illness, it has been noted that half of patients for
whom medication is prescribed do not adhere to treatment, and one third
of all patients fail to comply with physicians regimen instructions (Clark,
1991; Conrad, 1985; Davis, 1971; Haynes et al., 1979; Hendin, 1977; Lane, 1983;
Sackett & Snow, 1979). Several studies have begun to show that an increase
in patient involvement and less dominating physician approaches improve
understanding and compliance (Greenfield, Kaplan, & Ware, 1985; Rost,
184
1987; Rost, Carter, & Inui, 1989; Schulman, 1979). Wigginton Cecils (1998)
analysis, based on the RCCCS data from the 50 family practice physician
patient clinical visits and patient survey data, found an increase in reported
patient compliance when physicians exhibited less control dominance and
patients showed less control submission.
In this same study, Wigginton Cecil also explored the relationship between
relational control patterns and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction literature indicates structural aspects of medical care such as cost, access, bureaucracy, and facilities, do not appear to be significant determinants to patients perceptions of overall satisfaction of the medical experience (Hall &
Dornan, 1988). Further, demographic variables have not been useful in determining patient satisfaction, but show correlations that have been weak, inconsistent, and nonexistent (Hall & Dornan, 1990). A shift from sociodemographics to clinical interaction measurements of satisfaction has brought to
the forefront the notion that physicianpatient communication is an essential
determinant of patient satisfaction (Like & Zyzanski, 1987). The application of
the RCCCS in Wigginton Cecils study (1998) indicated an increase in patient
satisfaction was found when physicians showed less control dominance.
Wigginton Cecil (1998) also investigated how relational control patterns
may differ with physicians and patients during first time visits and those
who have more established relationships consisting of several previous visits. Extensive research has been conducted on how relationships evolve
and change over time (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Berger
& Calbrese, 1993; Knapp & Vangelisti, 2000). These researchers suggest that
communicative behavior changes as relationships develop. As Brown et al.
(1995) indicated, physicians accumulate a myriad of information about
their patients over time which allows for greater knowledge regarding the
patients experiences of illness in the context of their life setting (p. 5). Results from her study indicate that patients became less dominant with increasing clinical visits. More investigation seems to be needed for interpreting these findings. However, the research by Wigginton Cecil suggests that
once patients have established their definitional rights, less dominance is
pursued and control patterns are more established.
Wigginton Cecil and Boyce (2000) conducted a second health outcome
study to investigate the relationship between relational control and patient
agenda identification accuracy (i.e., the reason for seeking care). Determining the patients major reasons for seeking care is of critical importance
in a successful medical encounter and becomes the starting point of a patient-centered approach (Del Vecchio-Good, Good, & Nassi, 1983; Frankel &
Beckman, 1993; Joos, Hickman, & Border, 1993; Martin, 1983). However, past
research indicates that patients frequently have goals and expectations for
treatment that differ from the physicians who treat them (Eisenthal, Koopman, & Stoekle, 1990; Fletcher, OMalley, & Earp, 1983; Greene, Weinberger,
185
& Mamlin, 1980; Kravitz, Cope, Bhrany, & Leake, 1994; Kravitz, 1996; Lazare,
Eisenthal, & Wasserman, 1975; Uhlmann, Carter, & Inui, 1984). For example,
physicians may not permit patients to express a full range of concerns at
the outset of a visit and instead take control of the visit by asking increasingly specific, closed-ended questions that halt the flow of information from
the patients (Frankel & Beckman, 1993). It has also been suggested that patients dont receive information on prevention and patients relevant social
and emotional concerns are often undetected. Again, using the family practice setting, 54 videotaped physicianpatient nonacute clinical visits and
survey data were used to analyze the relationship between relational control patterns and physicians ability to accurately determine patient agendas. It was found that an increase in physician dominance led to a decrease
in patient agenda awareness.
The RCCCS has aided in supporting the association between control patterns and health outcome variables through transactional measures, rather
than just individual measures. Much of the physicianpatient research has
labeled control as an individual trait not considering the transactional nature of control behaviors. The application of the RCCCS has allowed us to
now take into account the response of the other participant. However, Rogers (1989) has claimed that the most important element in expanding our
knowledge of relational communication is a movement toward larger pattern descriptions. Wigginton Cecil (1996) extended these efforts by analyzing messages beyond the transact level to contribute to our larger knowledge of relational control dynamics through the use of phase analysis.
In this study, phase analysis helped to describe control patterns beyond
the interact level by analyzing data from 25 videotaped physicianpatient
interactions (7,522 messages) in a family practice, outpatient facility. Phase
analysis becomes particularly useful as a method of investigation for the
physicianpatient encounter because, unlike informal interactions, it has a
unique formal structure. Typically, physicians begin the interview with an
inquiry into the history of the present illness, continue with diagnosis, and
conclude with regimen proposals (Bates, 1987). Considering the formal
structure of this interview process may provide a more in-depth explanation of the control pattern results.
For instance, the beginning structure of the interview is often characterized by physician questions directed toward understanding the patients illness. The RCCCS rules signify questions that extend the conversation as submissions and answers as assertions. Thus, numerous physician questions are
control coded as one-downs and patient answers as one-ups. Consequently,
we may see mostly complementary exchanges in the initial segments of the
interview. The final portions of the clinical visit typically consist of a regimen
proposal in which a physician is giving instructions to the patient. These instructions may indicate more assertiveness from the physician during the
186
ending segment of the clinical interview. Therefore, phase analysis will allow
for consideration of the structural format of the clinical interview as an influence on physicianpatient relational control behaviors.
The first step in Wigginton Cecils (1996) initial exploration sought to describe how the control patterns emerge and change during the clinical visit.
Specific attention was given to developing a model which can describe the
physicianpatient control patterns in relation to the formal structure which
guides this interaction. The systematic rule structure for identifying phase
analysis was adapted from the work of Holmes and Poole (1991) and Donohue and Roberto (1993). Holmes (1992) described a phase as a coherent period of interaction, characterized by a dominant constellation of communicative acts (p. 83). The results of the study indicated differences among the
constellation of relational control acts during the initial, middle, and ending
portions of the interview as illustrated in the following phase map:
Transitory Symmetry - Complementary - Transitory - Competitive Symmetry
(gg)
(hi,ih)
(ghgi)
(hh)
As stated earlier, the initial portion of the clinical interview typically involves physician inquiry into the patients illness. Therefore, it was expected that beginning segments of the interview would have a substantial
amount of complementarity with the use of questions (one-down) and answers (one-up). Although complementarity did not consume the initial portions of the interview, it did make up a substantial portion of the initial
phases and is illustrated in the following transcript sample. (Note, the use
of - - indicates a talk-over.)
i
h
i
h
MD:
PT:
MD:
PT:
i MD:
h PT:
i MD:
h
h
h
i
h
PT:
MD:
PT:
MD:
PT:
Okay. Hows it doin now?

Its got better since I havent been movin around.
How long has this been goin on?
Um, its been goin on for about three days, but today its the worst
its been.
You have a fever?
Hmm.mm.
Sore throat? Anything else you want to tell me? Bringing up any stuff?
Coughin up any stuff?
- - probably mucus, but, Im not sure if it is. (talk-over)
- - is it clear or yellow? (talk-over)
Clear.
uh-huh. Whats the worst thing? Is it the cough, or the breathing?
Its the breathing cause I cant breathe, its, like, almost impossible. I
have to breath really deep.
187
Further, it was observed in the transcripts that these initial segments of

the interview tended to include informal discussions among physicians
and patients. The phase analysis may be picking this up with the abundant amount of transitory symmetry as illustrated in the following transcript excerpt.
i MD:
h PT:
g
g
g
g
g
MD:
PT:
MD:
PT:
MD:
g PT:
g MD:
Whatd you do before you worked there?

Well, I was a, I was sort of a late-bloomer, uh... I worked, I worked for
the American West Center. I was a full-time student at the U.
mm.hmm. (backchannel)
I was there from 82-87, graduated in 87.
uhhuh. Im trying to remember your major.
I have a B.A. in English, Im happy with it.
I thought you had mentioned at some point in time you were lookin
to teach English.
Well, I am a teacher. I was teaching, uh,um, a substitute teacher for
the Salt Lake school district. I still am. But that, that pays even less.
I bet you only work two or three days a week
It was also noticed that in these initial portions of the interview, physicians would repeatedly provide backchannels as patients answered questions and described their illnesses. Backchannels are cues for letting the
other participant know we are listening and involved, such as okay,
mm.hmm, right, uh huh, etc., and are coded as one-across. The following excerpt from an initial segment of an interaction illustrates this type of transitory symmetry.
i MD:
h PT:
g MD:
g PT:
g MD:
g PT:
g MD:
g PT:
g MD:
Okay. Um, and when did you think that started?

Two or three weeks ago.
mm.hmm. (backchannel)
Just after I seen you last I noticed the smell.
okay,mm.hmm. (backchannel)
Its still tender.
Right...(backchannel)
Id get really sharp pains in my kidneys.
Uh huh..okay... (backchannel)
The phase analysis also depicted more transitory exchanges made in

middle portions of the interview which typically involves an expanded discussion of the illness with an examination of the patient. The most frequent transitory exchanges included patient one-ups followed by physi-
188
cian one-across responses, and were least likely to include a physician

one-across with a patient one-down response. Thus, these transitory middle segments also signify the willingness of patients to assert definitional
control in the clinical encounter. For example, the following transcript excerpt provides an interesting conversation to illustrate the patient one-up
transitory pattern.
i MD:
h PT:
g MD:
h PT:
g MD:
h PT:
Any problems with your ears?

Uh, you know, I did have an ear infection, I think, about two months,
or three months ago, and I had pain and I had an earache. Ive never
been so sick in my life except for the past two months, never.
Youve got a lot of wax in this ear.
- - Its this one, not that one! (talk-over)
That one looks fine.
That hurts! OW! Jeez, Louise! - STOP IT!
The final portions of the clinical interview typically include the regimen
proposal which was represented in the phase analysis by a substantial
amount of competitive symmetry. It was expected that physicians would
appear more assertive during these final portions of the interview, surprisingly, both physician and patient showed domineering behaviors. Through
a closer examination of the transcripts it appears that much of this competitive symmetry is displayed through topic changes and patient talkovers as illustrated in the following transcript samples where - - indicates
a talk-over attempt and topic changes are noted in parentheses.
h MD:
h PT:
i MD:
h PT:
h MD:
h PT:
h MD:
i MD:
h PT:
I need you to start to take the 2.5s.

- - Two point fives? Thats what Im taking. Ive been on estrogen
since I was like 11 years old. (talk-over)
Yeah, uh, so thats like four of the .625s?
- - Like I said, my other medications, I think the pharmacy already has
got my refills. (talk-over)
Well, when you get that filled I want you to ask the pharmacist.
- - Well, I phone stuff... okay. (talk-over)
Well, when you call, ask the pharmacist or you can always call here
Friday morning and Id be happy to call that in.
h MD:
Okay. But its gettin better?

Its getting better, yeah. I, I gotta do my laundry, so s (persons name) gonna babysit for me. (topic change)
Okay. Is he hungry? (topic change)
h PT:
- - He might be. I brought him some food. (talk-over)
h MD:
i PT:
h MD:
gPT:
h MD:
h PT:
h MD:
i PT:
189
Can you bring him in next week again? (topic change)

Yes, I could.
Im also glad the nurse is coming to help you out with him. (topic
change)
Yeah.
Okay, well, was that little bell - was that circumcision too hard to take
care of, or was that okay for you? (topic change)
- - It was okay, its not stingin anymore when he urinates. (talk-over)
Right. Is that your wedding band? When did you get married? (topic
change)
About a year ago.
It must be emphasized that competitive symmetry made up a smaller portion of the total transactional exchanges (11%) and the average phase
length was nine transactions. Therefore, these phases do not have lengthy
sequences of one-up assertions. Instead, the phase analysis indicates competitive symmetry is more likely to occur near ending portions of the clinical visit, rather than in initial or middle portions.
The phase analysis study begins to establish the utility of this method
for depicting more global patterns of communication control processes.
Not only does the phase analysis allow us to understand how the RCCCS fits
within the formal structure of the medical interview, but how relational control patterns are manifested in a dyadic system. Thus, this method may
prove to be a useful tool for expanding the search for higher level relational
control descriptions in other interpersonal settings such as family, marital,
and organizational relationships.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Relational control methodology provides a way to examine the physician
patient relationship, rather than single utterances, and seems well suited to
provide information about the process of communication in the health care
setting. Obviously, more research needs to be done to better understand
the physicianpatient relationship and to further define the communication
strategies that will move the clinical encounter away from a doctor- or disease-centered model to a patient-centered model. Future research on how
relational control patterns differ within various medical settings would enhance this understanding. Specific areas of interest could include acuity of
illness, as in nonemergency versus emergency settings or chronic versus
routine or minor, short-term illness, palliative and end-of life visits when
terminally ill. Also of interest would be exploring the possibility of pattern
190
differences among the myriad of medical encounters in fields such as Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Oncology, Pediatrics, ObstetricsGynecology, and so forth.
Limited investigation has been given to understanding how the physicianpatient relationship unfolds over time. As such, future research
should continue to explore how the physicianpatient relational control
patterns change over the life of the relationship and as the patients health
changes. Further insights are needed for explaining different controlling behaviors between physicians and patients who are interacting for the first
time and those who have developed relationships over several visits (Wigginton Cecil, 1998). Also, the physicianpatient relationship when the patient is relatively healthy and only needs periodic preventative check-ups
may be different than the relationship that the patient might desire if he or
she is diagnosed with a serious chronic illness. These new avenues of research will clarify the relational needs of patients and how those needs are
met through communication.
Relational control behaviors could also be analyzed from nonverbal messages. OHair (1989) suggested control direction conceptualizations and relational meanings are variables available for nonverbal study in the physicianpatient relationship. Likewise, Siegel, Friedlander, and Heatherington
(1992) conducted a study in which they suggest nonverbal relational control behaviors can be reliably identified and that these behaviors enhance
communicative meaning in predictable ways (p. 117). Utilizing Gottman,
Notarius, Markman, and Mettels (1977) Nonverbal Affect Scheme, Escudero, Rogers, and Gutierrez (1997) successfully combined nonverbal affect
with the RCCCS by coding gestural, proxemic, and paralinguistic modes of
communication (p. 6). As these studies suggest, the incorporation of nonverbal aspects of relational control in the clinical encounter represents a
potentially beneficial research extension.
Future studies should also consider the contextual nature of question usage in the clinical encounter. The RCCCS original utilization in the marital
context typifies questions that function as a deference to another for advice
or information leading to a one-down control direction. However, the clinical context necessitates the use of questions as part of the process by
which physicians structure the interview. In fact, Wigginton Cecil (1998)
found physician questioning made up almost one third of the physician
messages in her study. Gilgun (1997) found that patients answered 95% of
the questions asked by physicians. This question and answer structure results in many physician one-down complementary exchanges that may not
appropriately display the definitional control behaviors.
Siebold, Cantrill, and Meyers (1985), Heatherington and Friedlander
(1987), and Folger and Sillars (1980) have also addressed the RCCCS questionanswer coding by suggesting the use of open and closed ended ques-
191
tion coding. Siebold et al. (1985) illustrated this by considering a physician

asking a closed-ended question such as, Did you just forget to take your
medicine?, which seems more domineering than an open question like,
What kind of things interfered with you taking your medicine? The open
question can be thought of as a physician attempting to keep his or her contribution low, while allowing the patient more responsibility in the communication setting. However, the closed-ended question seeks little contribution from the patient.
Because questions and answers play a unique role in the clinical encounter, differentiating open versus closed questions and answers seems like a
useful way to modify the RCCCS. However, consideration must also be
given to the control function that all messages provide (i.e., the regulative
nature of a message coded as a submission clearly has control influencing
implications). For example, if an individual were to develop assistanceseeking communicative patterns and a relational partner were to fulfill
those needs, these submissive behaviors become very controlling in that
relationship. Thus, further investigation is needed to assess the merits of
question and answer coding modification to avoid allowing subjective considerations to enter into the coding scheme which emphasizes message
form, rather than content.
Other areas of exploration for relational control coding that would be advantageous to examine include the application of control intensity measures reflecting the differing units or amounts of upness, acrossness and
downness (Rogers, Courtright, & Millar, 1980, p. 202). For example, a physician message categorized as an order would seem to be a stronger attempt at control than simply providing an instruction. Similarly, asking for
assistance may appear more submissive than providing agreement to a
statement. The relational control intensity measures capture this intensity
continuum that underlies the RCCCS methods and thus would offer a more
detailed inquiry into the physicianpatient relational control dimensions.
Likewise, measuring transactional redundancy would aid in understanding message pattern variability. Support has been given for the benefits of
flexibility in control patterns (Broderick & Pulliam-Krager, 1979; Courtright,
Millar, & Rogers, 1980; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). As McNeilis et
al. (1995) emphasized, Where we think physicians and patients can encounter problems is in the predominance of an interact where the doctor is
in the one-up position as a strategy during the entire interview or constantly in a one-down position where the patient does not take control (p.
302). This information is useful to physicians who may be able to provide
more flexible control patterns that help meet their patients needs for
greater or less relational control in the interaction.
Finally, future research should continue to establish the utility of phase
analysis for depicting longer sequential patterns of relational control. For
192
instance, it would be most helpful to establish systematic rule structures

for describing and comparing individual physicianpatient phase maps and
clustering similar maps together. It would also be important to incorporate
phase lengths to identify longer and shorter sequences. The mutually exclusive phases illustrated by the current phase mapping procedures does not
allow for the repeat of a phase that may be just as likely to occur in initial
or ending portions of an interaction. Instead, with current analysis, each
phase can only occur once. These suggestions are feasible adaptations for
future phase analysis application to relational control research.
As the focus in the medical encounter has shifted from a diseasecentered (or doctor-centered) model of practicing medicine to the patientcentered partnership model, issues of control, trust, and intimacy will become even more significant factors in the goal of providing optimum heath
care (von Friederichs-Fitzwater et al., 1991, p. 31). Thus, the relational communication approach provides a useful way to conceptually and methodologically describe the physicianpatient relationship by considering both
the physicians and patients part in the exchange of information. The resulting patterns of communicative behavior provide rich understandings of
how relational control is manifested during the clinical encounter.
REFERENCES
Altman I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bates, B. (1987). A guide to physical examination and history taking (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott.
Baxter, L., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Communication Research, 12, 469493.
Bennett, K. C., & Irwin, H. J. (1997). Shifting the emphasis to patient as central: Sea change or
ripple on the pond? Health Communication, 9(1), 8393.
Berger, C. R., & Calbrese, R. J. (1993). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward developmental theory of interpersonal communication. In S. Petronio, J. Alberts, M.
Hecht, & J. Buley (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on interpersonal communication (pp.
4053). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Bertakis, K. D., Roter, D., & Putnam, S. M. (1991). The relationship of physician medical interview
style to patient satisfaction. The Journal of Family Practice, 32(2), 175181.
Broderick, C. B., & Pulliam-Krager, H. (1979). Family process and child outcomes. In W. R. Burr, R.
Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. E. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Volume I (pp.
604614). New York: Free Press.
Brown, J. B., Stewart, M., & Tessier, S. (1995). Assessing communication between patients and doctors: A manual for scoring patient-centered communication. Unpublished manuscript. University of Western Ontario, Canada.
Charon, R., Greene, M. G., & Adelman, R. D. (1994). Multi-dimensional interaction: A collaborative
approach to the study of medical discourse. Social Science and Medicine, 39(7), 955965.
Clark, L. T. (1991). Improving compliance and increasing control of hypertension: Needs of special hypertensive populations. American Heart Journal, 121, 664669.
193
Comstock, L. M., Hooper, E. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Goodwin, J. S. (1982). Physician behaviors that
correlate with patient satisfaction. Journal of Medical Education, 57, 105112.
Brunswick, NJ: Transactional Books.
Conrad, P. (1985). The meaning of medications: Another look at compliance. Social Science and
Medicine, 29(1), 2937.
Davis, M. S. (1971). Variation in patients compliance with doctors orders: Medical practice and
doctor-patient interaction. Psychiatry Medicine, 2, 3154.
Del Vecchio-Good, M. D., Good, B. J., & Nassi, A. J. (1983). Patient request in primary health care
settings: Development and validation of a research instrument. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 151168.
Donohue, W. A., & Roberto, A. J. (1993). Relational development as negotiated order in hostage
negotiation. Human Communication Research, 20(2), 175198.
Eisenthal, S., Koopman, C., & Stoekle, J. D. (1990). The nature of patients requests for physicians
help. Academic Medicine, 65(6), 401405.
Fletcher, R. H., OMalley, M. S., & Earp, J. A. (1983). Patients priorities for medical care. Medical
Care, 21(2), 234242.
Folger, J. P., & Sillars, A. (1980). Relational coding and perceptions of dominance. In B. W. Morse
& L. A. Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal communication: A relational perspective (pp. 322333). Minneapolis: Burgess.
Frankel, R., & Beckman, H. (1993). Evaluating the patients primary problem(s). In M. Stewart &
D. Roter (Eds.), Communicating with medical patients (pp. 8698). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. (1997). Gender and control in physician-patient dyads: A relational control approach. Unpublished masters thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
Gottman, J. M., Notarius, C., Markman, H., & Mettetel, G. (1977). Codebook for the CISS. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Greene, J. Y., Weinberger, M., & Mamlin, J. J. (1980). Patient attitudes toward health care: Expectations of primary care in a clinic setting. Social Science and Medicine, 14, 133138.
Greenfield, S., Kaplan, S., & Ware, J. (1985). Expanding patient involvement in care: Effects on patient outcomes. Annals of Internal Medicine, 102, 520528.
Hall, J. A., & Dornan, M. C. (1988). What patients like about their medical care and how often they
are asked: A meta-analysis of the satisfaction literature. Social Science and Medicine, 27(9),
935939.
Hall, J. A., & Dornan, M. C. (1990). Patient sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of satisfaction with medical care: A meta-analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 30(7), 811818.
Haynes, R. B., Sackett, D. L., & Taylor, D. W. (Eds.). (1979). Compliance in health care. New York:
Pergamon.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family relational communication control coding system: Coding manual. Unpublished manuscript. Williams College, Williamstown, MA.
Hendin, D. (1977). The world almanac whole health guide. New York: North American Library.
Holmes, M. E. (1992). Phase structures in negotiation. In L. Putnam & M. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp. 83105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Holmes, M. E., & Poole, M. S. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of interaction. In S. Duck & B. Montgomery (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 286302). New York: Guilford Press.
Husserl, F. (1984). Effective communication: A powerful risk management tool. Western Journal of
Medicine, 145, 2930.
Inui, T. S., & Carter, W. B. (1985). Problems and prospects for health services research on provider-patient communication. Medical Care, 23, 521538.
194
Joos, S. K., Hickman, D. H., & Border, L. M. (1993). Patients desires and satisfaction in general
medicine clinics. Public Health Reports, 108(6), 75159.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2000). Interpersonal communication and human relationships.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kravitz, R. L. (1996). Patients expectations for medical care: An expanded formulation based on
review of the literature. Medical Care Research Review, 53(1), 327.
Kravitz, R. L., Cope, D. W., Bhrany, V., & Leake, B. (1994). Internal medicine patients expectations
for care during office visits. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 9, 7581.
Kreps, G. L. (1988). Relational communication in health care. Southern Communication Journal,
53, 344359.
Lane, S. D. (1983). Compliance, satisfaction, and physician-patient communication. In R. Bostrom
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 772799). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lazare, A., Eisenthal, S., & Wasserman, L. (1975). The customer approach to patienthood: Attending to patient request in a walk-in clinic. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 553558.
Levenstein, J. H., Brown, J. B., Weston, W. W., Stewart, M., McCracken, E. C., & McWhinney, I.
(1989). Patient-centered interviewing. In M. Stewart & D. Roter (Eds.), Communicating with
medical patients (pp. 107120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Like, R., & Zyzanski, S. J. (1987). Patient satisfaction with the clinical encounter: Social psychological determinants. Social Science and Medicine, 24(4), 351357.
Martin, A. R. (1983). Exploring patient beliefs. Archives of Internal Medicine, 143, 17731775.
McNeilis, K. S., Thompson, T. L., & OHair, H. D. (1995). Implications of relational communication
for therapeutic discourse. In G. H. Morris & R. J. Chanaile (Eds.), The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse (pp. 291313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
OHair, D. (1989). Dimensions of relational communication and control during physician-patient
interactions. Health Communication, 1(2), 97115.
Parrott, R. (1994). Exploring family practitioners and patients information exchange about prescribed medications: implications for practitioners interviewing and patients understanding. Health Communication, 6(4), 267280.
Rogers, L. E. (1989). Relational communication processes and patterns. In B. Dervin, L.
Grossberg, B. OKeefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication volume 2: Paradigm exemplars (pp. 380390). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rost, K. (1987). The influence of patient participation on satisfaction and compliance. The Diabetes Educator, 15(2), 139143.
Rost, K., Carter, W., & Inui, T. (1989). Introduction of information during the initial medical visit:
Consequences for patient follow-thru with physician recommendations for medication. Social Science and Medicine, 28(4), 315321.
Roter, D. L., & Hall, J. A. (1989). Studies of doctor-patient interaction. Annual Review of Public
Health, 10, 163180.
Roter, D. L., & Hall, J. A. (1992). Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: Improving
communication in medical visits. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
Roter, D. L., Hall, J. A., & Katz, N. R. (1988). Patient-physician communication: A descriptive summary of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling, 12, 99119.
Sackett, D. L., & Snow, J. C. (1979). The magnitude of compliance and non-compliance. In R.
Haynes, D. Sackett, & D. Taylor (Eds.), Compliance and health care (pp. 925). Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University Press.
Schulman, B. A. (1979). Active patient orientation and outcomes in hypertensive treatment: Application of socio-organizational perspectives. Medical Care, 16(3), 267280.
195
Siebold, D. R., Cantrill, J. G., & Meyers, R. A. (1985). Communication and interpersonal influence.
In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 551611).
communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16(2), 117139.
Stewart, M., Brown, J. B., Weston, W. W., McWhinney, I. R., McWilliam, C. L., & Freeman, T. R.
(1995). Patient-centered medicine: Transforming the clinical method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stewart, M. A., & Weston, W. W. (1995). Introduction. In M. Stewart, J. B. Brown, W. W. Weston,
I. R. McWhinney, & C. L. Freeman (Eds.), Patient-centered medicine: Transforming the clinical
method (pp. xvxxiv). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stiles, W. B. (1989). Evaluating medical interview process components: Null corrections with outcomes may be misleading. Medical Care, 27(2), 212220.
Street, R. L., Jr. (1992). Analyzing communication in medical consultations: Do behavioral measures correspond to patients perceptions? Medical Care, 30(11), 976988.
Tate, P. (1983). Doctors style. In D. Pendleton & J. Hasler (Eds.), Doctor-patient communication
(pp. 7585). London: Academic Press.
Uhlmann, R. F., Carter, W. B., & Inui, T. S. (1984). Fulfillment of patient requests in a general medicine clinic. American Journal of Public Health, 74, 257288.
von Friederichs-Fitzwater, M. M., Callahan, E. J., Flynn, N., & Williams, J. (1991). Relational control in physician-patient encounters. Health Communication, 3(1), 1736.
Weston, W. W., & Brown, J. B. (1995). Dealing with common difficulties in learning and teaching
the patient-centered method. In M. Stewart, J. B. Brown, W. W. Weston, I. R. McWhinney, &
C. L. Freeman (Eds.), Patient-centered medicine: Transforming the clinical method (pp. 132143).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norton.
Wigginton Cecil, D. (1996, May). Applying phase analysis for understanding relational control patterns in physician-patient clinical encounters. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.
Wigginton Cecil, D. (1998). Relational control patterns in physician-patient clinical encounters:
Continuing the conversation. Health Communication, 10(2), 125150.
Wigginton Cecil, D., & Boyce, M. (2000, February). Patient agendas and relational control in the family practice clinic. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association annual
conference, Sacramento, CA.
C H A P T E R
9
Organizational Relational Control
Research: Problems and Possibilities
Gail T. Fairhurst
University of Cincinnati
In the early 1980s when I had the opportunity to collaborate on a leadership

study of relational control with Edna Rogers, I jumped at it. Not only was
she a superb scholar, but the coding scheme she had developed as part of
her dissertation could readily be applied to the study of control in organizations. A collaboration was an appealing prospect because the field of organizational communication was dominated by psychological and mechanistic approaches at the time (Krone, Jablin, & Putnam, 1987). Most scholars
were reifying organizations and control dynamics, and few were studying
actual talk. As a result, communication was greatly oversimplified.
Rogers emphasis on actual talk meant a focus on message functions and
behaviors, but also on message sequences because communication was cast
as an evolving system. The ongoing structuring of social relationships was
assumed to have a quality that lay beyond individuals such that the socialness of relationships could only be manifested in the jointly produced behavior patterns of the interactants (Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987). The implications of this perspective for the leadership relationship were significant.
Although it may seem obvious that an autocratic relationship should be
marked by a leaders frequent assertions of control and a work unit members frequent acquiescence or that a democratic relationship should be
marked by more mirroring of the others behavior, the leadership literature
has always been highly monologic (Fairhurst, 2001). With few exceptions,
leadership scholars are more enamored with what leaders do (or, more accurately, what they say they do) and less inclined to ask how leadership is a
197
198
FAIRHURST
function of jointly produced behavior patterns of leader and members (e.g.,

see a review by House and Aditya, 1997). My relational control research conducted with Edna Rogers and my other collaborators, John Courtright, Steve
Green, and Bob Sarr, set out to change this emphasis.
In this chapter, I describe the path this research took. As the title implies, I discuss both the problems and possibilities of organizational relational control analyses. The organizational context poses some unusual
challenges for work of this nature beginning with several methodological
concerns.
METHODS AND SETTING

One previously published leadership study of relational control was very
instructive (Watson, 1982). Using Ellis (1979) relational control scheme,
which is similar in many ways to the Rogers and Farace (1975) scheme,
Watson simulated the leadermember relationship with 16 college student
dyads. Not surprisingly, Watson found a stereotyped enactment of the
leadership relationship. Those playing work unit members complied with
and those playing leaders resisted the others attempts to dominate the
relationship. Leaders also exercised a greater range of control maneuvers
than members.
To avoid a stereotyped enactment of roles, we made the decision to
study actual communication between real leaders and their direct reports
in the settings in which they worked. This decision posed its own challenges including heightened concern on the part of both management and
participants over confidentiality. However, since the focus of our analysis
was on relational patterns and not content, confidentiality issues proved to
be no more of a concern than normal survey research. We were also studying lower to middle levels within the organization where strategic decision
making was less likely to occur. Thus, for management there was not anything particularly threatening about the conversations we were likely to get
on tape.
There were also broader organizational concerns about the cost and preparation of transcripts, the nature of the feedback to the organization, and the
requested time and intrusiveness of the taping. Indeed, the transcription and
coding process was quite expensive, and both company and external funding
sources were needed to allay these costs. Without this funding, neither data
collection could have occurred. The funding also enabled us to give the organization feedback, which was in two parts. First, a summary report was prepared that aggregated the findings from all of the dyads. Second, the organization required us to deliver feedback to each dyad on their relational
patterns, which added considerable time to the project. Finally, the re-
9. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONAL CONTROL RESEARCH
199
quested time and intrusiveness of the taping proved to be minimal because

of our decision to focus on routine work conversation.
Our request for routine conversation was based on the argument that
the exercise of power takes place at a routine level (Deetz, 1992; Giddens,
1979; Nelson & Winter, 1982). Unless everyday encounters are studied, it is
hard to assume that the strategic choices that actors make have any real
consequences for them (Haslett, 1987). Because routinized patterns tend to
be low in variance, the leadership dyads in our studies were asked to provide 30 minutes of interaction. To reduce bias, we did not tell participants
of our intent to examine control dynamics. Instead, we indicated a desire to
examine routine work conversation and that their next conversation of
some length would be suitable for taping. The presence of a tape recorder
may have affected the communication between participants. However, the
tapes suggested that once discussion began, awareness of the taping diminished. This decreased awareness was the reason we asked for routine, everyday talk and did not create hypothetical situations or role plays and why
participants recorded the conversations in the privacy of their offices without our presence. We expected that the cues associated with the familiarity
of the context and discussion content would take over and minimize any intrusion caused by the taping.
Two major data collections resulted in three published studies and several unpublished analyses on relational control in leadership dyads (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989; Fairhurst, Green, & Courtright, 1994; Fairhurst et al., 1987). Other discourse analytic work was also performed on
these data (Fairhurst, 1993a, 1993b; Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989; Fairhurst &
Sarr, 1996). The same Fortune 500 organization was the site of both data collections, although different manufacturing plants were used each time totaling seven in all. More about the organization is provided in the description
of the published studies.
The Rogers and Farace (1975) coding scheme was used in both data collections, however, the scheme was modified slightly by including a backchannel response mode category for the second data collection due to the
heavy presence of backchanneling that was not adequately accounted for
in the original version (Fairhurst, 1990). Tables 9.1 and 9.2 describe the
modified version of the scheme.
The first data collection contained 45 dyads each of whom provided 30
minute conversations. This resulted in 1,400 pages of dialogue and 11,409
messages that were coded. The second data collection contained 132 dyads
each providing 30 minute samples. This resulted in more than 3,367 pages
of dialogue and 48,449 messages that were coded.
These numbers suggest an enormous amount of data especially for the
second data collection. Although coding reliabilities were all within acceptable ranges, care was taken to guard against reliability decay given the time
200
h
(B) i
= one-up; i = one-down; and g = one-across. Fairhursts (1990) modification of the Relational Communication Control Coding Manual (Rogers, 1972),
which explains these codes more fully, is available upon request.
bThe complete coding system contains five additional message categories, which appeared infrequently in this data set.
ah
h
Interrupts to give suggestions or directions
h
Interrupts to give information to question
h
Interrogative form of
giving suggestions
or directions
h
giving information
to question
Gives suggestions or
directions
Provides information
to question
Provides information,
continuing topic,
discussion
g
Requests information
on topic of discussion
Expresses disagreement, disapproval

or nonacceptance
h
expressing disagreement, disapproval
or nonacceptance
h
Interrupts to give disagreement, nonapproval or nonacceptance
i
Interrupts to give
topic information
Instruction
Answer
Extension
Nonsupport
(A) i
Talk-over
Interruptive
message
A. Successful
Gains conversational floor
B. Unsuccessful
Does not gain conversational floor
i
Interrupts to give
agreement, approval
or acceptance
Question
Interrogative
message
Support
Expresses agreement
approval or acceptance
i
Request agreement approval or acceptance
Assertion
Declarative
message
Grammatical Form
Response Formb
TABLE 9.1
Relational Control Message Codesa
201
denote a successful talkover.
The team is having a few problems.

Oh?
We didnt meet our goals for last week.
That makes 2 weeks running.
Dont you feel its time to step in?
Not yet, because I want to see how the team
[I disagree with your strategy.]a
responds when it is tested. Trust me. I know what Im doing here.
Okay.
Member
Leader
Member
Leader
Member
Leader
Member
Leader
Member
aBrackets
Message
Speaker
TABLE 9.2
Sample Coded Discussion
Assertion-Extension
Question-Extension
Assertion-Answer
Assertion-Extension
Question-Support
Assertion-Nonsupport
Talkover-Nonsupport
Assertion-Instruction
Assertion-Support
Message Code
Interact
gi
ih
hg
gi
ih
hh
hh
hi
Control Move
g
i
h
g
i
h
h
h
i
202
FAIRHURST
required to code a data set approaching 50,000 individual messages. We assessed overall and category-by-category reliabilities four times during the
coding process (Fairhurst et al., 1994).
Analytic approaches also differ given this type of data. Although distributional analyses can certainly be performed, the appeal of this data set is
that it allows for sequential analyses. Our minimum unit of analysis was the
interact, or two contiguous behaviors. As will become apparent in two of
the three studies reported in this chapter, our analytic approach combined
observational, stochastic analysis with the more traditional linear model
approach, or analysis of variance (ANOVA). Our primary interest was in describing the redundant patterns of communication that leaders and members exhibited over the course of their interactions, while also comparing
and contrasting those patterns across types of plant or other variables of
interest. Courtright (1984) described the methods for combining these
seemingly disparate approaches, and we applied one of those methodsthe
GSK approachto these data.
The GSK approach (Grizzle, Starmer, & Koch, 1969; SAS Institute, 1985) is
ground in the logic and basic calculations of the general linear model. Unlike
that traditional model, which researchers have employed to analyze a continuous outcome or criterion variable, the GSK procedure applies the method of
weighted least squares to a matrix of response probabilities that have been
obtained by cross-classifying two or more categorical variables. The goal of
this approach is to explain and predict patterns, combinations, or configurations of probabilities rather than the variance of a single dependent variable.
Courtright et al. (1989) and Fairhurst et al. (1994), the second and third studies reported herein, demonstrate the use of this approach on relational control data. However, our first study followed the path of early relational control research with marital partners through the use of summary measures of
interactional dominance (Fairhurst et al., 1987).
RELATIONAL CONTROL RESEARCH

ON LEADERS AND MEMBERS
ManagerSubordinate Control Patterns and Judgments
About the Relationship (Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987)
The purpose of this study was to link the measures of interactional dominance with judgments or perceptions of leadership relationships. We
sought to explicate the interaction patterns that underpin perceptions
about leadership relationships because so little research had been done in
this area. Following Bateson (1972), if communication is the relationship,
203
what else do leaders and members have between them except message behavior to form their perceptions?
Because control issues are a key aspect of the leadership relationship,
we examined how measures of interactional dominance might be related to:
(a) leadermember exchange (LMX), a measure of relationship quality that
separates in-group from out-group members partly based on task autonomy (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Liden
& Graen, 1980), (b) perceived member involvement in decision making and
desired involvement in decision making, (c) leader understanding of the
member, and (d) the leaders performance rating of the member. We hypothesized that the greater the leader dominance, the more negative the
perceptions of the relationship. We expected to find lower LMX ratings, less
perceived and desired decisional involvement on the part of members, less
leader understanding of the member, and lower performance ratings.
Our measures of interactional dominance were drawn directly from the
early research on relational control with husbands and wives (Courtright,
Millar, & Rogers-Millar, 1979; Millar, Rogers-Millar, & Courtright, 1979;
Roger-Millar & Millar, 1979). Comparative dominance examines ones patterns of compliance in relation to ones resistance to another. Total dominance measures the percentages of statements by one person that assert
a higher level of control than the subsequent statements of another. The
reader is urged to consult the study for further information about all of
the measures.
The findings from this study were perplexing and intriguing at the same
time. One of our more interesting findings involved a comparison of how
the coding scheme functioned with leadership dyads as opposed to marital
partners (Courtright et al., 1979; Rogers-Millar & Millar, 1979). We found an
almost mirror reversal of the symmetry and transition percentages for leadership interactions. Leaders and members relied heavily on the neutralized
symmetry category (gg) (as much as 80% of the time in some cases), indicating more constrained middle ground movement and control dynamics
played out within safer control zones than marital conversations. This
would prove true of our second major data collection as well. As discussed
later in the chapter, this may be a problem for the use of this scheme in organizational settings.
However, we received support for several of our hypotheses. The two
measures of leader dominance were related to several negative judgments
about the relationship including less leader understanding of the member,
less perceived member desire for decisional involvement, lower performance ratings, and a combined measure of less perceived decisional involvement and lower LMX ratings. The study describes these relationships
in greater detail and confirms the need to better understand the linkages
between relationship behaviors and attributions especially as the leader-
204
FAIRHURST
ship relationship grows and develops. Although the study of interaction

patterns that underlie relational judgments is clearly important and adds to
the predictive validity of the Rogers and Farace (1975) coding scheme, we
chose to add another level of the organizational context for the remaining
two published studies.
Interaction Patterns in Organic and Mechanistic
Systems (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989)
The organization we were studying was in the process of making a transition from top-down control to team self-management, based on a sociotechnical systems philosophy, at its manufacturing sites. The data from the
first study contained a plant of each type. As organizations like ours experimented with more participative organizational forms, scholars began theorizing about the control dynamics within these newer forms compared to
traditional hierarchies. One of the more durable theories was provided by
Burns and Stalker (1961) who argued that as the rates of environmental
change vary, organizations need different systems of control, information
conveyance, and authorization. Mechanistic forms of organization, characterized by hierarchical control, are more suited to stable environments,
which afford greater control over tasks. Organic organizational forms, characterized by dispersed control, are more suited to unstable conditions under which decision making shifts to the most knowledgeable parties. Both
Burns and Stalker (1961) and Weick (1987) argued axiomatically that communication in organic and mechanistic systems should differ in terms of
volume, network structure, and the types and patterns of messages. In
Courtright et al. (1989), we argued that rather than resort to axioms about
communication differences, relational control analyses seemed particularly
well suited to capturing the relative levels of participative structuring in
these newer organizational forms as they manifest themselves in the leadership relationship.
In particular, compared to organic organizations, in mechanistic organizations: Leaders should show more command-style communication through an
overall pattern of one-up control maneuvers (Lh), regardless of the behavior exhibited by members; and there should be higher levels of conflict between leaders and members through the display of contiguous one-up
moves (hh) that challenge each others assertions of control. Compared to
mechanistic organizations, in organic organizations there should be: higher
levels of one-down questioning behavior by the leader to invite one-up
member participation (LiMh); and higher levels of discussion in which
both parties use one-across moves to extend and elaborate upon the ideas
of the other (gg).
205
The findings were remarkably clear and supportive of our hypotheses. In

the mechanistic plant, there was a greater overall level of disagreement,
conflict, and leader attempts to dominate (e.g., MhLh, MgLh) consistent
with the assumptions of mechanistic systems. The leaders in the organic
plant exhibited less command style communication and more communication reflecting discussion (LgMg, MgLi) and a greater use of questioning
of the member to encourage participation (LiMh). An examination of the
questions posed by leaders suggested they were similar to those found in
self-managing teams that encouraged self-observation, self-evaluation, selfrehearsal, and self-goal setting (Manz & Sims, 1987). This study confirmed
our view that although the communication within new and old organizational forms can be broadly defined, we really have only the vaguest notions of how these forms get enacted until we study actual talk.
Inertial Forces and the Implementation
of a Socio-Technical Systems Approach:
A Communication Study
(Fairhurst, Green, & Courtright, 1994)
Buoyed by the findings from Courtright et al. (1989), we planned our most
ambitious study yet. As mentioned earlier, the organization we were studying was in the midst of making a major shift from top-down control to team
self-management based on a sociotechnical systems (STS) philosophy at its
manufacturing sites. By the early 1990s, all of their manufacturing sites had
either implemented STS from start-up or had converted from a traditional
hierarchical system. Borrowing from population ecology theory, which focuses on sources of organizational inertia that constrain transformation efforts (Aldrich, 1979; Hannen & Freeman, 1977; Singh & Lumsden, 1990), we
chose to examine two sources of inertia that may inhibit the participative
structuring of the organization. They included plant history (conversion
from a hierarchical system as opposed to STS from start-up) and plant manager style (autocratic as opposed to participative). Because start-up STS
plants did not have to contend with the lingering cultural effects of hierarchy that would likely be present in conversion plants, plant history was selected as a source of inertia. Plant manager style was also selected as a
source of inertia because an autocratic style is incongruent with an STS implementation, whereas a participative style is not. The combined effects of
different STS contexts and types of top level leadership had not been systematically studied. Thus we hypothesized that plants with a history of topdown control and hierarchical authority that are implementing an STS approach, that is, conversion plants, should show less participative communication (e.g., question-answer ih, discussion gg, and member one-upping
206
FAIRHURST
of the leader LhMh) between leaders and members than will plants implementing STS without such histories (i.e., start-up plants). We also hypothesized that plants implementing STS with autocratic plant managers will
show less participative communication between leaders and members than
will plants implementing STS with participative plant managers.
In this study, the history of the plants and the leadership style of the
plant managers were fully crossed. The sample contained a conversion
plant with an autocratic plant manager and one with a participative plant
manager. There were three plants with STS histories from start-up; two with
autocratic plant managers and one with a participative plant manager. As
mentioned earlier complete data was collected for 132 leadermember
dyads; the reader is referred to the actual study for further details.
These findings were much more complex than the previous study, but
several significant findings were generally supportive of the hypotheses.
For example, with an autocratic plant manager located in a conversation
plant, two inertial forces were present to maintain communication routines
in traditional, hierarchical patterns rather than the newer, participative
forms. Under these conditions, we found less interactional freedom to disagree, instruct, interrupt, change topics, or definitively answer a question
as revealed in fewer of both the LhMh and MhLh patterns. We also found
more member approval seeking (MiLi) with an autocratic plant manager
in a conversion plant as compared to a participative plant manager in that
type of plant.
Compared to the start-up plants with an autocratic plant manager, startup plants with a participative plant manager evidenced more member reciprocated one-upping of the leader (LhMh), more member initiated discussion mirrored by leaders (MgLg), and less member initiated discussion
followed by leader control attempts (i.e., through talkovers or instructions
(MgLh). Additional findings reveal more subtle effects. For example, the
majority of the significant findings were member initiated communication
patterns, which may be a more sensitive barometer of how inertial forces
may be limiting the realization of STS goals.
Perhaps the most powerful implication of this study is the subtle way in
which the inertial forces reside in organizational units bent on change. Individuals may not be conscious of the underlying relational control processes
that may undermine STS effects and working relationships. Changes in reporting relationships, changes in job titles, retraining, or work redistributionthe stock and trade of most OD interventionsdo not target underlying control patterns that structure the relationship. If these patterns were
identified, analyzed, and framed as consistent or inconsistent with an STS
philosophy, perhaps the effects of the inertia could be greatly reduced. The
remainder of this chapter considers the implications of these findings and
others for the field of organizational communication.
207
THE IMPLICATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL

STUDIES OF RELATIONAL CONTROL
Increasingly, organizational communication scholars have been concerned
with the precise nature of the relationship between communicating and organizing. Initial conceptualizations of this relationship cast organizations as
containers that conversations reflect or represent (Fairhurst & Putnam,
1998; Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001; Smith, 1993). Communication is cast as an
actualizing process in or within the organization (Cooren & Taylor, 1997).
Because the container view has been criticized for trivializing communication, reifying the organization, and its lack of attention to organizational
change, more recent characterizations of the organizationcommunication
relationship draw from production and equivalency metaphors. In the case
of the production metaphor, the organization can produce communication,
communication can produce the organization, or they can coproduce each
other. Thus, the emphasis is on process and change, and communication is
no longer trivial. However, the production metaphor still maintains an assumption of organizational primacy. By contrast, the equivalency metaphor
holds that organization can be found in the maneuverings and interpretations of its many conversations. Organizing takes place in communication
as manifested in its relational properties (Cooren & Taylor, 1997). Communication and organization form a monistic unity (Smith, 1993). There is no
relationship between them per se because like holonic images, the same reality is expressed in different ways.
Although a container view is not necessarily precluded, relational control research seems well suited to production or equivalency views of the
organizationcommunication relationship. This is because organizing is
achieved in the turn-by-turn sequential pacing of talk, which relational control analyses are dedicated to capturing. As Boden (1994) noted in her book
on conversation analysis in organizations, because action coheres as a sequence, turn taking mechanisms reveal the articulation points of action and
thus its structuring properties. Stated otherwise, that which is interactional
is simultaneously organizational.
The last two studies reported in this chapter, in particular, show the intertwining of the relational and the organizational. Speaking of the Courtright et al. (1989) study, Schnell and Sims (1993) wrote:
(T)he conversational comparisons between organic and mechanistic structures is an important micro to macro linkage, and future studies should attempt to make actual measurements of critical structural dimensions. This
type of study is particularly interesting because a direct relationship can be
drawn between control/power differentials represented in the organizations
208
FAIRHURST
structural philosophy and control/power differentials in leader-member interactions. (p. 26)
Schnell and Sims (1993) quote is more suggestive of a production metaphor, which presupposes the existence of the organization as one of the
poles in the process of coproduction. The organization is still reified despite a primary focus on communication (Cooren & Taylor, 1997). However,
an equivalency view is also possible when the organizing potential of the
coding schemes relational distinctions (e.g., such as between an order and
a request) are further analyzed. The work of James Taylor and colleagues
provides a model in this regard (Taylor & Cooren, 1997; Taylor, Cooren,
Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996; Taylor & Van Every, 2000). With either metaphor, relational control analyses show us how communication is the sine
qua non of organizing.
Support for a production or equivalency view of organizational communication notwithstanding, some lingering problems remain for organizational relational control research due to the complex nature of power and
control in organizations. Although status and power differences certainly
exist between husbands and wives, members of a group, or among friends,
the organizational context complicates matters considerably. Our first indication of this issue came from the heavy use of the one-across code.
The One-Across Problem
As mentioned previously, leaders and their members were much more inclined to use the one-across code than husbands and wives, which meant
more constrained middle ground movement and control dynamics played
out in safer control zones. But what does more constrained middle ground
movement actually mean? Moreover, why do we see the heavy presence of
the one-across code in this context and not in others? In answer to the first
question, messages that are coded one-across are frequently idea extensions, noncommittal statements (e.g., I dont know), or backchannels that
suggest active listening. All of these message types are either neutral or leveling with respect to the issue of the control.
The question of why there were more one-across codes in the organizational context has several possible answers. First, taking this finding at facevalue suggests that the organization under study has plant cultures that are
highly egalitarian, participative, and discussion-based. Eschewing traditional leadership models, leaders dont give direction to members, but engage in joint problem solving through idea extension. As the second and
third studies suggest, given the sociotechnical systems philosophy this organization was seeking to implement, this argument has some merit. However, at the time of both data collections, the implementation of STS was
209
not complete. There were plenty of vestiges of the old-top down management culture especially in Courtright et al. (1989), which compared an STS
plant with a traditional one. Thus, this explanation seems only partial.
A second answer comes from other discourse analyses of the transcripts, which suggests a high percentage of strategically ambiguous communication because communicators have multiple goals (Eisenberg, 1984).
The interactants seem keenly aware of status and power differences and
the need to manage impressions as they complete a task (Fairhurst, 1993a;
Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). Members, leaders with participative management
styles, and female leaders were among those who tended not to openly disagree, instruct, order, interrupt or, for that matter, directly submit to anothers control maneuvers (perhaps for fear of appearing weak). Assertions
of control were couched in extended discussions, politeness strategies, or
both. Acquiescence was often accompanied by extension.
When assertions of control were couched in discussion, the inherent ambiguity required a judgment call beyond the capability of most coders. A
coder might have to assess whether an actor is extending a discussion and
adding a note of concern, in which case the utterance would be designated
as an idea extension only (g). Alternately, a coder might also determine
that the note of concern tacked on to the initial idea extension was really a
rejection of a previous idea, which would result in a double code (gh). The
basis upon which coders make their judgments comes from the fact that
they are members of the same language community as the actors (Folger,
1991). Thus, they identify the meaning of messages on a general, conventional level. When an utterance is strategically ambiguous, there is a good
chance the recipient of the message may have difficulty assigning meaning
because couching strategies present more interpretive options. Obviously,
if the actors have difficulty interpreting a message, coders will as well. However, even if actors can accurately interpret the strategic ambiguity, coders
will still have difficulty because they do not have the relational history that
allows them to select from among various meanings.
Second, as in the case of an idea extension that is followed by a rejection
of a previous idea (gh), the case of acquiescence accompanied by discussion (ig, gi) automatically signals a double code. Double codes are a
problem with an analytic strategy like the GSK, which was limited to considering only one code per turn-at-talk. Thus, the coding scheme isnt at fault
here, but our analytic strategy was. Unfortunately, we could find no way
around the dilemma. We either had to take the first code assigned, which favored the one-across, or select the code that appeared more important to
the exchange. We chose the latter option and still produced high numbers
of one-across moves.
Three solutions to this problem seem in order. First, the coding scheme
may need further refinement to deal better with the issue of strategically
210
FAIRHURST
ambiguous communication. Second, other stochastic analyses (e.g., lag sequential, Markov chain) should be considered especially to the extent they
can overcome the problems the GSK experienced with the double code.
Third, perhaps routine work communication is not the venue in which we
are likely to find leaders and members engaged in direct assertions of control or submissions to anothers control maneuvers. Based on Dugans
(1989) work with Ellis (1979) coding scheme, the performance review may
be one such venue when a greater number of one-up and one-down moves
would be likely to occur. Alternately, organizations other than manufacturing settings, which force people to work collaboratively, may produce more
dynamic control moves.
Deep Structure
A second concern for organizational relational control research is that it
may be a narrow basis upon which to understand power and control dynamics. This is because relational control analyses largely ignore matters
of context (excepting the previous utterance) and content, thus excluding
other power dynamics. For example, Frost (1987) argued that the exercise
of power and control is expressed through organizational games. In another discourse analysis of the Fairhurst et al. (1994) study, game playing
was evident (Fairhurst, 1993a). Consider the conversation between a female
team leader, who was also African American, young, educated, and new to
the organization, and her male member, who was Caucasian, older, less formally educated, but more tenured than the leader.
Dyad 123, p. 34
(1) L:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
M:
L:
M:
L:
(6) M:
(7) L:
(8) M:
(9) L:
(10) M:
(11) L:
(12) M:
(13) L:
[So you come here sayin me and Ann dont wanna fix stuff. Its Joan
and Kurt were the same way.]
No, no. Im gonna disagree
I asked around.
(And Im gonna*****it well)
[I dont think it was all that great when they were here from talkin to
them.]
Well, let me talk
[And talkin to other people, I mean]
[Well, if youd like me to tell you]
[*****Just tell me]
(Because)
[why you think it was so great]
(Because)
[when they were here]
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
M:
L:
M:
L:
(18) M:
211
(youre)
[Just let me know]
[Youre getting very defensive because I said]
[Yeah, I am! I mean, I dont think*****it was all that great when they
were here.]
[Well,*****how do you know it was all that great if you werent
here?]
Relational control analysis has no problem picking up a very a clear pattern of one-up moves: successful (1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21) and unsuccessful (5, 12, 14, 16) talkovers, face-threatening charges (e.g., Youre
getting defensive, 18) and statements of nonsupport throughout. But what
a relational control analysis misses is that the member often appears to be
arguing just to be arguing. As soon as the leader satisfied the members
complaint, agreed with him, or otherwise did not take issue with his pointof-view, the member redirected the conflict to other subject matter (Fairhurst, 1993a). As this was done throughout the conversation, and in no
other conversation in the data set was the conflict so overt or sustained, it
raises the possibility that chronic complaining and the brute force of open
conflict may have been a kind of male power-game, an interpretation supported by studies of dispute management in boys (Maltz & Borker, 1982;
Sheldon, 1990) and adults (Fitzpatrick & Winke, 1979; Kimmel et al., 1980).
According to Frost (1987), despite its very visible components,
(P)ower is a more subtle phenomenon, being imbedded in the symbols and
systems that evolve out of contests and struggles among organizational actors. Such contests are in many cases preserved and renewed through the
perpetuation of earlier power relations, hidden beneath the surface of current
organizational functioning. (p. 505)
Influenced by Giddens (1979), Frost (1987) argued that power is a mix of

power in action and power in conception. Power in action is a surface manifestation of power carried out within and through the existing structures of
the organization. Relational control analyses with its focus on evolving patterns in actors reciprocal control moves is an example of research from
this view of power. Power in conception suggests a deep structure of power
directed at framing and reframing surface aspects of structure so as to pursue self-interested action (p. 521). Deep structure power focuses on the system of influence and the structure and meanings within which organizational life occurs.
Another obvious demonstration of deep structure power was the frequent use of military metaphors by one of the autocratic plant managers in
the Fairhurst et al. (1994) study. As critical theorists have long noted, the
212
FAIRHURST
heavy use of metaphor may structure a set of perceptions and practices

that make one way of looking at the world (in this case, an autocratic philosophy) seem natural, logical, and not open to question (Deetz & Mumby,
1985). Because military metaphors privilege asymmetrical power relations,
they may do as much or more to block an STS team-based intervention as
the number of directives a plant manager issues.
This discussion is not intended to be dismissive of the very real contributions that relational control research or any power-in-action perspective
can make, or to say that power-in-conception research is more important.
However, given the complexity of power and control in institutionalized settings, no one perspective or theory will suffice. More research is needed
that adopts a both/and orientation to the different theories, levels of analysis, and methods that might be employed to study power and control. The
obvious question is how do we combine disparate theories, levels of analysis, and methods? Relational control research and other forms of interaction analysis differ markedly from more qualitative discourse analyses. The
former often focuses on function, frequency, and regularity, the issues of
concern suggested by the Scientific Method, whereas the latter often emphasizes intelligibility, meaning, and structural possibilities. Other differences include small versus large samples of discourse, idiosyncratic versus
conventional interpretations, and argument-by-example versus statistical
testing. Ironically, neither a focus on meaning alone and nor a focus on frequency alone will answer all of the questions about the discourseorganization relationship. Ultimately, one arrives at the others door.
Unfortunately, as a scientific community we have few solutions to this dilemma at this point. However, much of the problem may not lie in the differences that exist between approaches as much as in our unwillingness to
look for common ground between them or to triangulate an approach to
problem solving. If more research problematized multiple theoretical
frames, multiple levels of analysis, or multiple methodologies, more equifinal solutions may be found (e.g., Eisenberg, Murphy, & Andrews, 1998).
For a subject as complex as power in control in organizations, this may be
our only hope of achieving a satisfactory understanding of its surface and
deep structure power dynamics.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this chapter has been to review the research on leadership
communication using a relational control perspective. Many challenges remain for research of this nature due to the complexity of power and control
in institutionalized settings. Nevertheless, it represents a systemic approach to the study of leadermember relationship that is all too often
213
overlooked because of so much focus on the leader in the current literature. Perhaps most importantly, relational controls view of leadership as organizing can lead the way in securing a more sophisticated understanding
of the organizationcommunication relationship.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Cooren, F., & Taylor, J. R. (1997). Organization as an effect of mediation: Redefining the link between organization and communication. Communication Theory, 7, 219260.
Courtright, J. A. (1984). Methods of integrating observational and traditional data analysis. Communication Quarterly, 32, 197206.
Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Rogers, L. E. (1989). Interaction patterns in organic and mechanistic systems. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 773802.
Courtright, J. A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers-Millar, L. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: Replication and expansion. Communication Monographs, 46, 179192.
Dansereau, F., Green, G., & Haga, J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within
formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 4678.
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Deetz, S., & Mumby, D. (1985). Metaphors, information and power. Information and Behavior, 1,
369386.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment
of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 5660.
Dugan, K. M. (1989). Ability and effort attributions: Do they affect how leaders communicate performance feedback information? Academy of Management Journal, 32, 87114.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication
Monographs, 51, 227242.
Eisenberg, E. M., Murphy, A., & Andrews, L. (1998). Openness and decision making in the search
for a university provost. Communication Monographs, 65, 123.
Ellis, D. G. (1979). An analysis of relational communication in ongoing group systems. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1990). Supplemental coding rules and modification of the relational control coding
scheme. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993a). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A
discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321351.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993b). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks Total Quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 331371.
Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualisms in leadership communication research. In F. M. Jablin & L. L.
Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 379399). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Monographs, 56, 215239.
Fairhurst, G. T., Green, S., & Courtright, J. (1994). Inertial forces and the implementation of a
socio-technical systems approach: A communication study. Organization Studies, 6, 168185.
214
FAIRHURST
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (1998). Reflections on the organization-communication equivalency question: The contributions of James Taylor and his colleagues. The Communication
Review, 3, 119.
Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. A. (1987). Leader-member control patterns and judgments about the relationship. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp.
395415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tactics in
interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 27, 311.
Folger, J. P. (1991). Interpretive and structural claims about confrontations. In J. A. Anderson
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 14 (pp. 393402). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Frost, P. J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, &
L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 503548). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grizzle, J. E., Starmer, C. F., & Koch, G. G. (1969). Analysis of categorical data on linear models.
Biometrics, 25, 489504.
Hannen, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal
of Sociology, 82, 929940.
Haslett, B. J. (1987). Communication: Strategic action in context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of
Management, 23, 409473.
Kimmel, M. J., Pruitt, D. G., Magenau, J. M., Konar-Goldband, E., & Carnevale, P. J. D. (1980). Effects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 922.
Krone, K. J., Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1987). Communication theory and organizational communication: Multiple perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 1840). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership.
Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451465.
Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J.
Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196216). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership
of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106128.
Millar, F. E., Rogers-Millar, L. E., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Relational control and dyadic understanding: An exploratory predictive regression model. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 3 (pp. 213224). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L.
Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 78136). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogers, L. E. (1972). Relational communication control coding manual. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Utah.
SAS Institute Inc. (1985). SAS users guide: Statistics, version 5 edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
215
Schnell, E. R., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1993, August). The language of leadership: A review of observational
studies of leader verbal behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Process, 13, 531.
Singh, J. V., & Lumsden, C. J. (1990). Theory and research in organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 161195.
Smith, R. C. (1993, May). Images of organizational communication: Root metaphors of the organization-communication relation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International
Communication Association, Washington, DC.
Taylor, J. R., & Cooren, F. (1997). What makes communication organizational? How the many
voices of a collectivity become the one voice of an organization. Journal of Pragmatics, 27,
409438.
Taylor, J. R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and text. Communication Theory, 6, 139.
Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Watson, K. M. (1982). An analysis of communication patterns: A method for discriminating
leader and member roles. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 107120.
Weick, K. E. (1987). Theorizing about organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam,
K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 97112).
P A R T
III
REFLECTIONS ON THE
RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
C H A P T E R
10
Overview and Future Directions
L. Edna Rogers
University of Utah
Valentn Escudero
Interaction research has a relatively long history, reaching back to the early
1930s (Carr, 1929; Parten, 1932; Thomas, Loomis, & Arrington, 1933) and taking firmer hold with the work of Chapple (1940) on the cyclic rhythms of interaction activity and Bales (1950) system for analyzing small group interaction, but it wasnt until several decades later that this research mode
became a more established method for studying interpersonal relationships. Yet, even with its lengthy history and the continuing call in the social
sciences for the necessity of studying interaction, it has been a less traveled research road. With tongue in cheek, a memorable comment by one researcher was that everyone ought to do interaction researchonce!
As this comment suggests, this mode of research is typically described
as being labor-intensive, and no doubt this is the case, but most research
efforts of value are. Other factors such as the inclusion of time and the use
of sequential analysis procedures, although considerably eased with present technology, may present additional constraints on choosing this research path. It is also the case that interaction research bumps against
more traditionally established research orientations, evidenced by the
most frequent types of questions confronted by interaction researchers.
These questions typically take the form of But how do you know . . . that
the interaction is real, . . . that this is how people truly interact? or . . .
thats what people really mean? which carry the implication that other
forms of data, typically self-report data, are somehow more real than actual
behavior. Clearly, a different set of assumptions frame these questions than
219
220
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
those that guide an interactional approach. By reframing these common

modes of criticism within the epistemological assumptions of interaction
analysis, Holmes and Rogers (1995) proposed a more productive forum for
addressing these concerns in a more appropriate and beneficial manner.
Critiquing one perspective from the point of view of another, although typically unfruitful, is not that uncommon, but in this case it illustrates the
point that the basic assumptions of interactional research are often seen as
going against the more commonly accepted, person-centered, epistemological currents for studying relationships. A rather adamant expression of
this view is that this type of research is based on the level of mere behavior (Heyman & Shaw, 1978, p. 231).
Despite potential forms of resistance and the complexities of incorporating a temporal dimension in the study of relationships, interaction research
has, nevertheless, continued to gather momentum, and recently increasingly so (e.g., Cappella, 1996; Gottman, 1994; Warner, 1991; Watt & VanLear,
1996). The study of relational communication is one of the approaches that
has added to this line of research and the growing contemporary emphasis
placed on the study of process. With more than three decades of development, the research on relational communication provides a substantial basis for reflecting on this perspective in terms of the challenges met and
those that remain. In this final chapter, we briefly reflect on the general contributions of the relational perspective to the study of interpersonal relations, and then consider more fully, directions that will continue to advance
relational communication research.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW
The most complete representation of the perspectives contributions to relationship study rests on the programmatic research efforts presented in
the previous six chapters. Both separately and in combination, the results
of these research programs provide a wide array of evidence of how relational communication has promoted and enhanced the study of relationships. Through these cumulative efforts, the research approach has been
further developed and expanded in a number of significant ways. The modifications and fine tuning of the coding system and the expansion of the relational dimensions studied have allowed more of the subtleties and interrelated dynamics of the communication process to be examined. With the
application of different sequential analytical techniques, the research programs profile a range of available research options for depicting interaction
patterns and the impact of these patterned events. Likewise, the investigation of different types of relationships have expanded the contextual, social, and cultural, aspects incorporated in the research studies. Each of
10. OVERVIEW
221
these programs have opened important research avenues which have

broadened the scope of relational communication.
In reflecting on the perspective in view of the central goal of promoting
the study of relational process, we note several basic accomplishments.
Most basically, and hopefully without being overly redundant with earlier
discussions, the relational approach provides a methodology for putting
into effect the theoretical and analytical shift of focus from individual behavior to interaction. Corollary with this change in focus, is the emphasis
placed on the study of communication, levels of message meaning, sequential processes, co-constructed patterns, emergent pattern configurations,
and system level forms of analysis. The seemingly simple enough idea of
switching from the study of action to the study of interaction, however, in
its application, presented a number of conceptual and methodological challenges. But with a fair degree of success, the procedures developed have
provided a way of mapping relational level patterns of communication for
describing relationships in terms of their enacted, formative nature, and in
turn, have allowed the investigation of the relational consequences of these
patterns. One gauge of this success is the amount of research spawned by
the perspective.
The relational approach has been found to be applicable across different
types of relationships and settings; in its application it has reached across
disciplinary lines, language, and cultural contexts. Of particular relevance
for observational research, most of the studies have been based on data
gathered in the naturalistic settings of the participants. In addition, the research has included self-report data and other relational indices and is
characterized by what Cappella (1987) defined as third-order research concerns by investigating the relationship between communication patterns
and outcomes such as relational maintenance, therapeutic success, relational satisfaction, levels of understanding, medical compliance, conflict
management and the like, with more recently initiated research moving toward the inclusion of the interactors emotional and cognitive meanings of
the interaction process. Across these programmatic efforts, the relational
communication approach has made substantial theoretical, as well as practical, contributions in the study of relationships. But as with most perspectives, further work remains.
By design, in the development and subsequent application of the relational perspective, the majority of the research focused on the control dimension of dyadic relationships based on the sequential observation of verbalparalinguistic behaviors. This research focus has been both productive
and foundational in establishing this approach, and no doubt will continue
to be a mainstay of relational research. At the same time, it served as a basis for considering possible extensions of the paradigm (Millar & Rogers,
1976, 1987; Rogers & Millar, 1982) that would further enhance and enlarge
222
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
the scope of study. In proposing future developments, no one perspective

can be all inclusive without losing integrity. Thus, the directions considered
are those that are bounded by the perspectives primary goal of studying
relationships relationally.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
With the view that research perspectives are best seen as works in process,
the directions envisioned are not so much new research paths as those
which build-off of previous proposals for expanding the perspective and research developments that have recently been initiated. With these considerations in mind, the directions we see as central to the progress of future
research are highlighted next:
Expansion of Relational Dimensions. In order to more fully capture relational processes the inclusion of other dimensions in addition to control,
represents a primary research direction. The investigation of the interrelationship between control and other dimensions has been initiated, but
clearly remains a key area for further development.
Investigation of Multiple Member Systems. Given the dyadic focus of
prior research, the study of larger interactional systems, such as the family,
friendships, or small groups, has been limited. However, presently designed
coding procedures for studying multiple member relationships more
readily invites the investigation of larger relational systems.
Exploration of Different Perspectives of Relational Processes. The possible benefits of applying different approaches for studying relational process, based on other external views of interaction and the interpretative perspectives of the interactors relational meanings of these processes, have not
been sufficiently explored. The expansion and potential integration of different view points represents an important area for future research.
Expansion of Practical Application. Although we presently have effective means for describing relational communication processes, the direct
application of these methods for assessing and facilitating more immediate,
practical situations (e.g., therapeutic interventions, conflict negotiation,
health care management, etc.) although promising, is still limited. If more
accessible methods were developed for use in applied settings, the importance of the research would take on increased relevance.
10. OVERVIEW
223
Expansion of Relational Dimensions

How best to conceptualize and investigation basic, generic dimensions of
relationships has been a longstanding concern for relational researchers.
The development of a three-dimensional model of relationships by Millar
and Rogers (1976, 1987) offers a conceptual frame for expanding the study
of relational communication. The model is based on the proposal that control, intimacy, and trust represent universal dimensions which form an interactive matrix descriptive of the socially constructed processes of interpersonal relationships. These three dimensions are indexed in terms of the
observed interactional patterns of constraint (control), patterns of sentiment (intimacy), and patterns of predictability (trust). Control refers to the
members jointly negotiated definitional rights; intimacy, or affect, taps the
mutually expressed behaviors that reflect the emotional closeness or separateness of the relational members; trust rests on the potential uncertainty
and vulnerability of relational dynamics and reflects the extent to which
trusting behaviors are met with trustworthy behaviors which form the basis of the members mutual predictability of one anothers actions. These
three dimensions are conceived as the primary dialectic processes for regulating interpersonal distance. Although not ruling out additional dimensions, this model provides a central framework for empirically developing
and mapping basic, interactive patterns descriptive of interpersonal relationships.
The control dimension or power, as it is more often called, has been
identified as a central theme across the entire spectrum of interpersonal relations (Berger, 1994). It has, likewise, been highlighted as one of the key areas of research in marital interaction (Gottman & Notarius, 2000). At the
same time, researchers working on various issues of power (e.g., decision
making, conflict resolution, interpersonal violence, etc.) have made explicit
reference to the lack of appropriate methods for analyzing the influencing
processes of power relations. With much of the research utilizing the more
established views of power, defined as the result of certain interaction tasks
(e.g., decision-making situations) or as the resource differential of social exchange, the ongoing process of relational influence or regulation, has obviously received less attention. The study of interpersonal power from the
viewpoint of relational control amends this situation by focusing on the influencing process per se.
The study of relational control enables us to research what Broderick
(1993), in a review of family process research, referred to as the regulation
of vertical space. Research on relational control has tackled questions related to the continual process of defining and redefining vertical distance
through measures of dominance, domineeringness, intensity, triadic coalitions, and other related patterns. The intimacy or affect dimension repre-
224
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
sents another basic component for defining interpersonal relationships in

terms of distance regulation, not in a vertical sense, but in a horizontal
sense of affective closeness and separateness. As with control, the study of
affect is also identified as a central area of relationship research. In a review of marital interaction research, Gottman and Notarius (2000) clearly
confirmed the key role the affect dimension plays in the regulation of interpersonal distance. The most prominent interaction-based measures of affect are based on Gottmans (1979, 1994) methods for indexing nonverbal
expressions of positive, neutral, and negative affect. Of the three dimensions comprising the relational communication model, the trust dimension
has received the least empirical attention. Although possible indices of
trust have been proposed (see Millar & Rogers, 1987), specific interaction
procedures for indexing this dimension have not been devised. Several
dyadic and interpersonal trust scales based on self-report measures exist
(e.g., Larzelere & Huston, 1980; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985), but the development of a communication-based method for describing patterns of relational trust remains a direction for future research.
In view of the fact that in relational communication the control dimension has received the majority of attention, the investigation of the other dimensions is seen as an essential direction for the expansion of relational research. The benefits of this approach have been born out by those studies,
although limited in number, that have been based on a combination of dimensions. The research on both affect and control, described in chapter 4,
demonstrated that each of these dimensions, but moreso when studied in
combination, expanded the descriptive and analytical power for investigating interaction processes and their relational impact. The dual investigation
of relational control and nonverbal affect behaviors of clinical and nonclinical couples confirmed that each dimension provided nonredundant information for describing interaction patterns. Both dimensions were found
to differentiate clinical from nonclinical couples, most notably with stronger associations between domineeringness and negative affect, and higher
proportions and longer chains of escalating, competitive negative symmetry characterizing the clinical couples interactions.
The research carried out by Wuerker on expressed emotions and relational control in families with a member with mental illness, presented in
chapter 7, is a further example of how two communication-based dimensions, each with predictive value, can provide a new explanatory context
when they are studied jointly. To review briefly, the emotions expressed by
family members with a mentally ill person have traditionally been studied
by conducting interviews with these families. Based on the level of criticism, hostility, or emotional overinvolvement exhibited toward the patient,
families are classified as high or low in expressed emotion (EE). Different
studies have shown that patients in high versus low EE families are four to
10. OVERVIEW
225
five times more likely to relapse in the year following hospitalization. Faced
with these results, the thinking behind the clinical interventions was patently evidentteach high-EE families to change their expressed emotions
toward the patient. However, controlled evaluation of psychoeducative interventions in high-EE families showed that all it achieved was to delay
rather than prevent relapses. It was also found that some low-EE families
later became high-EE families. This gave rise to the belief that despite the
predictive power of the expressed emotion, the process of mutual influence
among the members of these families was far from being fully understood.
By expanding this area of investigation with the inclusion of relational
control, Wuerker and her associates in an extensive set of studies have
been able to identify the different types of interaction patterns that are associated with families with different levels of expressed emotion and further, have identified that the processes by which these control patterns are
maintained or changed vary by gender of the patient and the racial makeup of the family. The study of relational control added specific insights to
the coping processes of high versus low EE families with a mentally ill member and the implications of these patterned differences regarding patient
relapse and potential intervention strategies.
These studies illustrate the importance of the inclusion of additional dimensions and the use of both verbal and nonverbal coding for capturing
more of the interactive dynamics played out in the interaction process. The
added complexity of the research is offset by the advantages afforded in advancing relational research and our understanding of interpersonal relations. Different dimensional models of interaction, such as Kantor and
Lehrs (1975) delineation of power, affect, and meaning, Danzigers (1976)
matrix of influence, intimacy, and integration, Hindes (1987, 1997) extended
set of relational dimensions, among others, offer possible guidelines for exploring additional dimensions.
Investigation of Multiple Member Systems
Given the interpersonal importance of the dyad as the fundamental social
unit of relationships, it is not surprising that the dyad has been the prevalent focus of relational study. As the smallest social unit, it has also been
the most manageable to research. It seemed difficult enough to shift from
the study of the individual to the dyad, but even more so to study relationships consisting of three or more members. Although the original relational
coding system (RCCCS) provides for the identification of multiple speakers,
the study of larger member systems was significantly enhanced by Heatherington and Friedlanders (1987) adaption of the coding system to the
study of the family. Their modifications of the coding procedures in the development of the Family Relational Communication Control Coding System
226
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
(FRCCCS) provides a method for studying the direct and indirect implications of communication among multiple interactors.
An important feature of this system (see chap. 5) is the provision for coding triadic sequences which reflect a members attempt to define their relationship with two (or more) members simultaneously. These patterns occur when messages that are directed to one member, also have relational
implications for other members of the interaction. With these procedures,
this system is able to track the added complexities of multiple member interactions. When an interaction sequence relates directly to specific members without implications for others, the sequence represents a dyadic interaction taking place within the larger context. The FRCCCS, although
designed for studying families, is applicable to any relational system with
more than two members. With the development of these coding procedures, a very workable and useful method is now in place for expanding relational communication research beyond the dyad.
Exploration of Different Perspectives
of Relational Process
With the relational communication perspective providing an external view
of relationships, a proposal for future research, as outlined earlier, rests on
the exploration of different approaches for studying relational process,
both from the view point of other outside observer-based systems and the
relational members internal, interpretive perspective.
Observer-Based Perspective. The first suggestion is based on the application of observational procedures that are designed to capture different
aspect of the communication process which would complement and expand the relational approach. A number of presently developed coding systems might well hold the promise of providing added insights to the study
of interactional processes, much like the previously described combined
coding of control and affect. The benefits of this proposal would rest on
whether the different forms of analysis provided nonredundant relational
information. Although even if this was not the case, the comparisons of different observational systems would offer useful information on the conceptual or empirical overlap of the approaches.
However, assuming the systems tap different aspects, an obvious advantage of applying different methods is that the potential richness of the
interactional data would be more fully examined. In view of the efforts involved in gathering adequate samples of interaction, too often large proportions of the data go unanalyzed, and in this sense, are thrown away. When
only one type of analysis is carried out, additional and potentially important process information is lost. Interaction research (perhaps through col-
10. OVERVIEW
227
laborative efforts) would be far more efficient and further enhanced with
additional coding and analysis of the same data base. Ones theoretical interest and research questions would guide the choices made, but these
might include, for illustration, systems of analysis based on interaction content codes or nonverbal affect (Gottman, 1979, 1994), verbal response modes
(Stiles, 1978), conflict strategies (Sillars, 1980), intimate negotiation codes
(Ting-Toomey, 1983), etc. These combined, investigative efforts would promote the type of comparative or integrated studies that are often suggested
for advancing interaction research, as well as complement the expansion of
the relational dimensions studied.
An additional consideration, is the exploration of more qualitative forms
of discourse analysis. The verbatim transcriptions of interaction data in
combination with the audio and video tape recordings offer a richly layered
interactional text for study. Fairhust and Cooren (in press) provided a
recent example of this type of exploration with their application of three
different forms of analysis to an emergency police radio transcript. The
approaches utilized were the relational communication control system,
conversation analysis, and speech act schematics. The purpose of the
study was to provide an initial comparative examination of the three systems applied commonalities and differences in the interpretative analysis
of the interaction. This type of effort is useful in clarifying specific qualities
of these different communication approaches and providing a basis for informed choices for possible multiple or layered analyses of the organizing
properties of discourse.
Interpretive Perspective. The second consideration for expanding relational research is the exploration of relational meaning from the interactors
perspective. A frequent critique if not criticism of the relational approach is
the lack of attention given to the cognitive or emotional interpretations of
the interaction process by the participants. Whereas efforts have been made,
particularly in the clinical area, on how to appropriately interrelate internal
perspectives with the relational communication locus of meaning in the behavioral patterns, the task is, nevertheless, a challenging and a potentially
slippery one. The critical concern is how to expand the research in this direction without compromising the basic principles of a relational focus.
Relational communication patterns of interaction have been related
to the participants subjective perceptions regarding different qualities
of their relationship, but not to their interpretations of the interaction
process per se. Recently initiated research, however, incorporating participants emotional and cognitive meanings generated within the communication process, is now underway. The interrelations between the behavioral and interpretative perspectives, guiding these efforts, are
visualized in Fig. 10.1, which synthesizes, from a systemic viewpoint, the
228
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
FIG. 10.1. Relational perspective for a dyadic interaction integrating emotions,

cognitive construction and interpersonal behavior.
circular intrapersonal and interpersonal relationship processes occurring

in a dyadic interaction.
From the theoretical perspective of relational communication, the fundamental objective in describing relationship processes is not to reduce the
ongoing events to the sum of individual descriptions. In studying subjective
or intrapersonal perspectives, the main goal is also to generate relational
descriptions of emotional and cognitive meanings for analyzing how these
are linked to emergent communication patterns occurring in the relationship. If we reduce the subjective meaning of the interactors to individual
and isolated questions of intentions or message impact, or misconstrue
10. OVERVIEW
229
these aspects as the cause of communication, we will miss the relational defining quality emanating from the communication process of the interactors. In the model presented, the members emotional and cognitive interpretations are seen as dynamic elements generated within and taking on
meaning in the context of the continuous flow of the interaction.
The fundamental construct that gives relational meaning to both behavioral and interpretive descriptions is pattern. Based on relational thinking,
the interpretative meanings of relational members can be defined in terms
of their similarity or dissimilarity, the type and degree of shared meaning,
or other forms of symmetry or asymmetry. And importantly, just as interaction patterns are defined in terms of sequential order, intrapersonal meanings can be studied as a continuous process for tracking the participants
definitions and redefinitions during the course of an interaction, or a series
of interactions overtime. Time-ordered descriptions of interpretive meanings allow the identification of definitional continuity or change and how
these are related to different interaction-based aspects of the relationship.
Thus, in mapping patterns of synchrony or asynchrony, stability or fluctuation of the members perceptions of their communication behaviors and
emergent cognitive constructions of their definitions of the relationship,
the dynamic interplay of these relational processes could be more fully described. In researching the complexities of interactional systems, the challenge lies in creating a relational language that enables a comparable, integrated analysis of the interpretive and behavioral approaches to the study
of relationships.
A growing research agenda in relationship studies is the investigation of
affective, cognitive and behavioral associations (e.g., Bradbury & Fincham,
1989, 1991; Gottman, 1994; Ickes & Tooke, 1988). Several of the research
methods that have been used to investigate the affective and cognitive aspects of interaction from the participants point of view are given as illustration of different ways of incorporating an interpretive perspective. Based
on internal rating procedures, one strategy rests on having the relational
members evaluate their communication after completing their discussion,
as they observe a videotape of their interaction (Gottman, 1994). Another
strategy, based on a refinement of the earlier table talk format (Gottman,
1979), uses what is referred to as the communication box method (Markman & Floyd, 1980) for obtaining the participants evaluation during their interaction. This method involves having each member rate their emotional
response to their partners individual statements on a small recording device as the communication is taking place. One of the procedures used by
Ickes and his colleagues (Ickes, Robertson, Tooke, & Teng, 1986; Ickes,
Stinson, Bissonnette, & Garcia, 1990) asks participants to mark segments of
their videotaped conversation where they experienced an affective or cognitive response, then as the participants view the tape again they are di-
230
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
rected to respond to the segments marked by their partner in terms of their

own affect and cognition, and their inferences of their partners meanings.
Fincham and Bradbury (1987; Bradbury & Fincham, 1992) have focused on
the attributions made by the interactors about a relational problem and
how different types of attributions are related to the discussion of the problem and the emotional responses experienced in the discussion.
In line with the research concerning cognitive attributions, but applying
a different approach, Friedlander and Heatherington (1998) developed a
method for describing the construction of cognitive meaning as illuminated
in the content of the participants discourse within the context of their ongoing interaction. Sequences of discourse are identified in which members
describe a problem and give their explanations for the problem. Based on
the identified episodes of problem elaboration, a series of judgments are
made about the cognitive constructions of the participants in terms of several coded dimensions, including the type and emotional configuration of
the problem, whether the problem is due to internal aspects or external
events, the locus and level of responsibility in terms of self, other, both, or
neither, and whether the problem is attributed to a simple linear cause,
multiple causes, or a more circular set of explanations (Friedlander, 1995).
In a recent case study of marital interaction, sampled over a 3-year period,
Escudero, Heatherinton, and Friedlander (2001) utilized this approach in
combination with relational communication coding and internal ratings of
emotional affect in an integrated, sequential analysis of relational control,
cognitive construction, and emotional affect. This study is part of a larger
research investigation based on the sequential integration of the external
behavioral and internal interpretive qualities of relationships. With this research, the model presented in Fig. 10.1 is brought full circle.
Expansion of Practical Application
An important consideration for relationship study is the practical value of
the research. As we have seen in the research programs presented in this
volume, the practical implications of the research has been a noted aspect.
One of the most basic ways to continue to expand the practical utility of the
relational perspective, is through continued research efforts that not only
advance the theoretical development and predictive ability of relational
study, but also, through their design add to our practical knowledge and
understanding of relationships.
One of the clear advantages of an interactional approach to the study of
relationships is the type of information provided. By focusing on detailed
descriptions of the interaction process, specific information is provided on
how particular message behavior patterns are related to and impact the relational system. In each of the research programs, the research has been
10. OVERVIEW
231
oriented toward investigating under what conditions, when and how, different communication behaviors and patterns appear to work for, or against,
the relational system within the different contexts studied. For instance,
when and in what situations is too much complementarity or symmetry
problematic, when is competitive symmetry functional, what patterns precede successful interventions, what types of control moves alter escalating
sequences, which tend to facilitate negotiated resolutions, are among a
host of targeted questions that interaction research can and has addressed.
As Gottman and Notarius (2000) suggested, a notable strength of an interaction approach is the power of observational data to reveal a replicable
portrait of complex social interaction that lies beyond the natural awareness of even the most keenly sensitive spouse or partner . . . (p. 927). The
insights provided by this type of data offer relational information of relevance to professionals and laypersons alike. Whether in the context of everyday interpersonal relations or counseling, organizational, or other professional settings, the practical benefits stemming from interactional
research rest on the identification of the influencing effects of particular interactive processes and patterned configurations. To strengthen these insights, a continuing research priority of relational communication is to
move toward the analysis of sequentially ordered patterns that capture
more of the temporal quality of the interactive process.
Another research direction with practical implications and one of particular importance for practitioners involves the exploration of more accessible, less labor intensive means for indexing and analyzing relational communication patterns. One approach for lessening the intensity of the
research effort is to focus the analysis on those aspects of the interaction
that are of particular interest. In applying this strategy, only the identified
interaction sequences of interest are coded for examination, such as different types of questionanswer responses, relational episodes, intervention
strategies, etc. This method of selective application could prove to be beneficial in providing more readily available, useful types of information for
professional practitioners working in applied settings. However, an evaluation of the research utility and thus practical value of this approach requires an investigation based on a comparative analysis of the same interaction data fully coded in order to provide a basis for verifying what is lost
or gained in predicting designated relational outcomes. This type of investigation would be a worthwhile effort with potential implications not only in
applied settings, but for relational research in general.
A different tack to take for increasing the practical use of the relational
communication coding procedures is to investigate the utility of a more
global method of coding interaction. A strategy that seems a natural for this
consideration, is to base the coding procedures on the more general designations of the three message control directions. These coding decisions
232
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
should be consistent with the established definitions of message control,

and coded in relation to the preceding message. Further the coding judgments should take in to account the same type of considerations regarding
the grammatical format and response mode of the messages, but these aspects would not be specifically designated. Prior training in the use of the
basic relational coding system procedures (RCCCS) would provide a fundamental knowledge of this approach, which would allow informed coding decisions at the more general level. In judging the utility of this more global,
streamlined version of the coding system, these coding procedures would
need to be tested through comparative analyses with the full coding procedures of the RCCCS applied to the same interactions, as well as demonstrate similar high levels of reliability. The proposed purpose of developing
a global method of coding is primarily for its use in applied settings and not
as a replacement for the use of the RCCCS or FRCCCS in carrying out more
rigorously designed research investigations.
However, the development of a simpler, easier-to-use coding procedure
would extend the practical utility of the relational approach by facilitating a
practitioners ability to describe and assess communication control messages and patterns, which could provide additional insights for evaluating
the situation of clients seeking their professional assistance. These procedures would also provide an easy to understand, graphic mapping of the
control movements over time, which could be a valuable method for allowing clients to visualize their interaction patterns, reflect on these patterns,
explore alternatives, and possibly reframe aspects of their relationship.
There are no doubt other ways of extending the practical application
and thus, relevance of the relational approach. The suggestions given here
may stimulate additional considerations. Likewise, in highlighting the research directions we see as central for future work, we recognize that this
list too could be extended to include different pathways for further development. Several of the research chapters also note specific aspects for advancing relational communication research. Perhaps we can take solace by
viewing the research directions yet to be developed, as evidence of the heuristic value of the relational communication perspective.
CONCLUSIONS
With this concluding chapter, we have traveled across a fairly broad space,
from the beginning foundations of the relational approach to future directions for continuing to build on and expand the present research accomplishments. In bringing this volume together, our goal was to provide a full
reading of the theoretical and research contributions of the relational communication perspective to the study and understanding of interpersonal re-
10. OVERVIEW
233
lationships. A basic premise of this perspective rests on the interrelated nature of communication and relationships. Relationships are viewed as being
actively created and shaped in the ongoing communication process of interrelating with one another, yet in similar measure, the evolving relational
forms simultaneously influence and shape the communication processes by
which they are created. The interwoven nature of process and form is at
the core of the relational approach. The study of these momentarily visible,
influencing processes which can so profoundly effect our lives, speaks to
the heart of the human connection and the value of viewing relationships
from a communication perspective.
REFERENCES
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Berger, C. R. (1994). Power, dominance, and social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 450507). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1989). Behavior and satisfaction in marriage: Prospective mediating processes. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 119143). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1991). A contextual model for advancing the study of marital
interaction. In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp.
127150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 613628.
Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Cappella, J. N. (1987). Interpersonal communication: Definitions and fundamental questions. In
C. R. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 184238).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cappella, J. N. (1996). Dynamic coordination of vocal and kinesic behavior in dyadic interaction:
Methods, problems, and interpersonal outcomes. In J. H. Watt & C. A. VanLear (Eds.), Dynamic patterns in communication processes (pp. 353386). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carr, L. J. (1929). Experimental sociology: A preliminary note on theory and method. Social
Forces, 8, 6375.
Chapple, E. D. (1940). Measuring human relations: An introduction to the study of interaction of
individuals. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 22, 3147.
Danziger, K. (1976). Interpersonal communication. New York: Pergamon Press.
Escudero, V., Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). Observing couples interaction: Integrative analysis of interpersonal control, cognitive constructions and emotional impact.
Metodologia de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 3, 247265.
Fairhurst, G., & Cooren, F. (in press). Organizational language-in-use: A comparison of interaction analysis, conversation analysis and speech act schematics. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C.
Oswick, N. Phillips, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse. London: Sage.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The impact of attributions in marriages: A longitudinal
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 510517.
234
ROGERS AND ESCUDERO
Friedlander, M. L. (1995). Cognitive Construction Coding System. Unpublished coding manual, Department of Counseling Psychology, State University of New York at Albany.
Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1998). Assessing clients constructions of their problems
in family discourse. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 289303.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 6, 927947.
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family relational communication control coding system. Unpublished coding manual, Department of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown, MA.
Heyman, R., & Shaw, M. (1978). Constructs of relationships. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 8, 231262.
Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Susses, England: Psychology
Press.
Holmes, M. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1995, February). Let me rephrase that question: Five common criticisms of interaction analysis studies. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Western
States Communication Association, Portland, OR.
Ickes, W., Robertson, E., Tooke, W., & Teng, G. (1986). Naturalistic social cognition: Methodology,
assessment, and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 6682.
Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathy
accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730742.
Ickes, W., & Tooke. W. (1988). The observational method: Studying the interaction of minds and
bodies. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 7997). Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family: Toward a theory of family process. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 595604.
Markman, H. J., & Floyd, F. J. (1980). Possibilities for the prevention of marital discord: A behavioral perspective. American Journal of Family Therapy, 8, 2948.
Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. In
G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 87103). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 243269.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95112.
Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. E. (1982, May). Reflections on relational communication research: Issues,
patterns and refinements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Hartford, CT.
Sillars, A. L. (1980). Communication and attributions in interpersonal conflict. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Stiles, W. B. (1978). Verbal response modes and dimensions of interpersonal roles: A method of
discourse analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 693703.
10. OVERVIEW
235
Thomas, D., Loomis, A., & Arrington, R. (1933). Observation studies of human behavior, Vol. I. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Institute of Human Relations.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis of verbal communication patterns in high and low marital
adjustment groups. Human Communication Research, 9, 306319.
Warner, R. (1991). Incorporating time. In B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 82102). New York: Guilford Press.
Watt, J. H., & VanLear, C. A. (Eds.). (1996). Dynamic patterns in communication processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Author Index
A
Abbot, R., 14, 20
Adelman, R. D., 180, 192
Aditya, R., 198, 214
Agra, S., 133, 148
Albrecht, T., 14, 20
Aldrich, H. E., 205, 213
Allen, G. J., 104, 105, 106, 107, 127
Altman, I., 184, 192
Altuna, A., 135, 147
Andaluz, L. V., 133, 148
Anderson, C. M., 161, 174
Anderson, H., 125, 126
Andreasen, N., 168, 174
Andrews, L., 212, 213
Aparicio, M., 133, 148
Arauxo, A., 133, 148
Arias, I., 97, 101
Arrington, R., 219, 235
Ayers, J., 44, 46
B
Bagarozzi, D. A., 57, 79, 103, 108, 118, 128
Bailin, M. C., 138, 141, 142, 147
Bakeman, R., 40, 46, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65,
66, 67, 75, 78, 79, 139, 147
Baker, L., 110, 118, 119, 128
Bakhtin, M., 6, 19,
Balea, F. J., 133, 148
Bales, R. F., 219, 233
Barbatsis, G. S., 41, 47
Bark, K. H., 41, 48, 104, 105, 128
Barling, J., 97, 101
Barry, W. A., 83, 101
Bates, B., 185, 192
Bateson, G., ix, x, xi, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18,
19, 23, 47, 69, 78, 103, 118, 126, 160,
174, 202, 213
Bavelas, J. B., x, xi, 14, 17, 19, 51, 69, 72, 78,
79, 84, 87, 90, 101, 151, 155, 176
Baxter, L., 7, 19, 185, 192
Beavin, J. H., x, xi, xiv, xv, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24,
34, 44, 46, 48, 49, 103, 113, 125, 128,
129, 132, 133, 148, 191, 195
Beckman, H., 184, 185, 193
Bedi, H., 162, 175
Bellack, A. S., 161, 162, 165, 168, 174, 176, 177
Bennett, K. C., 179, 192
Berger, C. R., 184, 192, 223, 233
Berger, P., 4, 19
Berlo, D., 14, 20
237
238
Bernstein, A., 83, 101
Berscheid, E., 9, 20
Bertakis, K. D., 179, 192
Bertalanffy, L. von, 13, 21, 132, 133, 147
Beyebach, M., 45, 47, 57, 72, 78, 104, 107, 108,
124, 126, 133, 135, 138, 141, 147
Bhrany, V., 185, 194
Bissonnette, V., 229, 234
Bochner, A. P., 83, 100
Bock, D. G., 44, 47
Boden, D., 207, 213
Bohn, E., 44, 47
Border, L. M., 184, 194
Borker, R., 211, 214
Bowen, M. B., 110, 113, 126, 155, 174
Boyce, M., 180, 183, 184, 195
Bradbury, T. N., 229, 230, 233
Brenock, K., 104, 105, 106, 127
Brewin, C. R., 150, 174
Broderick, C. B., 191, 192, 223, 233
Brouillet, M., 43, 47
Brown, G. W., 149, 174
Brown, J. B., 179,180, 181, 184, 192, 194, 195
Brown, M. B., 64, 78
Browne, W., 173, 176
Brugman, S. M., 149, 177
Bryk, A. S., 172, 174
Buber, M., 6, 20,
Budney, S., 114, 129
Bullis, C., 185, 192
Burns, T., 204, 213
C
Caceres, J., 91, 100
Calbrese, R. J., 184, 192
Callahan, E. J., 180, 182, 183, 192, 195
Campbell, R., 149, 175
Cantrill, J. G., 190, 191, 195
Caplow, T., 8, 20
Cappella, J. N., 84. 100, 220, 221, 233
Capra, F., 13, 20
Carnevale, P. J., 211, 214
Carr, L. J., 219, 233
Carter, W. B., 179, 180, 184, 185, 193, 194, 195
Castillo, J. M., 142, 148
Castleton, A., 97, 101
Catherall, D. R., 117, 128
Cegala, D. J., 105, 126
Chandler, T. A., 199, 213
AUTHOR INDEX
Chapple, E. D., 219, 233
Charon, R., 180, 192
Chenail, R. J., 105, 128
Chevron, E., 104, 127
Chewning, T. G., 105, 126
Christensen, A., 9, 20
Claiborn, C. D., 105, 129
Clark, L. T., 183, 192
Cohen, J., 40, 47, 90, 94, 100, 111, 126
Comstock, L. M., 179, 193
Conrad, P., 183, 193
Cook, W. L., 167, 169, 174
Cooren, F., 207, 208, 213, 215, 227, 233
Cope, D. W., 185, 194
Coser, L., 8, 20
Courtright, J. A., 25, 30, 47, 48, 57, 79, 87, 88,
100, 191, 193 194, 199, 202, 203, 204,
205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214
Covington, C. G., 105, 126
Cromwell, R. E., 85, 101
Cronen, V. E., 7, 20,
Cureton, E. E., 66, 78,
Cutler, C., 46, 47, 114, 115, 127
D
Dadds, M. R., 150, 175
Dansereau, F., 203, 213
Danziger, K., 225, 233
Davis, J. A., 163, 174
Davis, M. S., 183, 193
Dawson, M. E., 151, 176
Day, R., 162, 175
de la Cueva, F., 104, 126, 133, 138, 140, 147
de la Selva, A., 162, 175, 135, 141, 142, 147
de Shaver, S., 107, 125, 126, 134, 135, 141, 142,
147
Deaudeline, C., 43, 47
Deetz, S., 199, 212, 213
Del Vecchio-Good, M. D., 184, 193
Dell, P., 10, 20
Dickson, R., 105, 127
Dillard, J. P., 85, 100
Doane, A., 154, 160, 167, 169, 175
Doane, J. A., 150, 176
Docherty, N., 171, 174
Donohue, W. A., 186, 193
Dornan, M. C., 184, 193
Dotson, V. A., 41, 48
Draper, D., 173, 176
239
AUTHOR INDEX
Drecksel, G. L., 25, 30, 44, 47
Duchon, D., 203, 213
Duda, K., 150, 174
Dugan, K. M., 210, 213
Dulz, B., 167, 174
Duncan, H. D., 3, 20
E
Eagly, A. H., 88, 100
Earp, J. A., 184, 193
Edell, W. S., 151, 176
Eisenberg, E. M., 209, 213
Eisenthal, S., 185, 186, 193, 194
Ellis, D. G., 11, 20, 25, 30, 44, 47, 198, 210, 213
Ellis, M. V., 111, 113, 117, 120, 126, 128
Erchul, W. P., 41, 47, 105, 126, 128
Ericson, P. M., 24, 25, 47, 104, 110, 118, 126,
150, 174
Ernberg, G., 162, 175
Erno, K. O., 31, 48
Escudero, V., 33, 45, 47, 54, 57, 66, 72, 75, 78,
90, 91, 93, 100, 104, 107, 125, 126, 190,
193, 230, 233
Estany, E., 90, 101
F
Fairhurst, G. T., 26, 47, 87, 100, 197, 199, 200,
202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211,
213, 214, 227, 233
Falloon, I. R. H., 149, 152, 176
Farace, R. V., xiii, xv, 14, 20, 24, 25, 44, 48,
85, 101, 104, 110, 128, 150, 176, 198,
199, 204, 214
Faunce, E. E., 113, 128
Feingold, D., 150, 176
Feuerbach, L., 6, 20
Feurer, I. D., 65, 66, 67, 79
Filsinger, E. E., 92, 97, 102
Fincham, F. D., 229, 230, 233
Fisch, R., 18, 21, 134, 135, 148
Fisher, B. A., 4, 20, 25, 30, 44, 47
Fisher, L., 84, 101
Fishman, C., 118, 119, 128
Fitzpartrick, M. A., 41, 47, 211, 214
Fleiss, J. L., 40, 47, 94, 100
Fletcher, R. H., 184, 193
Floyd, F. J., 229, 234
Flynn, N., 180, 182, 183, 192, 195
Fogelson, D., 151, 176

Folger, J. P., 25, 30, 33, 43, 44, 47, 114, 126,
190, 193, 209, 211, 214
Fontecilla, G., 133, 134, 148
Frances, A., 161, 162, 168, 176
Frankel, R., 184, 185, 193
Freeman, J., 205, 214
Freeman, T. R., 181, 195
Friedlander, M. L., 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 48,
75, 78, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111,
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121,
122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 139, 144, 148,
190, 193, 195, 225, 230, 233, 234
Frost, P. J., 210, 211, 214
G
Gage, R. B., 96, 100
Garcia, M. J., 133, 148
Garcia, S., 229, 234
Gaul, R., 46, 47, 114, 115, 127
Gavin, L. A., 149, 177
Gergen, K. J., 125, 128
Ghosh, A., 162, 175
Giddens, A.,199, 211, 214
Gilgun, J., 179, 190, 193
Girouz, N., 208, 215
Gitlin, M., 151, 176
Glick, I. D., 161, 162, 168, 176
Goffman, E., 8, 20,
Goldstein, H., 173, 176
Goldstein, M. J., 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155,
160, 163, 167, 169, 171, 174, 175, 176
Gonzlez, M., 133, 134, 148
Good, B. J., 184, 193
Goodwin, J. M., 179, 193
Goodwin, J. S., 179, 193
Goolishian, H. A., 125, 126
Gorham, D. R., 168, 176
Gottman, J. M., 9, 20, 40, 46, 52, 69, 78, 83,
89, 92, 99, 100, 156, 174, 190, 193, 220,
223, 224, 227, 229, 231
Graen, G., 203, 214
Green, G., 203, 213
Green, S., 199, 202, 203, 205, 210, 211, 213
Greenberg, L. S., 117, 120, 124, 127, 128
Greene, J., 184, 185, 193
Greene, M. G., 180, 192
Greenfield, S., 183, 193
Greenley, J. R., 150, 160, 175
240
Grizzle, J. E., 202, 214
Grovas, I., 133, 148
Gurman, A. S., 117, 127
Gutierrez, E., 54, 57, 66, 78, 90, 91, 93, 100,
125, 126, 190, 193
H
Haas, G. L., 162, 165, 174, 177
Haberman, S. J., 62, 64, 78
Haga, J., 203, 213
Hahlweg, K., 96, 101, 154, 160, 167, 169, 175
Haley, J., 24, 47, 104, 105, 109, 110, 155, 160,
174, 175
Hall, J. A., 179, 180, 184, 193, 194
Hand, I., 167, 174
Handel, G., 83, 100
Hannen, M. T., 205, 214
Hargreaves, W. A., 161, 162, 168, 176
Harrison, C. A., 150, 175
Harvey, J., 9, 20,
Haslett, B. J., 199, 214
Hawkins, R. P., 41, 48
Haynes, R. B., 183, 193
Hayward, L., 160, 161, 176
Healy, M., 173, 176
Heatherington, L., 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 45,
46, 48, 75, 78 , 104, 105, 106, 107,108,
109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,
119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 127, 128, 139,
144, 148, 190, 193, 195, 225, 230, 233
Heck, E. J., 104, 106, 128
Hendin, D., 183, 193
Hendriksen, A. H. M., 38, 48
Henley, N. M., 88, 100
Herek, G. M., 41, 47
Hertel, R. K., 83, 101
Hess, R. D., 83, 100
Hewes, D., 43, 44, 47
Heyman, R., 220, 234
Hickman, D. H., 184, 194
Hiller, J. B., 150, 175
Hinde, R. A., 9, 20, 83, 84, 100, 225, 234
Hinrichsen, G. A., 150, 175
Hoch, D., 25, 30, 44, 47,
Hogarty, G., 161, 168, 174, 176
Hogary, G. E., 166, 175
Holmes, J. G., 224, 234
Holmes, M. E., 186, 193, 220, 234
Holte, A., 26, 31, 48, 49
AUTHOR INDEX
Hooley, J. M.,149, 150, 165, 171, 175
Hooper, E. M., 179, 193
House, R. J., 198, 214
Hughes, J. N., 105, 126
Husserl, F., 179, 193
Huston, T. L., 9, 20, 224, 234
I
Ickes, W., 229, 234
Inui, T. S., 179, 184, 185, 193, 194, 195
Irwin, H. J., 179, 192
J
Jablensky, A., 162, 175
Jablin, F. M., 197, 214
Jackson, D. D., x, xi, xiv, xv, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18,
20, 21, 34, 49, 103, 125, 132, 133, 148,
160, 174, 191, 195
Jacob, M., 161, 162, 168, 176
Jansen, H., 38, 48
Jansen, R. G., 38, 48
Jenkins, J., 149, 152, 161, 162, 175, 176
Johnson, B., 121, 122, 125, 127
Johnson, D., 104, 105, 129
Johnston, P., 160, 161, 176
Jonas, A. P., 105, 126
Joos, S. K., 184, 194
K
Kane, J. M., 161, 162, 168, 176
Kantor, D., 14, 20, 83, 101, 225, 234
Kaplan, S., 183, 193
Karno, M., 149, 152, 161, 162, 175, 176
Katz, N. R., 179, 194
Kazarian, S. S., 149, 175
Keeney, B., 13, 20,
Keith, S. J., 161, 162, 168, 176
Kelley, H., 9, 20
Kellner, H., 4, 19
Kiesler, D. J., 104, 127
Kimmel, M. J., 211, 214
Klausner, E., 149, 175
Klerman, G. L., 104, 127
Knapp, M. L., 184, 194
Koch, G. G., 202, 214
AUTHOR INDEX
Kochman, T., 163, 175
Koenigsberg, H. W., 149, 175
Koestler, A., 84, 101
Kokes, R. F., 84, 101
Konar-Goldband, E., 211, 214
Koopman, C., 186, 193
Korten, A., 162, 175
Kravitz, R. L., 185, 194
Kreps, G. L., 180, 194
Krone, K. J., 197, 214
Kruskal, J. B., 118, 127
Kuipers, L., 162, 167, 175, 176
Kveseth, K., 31, 48
L
Laing, R. D., 83, 101
Lakoff, R., 163, 175
Lam, D. H., 166, 175
Lamude, K. G., 105, 127
Lane, S. D., 183, 194
Langford, I., 173, 176
Larzelere, R. E., 224, 234
Lazare, A., 185, 194
Leake, B., 185, 194
Lederer, W. J., 12, 20
Leff, J. P., 149, 162, 175, 177
Lefley, H., 150, 175
Lehr, W., 14, 20, 83, 101, 225, 234
Lennard, H. L., 83, 101
Levenson, R. W., 92, 99, 100
Levenstein, J. H., 180, 194
Levinger, G., 9, 20
Lewis, T., 173, 176
Lichtenberg, J. W., 41, 48, 104, 105, 106, 127,
128
Liden, R. C., 203, 214
Lieberman, J. A., 150, 161, 162, 168, 175, 176
Liebman, R., 118, 128
Like, R., 184, 194
Lloyd, S. A., 97, 101
Loomis, A., 219, 235
Lpez, S., 33, 47, 162, 175
Lumsden, C. J., 205, 215
M
MacCarthy, B., 150, 174
Madanes, C., 154, 176
241
Magana, A. B., 149, 152, 176
Magana-Amato, A. B., 150, 154, 160, 167, 169,
175, 176
Magenau, J. M., 211, 214
Malone, J., 97, 101
Maltz, D., 211, 214
Mamlin, J. J., 184, 185, 193
Mance, R., 161, 162, 168, 176
Manderscheid, R. W., 155, 167, 176
Manz, C. C., 205, 214
Mark, R. A., 24, 25, 44, 48
Markman, H. J., 85, 99, 101, 190, 193, 229, 234
Martens, B. K., 105, 128
Martin, A. R., 184, 194
Marx, K., 6, 20
Matthews, S., 161, 162, 168, 176
McArthur, D., 40, 46, 65, 78
McCall, G., 3, 8, 9, 20
McCarrick, A. K., 155, 167, 176
McClintock, E., 9, 20
McCracken, E. C., 180, 194
McGee, D. S., 105, 126
McGoldrick, M., 163, 176
McNamee, S., 125, 128
McNeilis, K. S., 43, 48, 105, 126, 182, 191, 194
McWhinney, I. R., 180, 181, 194, 195
McWilliam, C. L., 181, 195
Mead, G. H., 8, 20
Mead, M., 13, 19
Meltzer, H., 162, 176
Menon, D., 162, 175
Mettetel, G., 190, 193
Meyers, J., 105, 126
Meyers, R. A., 190, 191, 195
Miars, R. D., 41, 45, 49, 104, 105, 129
Miklowitz, D. J., 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155,
160, 167, 169, 174, 175, 176
Milford, D., 113, 126
Millar, F. E., 25, 30, 44, 47, 48, 51, 57, 69, 72,
78, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 100, 101, 151,
155, 176, 191, 193, 194, 203, 213, 221,
223, 224, 234
Mintz, J., 154, 160, 162, 167, 169, 175
Minuchin, S., 109, 110, 118, 119, 128
Miura, S. Y., 44, 46
Moline, R. A., 162, 176
Montgomery, B., 7, 19
Morley, D. D., 65, 66, 78
Morris, A., 162, 176
Morris, G. H., 105, 128
Motley, M., 17, 20
Mumby, D., 212, 213
242
Murphy, A., 212, 213
N
Nassi, A. J., 184, 193
Neale, J. M., 149, 175
Nelson, R. R., 199, 214
Ninan, P. T., 161, 162, 168, 176
Noldus, P. J. J. L., 38, 48
Norris, M., 151, 176
Notarius, C. I., 99, 101, 190, 193, 223, 224,
231
Nuechterlein, K, H., 150, 151, 154, 160, 163,
167, 169, 174, 175, 176
O
ODonnell-Trujillo, N., 45, 48
OHair, D., 43, 48, 105, 128, 181, 182, 183, 190,
191, 194
OHanlon, W. H., 125, 128
OLeary, K. D., 97, 101
OMalley, M. S., 184, 193
Olson, D. H., 85, 90, 101
Overall, J. E., 168, 176
P
Palenzuela, D. L., 72, 78, 107, 108, 124, 126,
135, 147
Palmer, M. T., 85, 100
Parker, G., 160, 161, 176
Parks, M., 14, 20
Parrott, R., 179, 194
Parten, M. B., 219, 234
Pelino, D., 149, 175
Peplau, L., 9, 20
Peterson, D., 9, 20
Phillips, S., 84, 101
Pinsof, W. M., 117, 128
Piqueras, R., 135, 147
Platas, L., 33, 47
Plewis, I., 173, 176
Poole, M. S., 43, 44, 47, 114, 126, 186, 193
Pruitte, D. G., 211, 214
Puck, S., 44, 47
Pulliam-Krager, H., 191, 192
Putnam, L. L., 197, 207, 214
AUTHOR INDEX
Putnam, S. M., 179, 192
Q, R
Quera, V., 40, 46, 53, 54, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66,
67, 75, 78, 79, 90, 101, 139, 147
Rae, D., 155, 167, 176
Ramos, M. M., 104, 126, 133, 134, 147, 148
Ransom, D. D., 84, 101
Rappe, S., 151, 176
Rasbash, J., 173, 176
Raudenbush, S. W., 172, 174
Raush, H. L., 83, 101
Rawlins, W. K., 7, 21
Raymond, L., 111, 113, 116, 117, 120, 126, 127,
128
Real, M. A., 142, 148
Reiss, D. J., 161, 174
Rempel, J. K., 224, 234
Revenstorf, D., 96, 101
Revuelta, C., 133, 148
Rice, L. N., 124, 128
Richters, J. E., 149, 175
Riskin, J., 113, 128
Roberto, A. J., 186, 193
Robertson, E., 229, 234
Robichaud, D., 208, 215
Robinson, B. F., 64, 67, 78
Rodrguez Morejn, A., 72, 78, 107, 108, 124,
126, 135, 147
Rodrguez-Arias, J. L., 72, 78, 104, 107, 108,
124, 126, 128, 133, 134, 135, 142, 144,
147, 148
Roesler, T. A., 149, 177
Rogers, E. M., 14, 21
Rogers, L. E., xiii, xv, 12, 14, 20, 21, 24, 25,
26, 30, 44, 47, 48, 51, 54, 57, 66, 69, 72,
78, 79, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93, 97,
100, 101, 103, 104, 108, 110, 118, 125,
126, 128, 132, 148, 150, 151, 155, 174,
176, 185, 190, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198,
199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 213,
214, 220, 221, 223, 224, 234
Rogers-Millar, L. E., 25, 48, 88, 87, 101, 203,
213, 214
Rosenbaum, A., 97, 101
Rosman, B. L., 110, 118, 119, 128
Rosnick, P., 149, 175
Rost, K., 184, 194
Roter, D. L., 179, 180, 192, 194
243
AUTHOR INDEX
Rounsaville, B. J., 104, 127
Roy, A. K., 69, 78, 156, 174
Rueda, A., 133, 148
Russell, R. L., 114, 129
Rutter, M. L., 149, 174
Ryder, R. G., 90, 101
S
Sabourin, T. C., 96, 102
Sackett, D. L., 183, 193, 194
Sackett, G. P., 106, 128
Safran, J. D., 124, 128
Santana, F., 162, 175
Sargent, J., 111, 117, 118, 120, 128
Sarr, R. A., 87, 100, 197, 199, 202, 209, 214
SAS Institute Inc., 202, 214
Satorius, N., 162, 175
Scazufca, M., 167, 176
Scheflen, A. E., 44, 48
Schindler, L., 96, 101
Schnell, E. R., 207, 208, 215
Schooler, N., 161, 162, 168, 176
Schudder, J., 105, 127
Schulman, B. A., 184, 194
Schwartz, P., 163, 176
Segal, L., 14, 17, 19, 134, 135, 148
Severe, J. B., 161, 162, 168, 176
Shannon, C., 13, 14, 21, 106, 128
Shaw, M., 220, 234
Sheldon, A., 211, 215
Shotter, J., 3, 7, 21
Siebold, D. R., 190, 191, 195
Siegel, S. M., 26, 34, 48, 104, 105, 106, 113,
114, 126, 127, 128, 190, 195
Sigman, S. J., xiii, xv, 17, 21
Silbergeld, S., 155, 167, 176
Sillars, A., 25, 30, 44, 47, 190, 193, 227, 234
Silver, M., 118, 128
Simmel, G., 7, 18, 21, 84, 102
Simmons, J., 3, 8, 9, 20
Simon, L., 46, 47, 114, 115, 127
Simpson, G. M., 161, 162, 168, 176
Sims, H. P., Jr., 205, 207, 208, 214, 215
Singh, J. V., 205, 215
Singh, S., 162, 176
Skowron, E., 121, 122, 125, 127
Sluzki, C., xiv, xv, 23, 24, 34, 44, 46, 48, 103,
113, 128, 129
Smith, G., 150, 175
Smith, R. C., 207, 215

Snow, J. C., 183, 194
Snyder, K. S., 150, 151, 154, 160, 167, 169, 175,
176
Sobral, J., 90, 100
Solomon, D. H., 85, 100
Spainer, G. B., 92, 97, 102
Spencer-Brown, G., 11, 21
Stalker, G. M., 204, 213
Starmer, C. F., 202, 214
Steen, S., 163, 176
Stets, J. E., 98, 102
Stewart, J., 5, 21
Stewart, M., 179, 180, 181, 184, 192, 194, 195
Stiles, W. B., 117, 129, 179, 195, 227, 234
Stinson, L., 229, 234
Stoekle, J. D., 186, 193
Strachan, A. M., 150, 167, 169, 174, 176
Strauss, M. A., 97, 102
Street, R. L., Jr., 179, 195
Strong, S. R., 105, 129
Suen, H. K., 43, 49, 114, 115, 129
Sullivan, H. S., 104, 123, 129
Swain, M., 83, 101
T
Taber, T. D., 203, 213
Tarnopolsky, A., 113, 129
Tate, P., 180, 195
Taylor, D. W., 183, 184, 192, 193
Taylor, J. R., 207, 208, 213, 215
Telles, C., 162, 175
Teng, G., 229, 234
Tessier, S., 179, 184, 192
Thames, T., 104, 105, 129
Theunissen, M., 6, 21
Thomas, D., 219, 235
Thompson, T. L., 43, 48, 105, 128, 182, 191,
194
Tierney, A. M., 162, 174
Ting-Toomey, S., 227, 235
Tooke, W., 229, 234
Tracey, T. J., 41, 45, 49, 104, 105, 129
Trienes, R. J. H., 38, 48
Tullar, W. L., 41, 49
Tyree, A., 97, 101
244
U, V
Uhlmann, R. F., 185, 195
Van Every, J., 208, 215
Vangelisti, A. L., 184, 194
VanLear, C. A., 220, 235
Vaughn, C. E., 149, 150, 177
Veron, E., 113, 129
Vicente, D., 133, 148
Vogel, B., 96, 101
Volosinov, V., 6, 21
von Friedericks-Fitzwater, M. M., 180, 182,
183, 192, 195
Vuchinich, S., 155, 167, 177
W
Wamboldt, F. S., 149, 177
Wamboldt, M. Z., 149, 177
Wampold, B. E., 65, 66, 69, 79
Ware, J., 183, 193
Warner, R., 220, 235
Wasserman, L., 185, 194
Watson, K. M., 198, 215
Watt, J. H., 220, 235
Watzlawick, P., x, xi, xiv, xv, 4, 10, 16, 17, 18,
21, 34, 49, 103, 125, 129, 132, 133, 148,
191, 195
Weakland, J. H., 4, 16, 18, 21, 103, 129, 134,
135, 148, 160, 174
Weaver, W., 13, 14, 21, 106, 128
Weber, M., 8, 21
Wegener, C., 96, 101
AUTHOR INDEX
Weick, K. E., 204, 215
Weinberger, M., 184, 185, 193
Weiner, N., 114, 129
Weiner-Davis, M., 125, 128
Weintraub, S., 149, 175
Weiss, R., 84, 101
Weissman, M. M., 104, 127
Werbel, W., 25, 30, 44, 47
Weston, W. W., 180, 181, 194, 195
Wichstrom, L., 26, 31, 48, 49
Wiener, N., 13, 21
Wig, N., 162, 175
Wigginton, Cecil, D., 180, 182, 183, 184, 185,
186, 190, 195
Wilder-Mott, C., 16, 21, 103, 129
Wildman, J., 33, 47, 111, 116, 127
Williams, J., 180, 182, 183, 192, 195
Wilmont, W., 9, 21
Winke, J., 211, 214
Winter, S. G., 199, 214
Wish, M., 118, 127
Witt, J. C., 105, 128
Woerner, M. G., 161, 162, 168, 176
Wong, M. R., 41, 47
Wood, L., 114, 129
Woodhouse, G., 173, 176
Wuerker, A. K., 151, 165, 169, 177
Y, Z
Yang, M., 173, 176
Yoder, P. J., 65, 66, 67, 79
Zanna, M P., 224, 234
Zyzanski, S. J., 184, 194
Subject Index
A
Analysis of variance (ANOVA), 202
Approach to GSK, 202, 209210
B
Backchannels, 187
Bonferroni correction, 63
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, 168
Bubers the between, 67
C
Camberwell Family Interview (CFI), 149
Change event research, 120
Chicago School, 8
Chi square
likelihood-ratio, 61
Pearsons, 60
Coefficient of Variation (CV), 30, 87
Cognitive immutability, 171
Cohens Kappa, 4041, 65
Command, see Relational messages
Communication style, 163
Complementarity, 1112, 1618, 99, 105, 106,

107, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122, 132133,
136, 139140, 142, 145146, 153, 157,
186, 231
complementary transacts, 27, 105
metacomplementarity, 105
reciprocal complementarity, 12
Conflict
intimate negotiations, 227
marital, 6972, 87, 90, 98, 108, 117
organizational, 211
strategies, 227
Conflict Tactic Scale, 97
Content messages, 14, 16
Control intensity, see Relational
Communication Control Coding
System
Cybernetics, 4, 10, 13, 18
self-organizing processes, 13
self-regulation, 1314
D
Demand-withdrawal, 8889
Depression, 149
Dyadic Adjustment Scale, 91, 93, 97
245
246
Dialectic of process and form, 16
Disconfirmation, 31, 33
Disqualification, 31, 113
Dominant, 89, 117
Dominance, 30, 58, 87, 89, 157, 182184, 203
comparative dominance, 203
total dominance, 203
Domineeringness, 5758, 8789, 91, 104 107,
108, 188
Double bind, 15
Double description, 11, 16
E
Ecology of form, 10
Expressed emotion, 149174, 224225
families of persons with bipolar disorder
and with schizophrenia, 151174
gender and racial differences, 162166
treatment strategies, 161174
F
Family Relational Communication Control
Coding System (FRCCCS) 3234,
4546, 55, 74, 104, 107, 109126,
225226, 232
criterion validity, 114
coalition sequences, 34
coalitionary move, 113, 119
content validity, 114
development and validation, 112114
direct and indirect message targets, 32
disengagement styles, 122
engagement, 121
interception, 32, 119
nonverbal, 124
overview, 110112
parallel triadic sequences, 33
research on, 115123
simple triadic sequences, 33
structural family therapy, 116118
sustaining engagement, 121
systemic therapists, 116
validity of, 114
Figureground, 17
Five Minute Speech Sample, 149, 152
SUBJECT INDEX
G
General Sequential Querier (GSEQ), see
Sequential Data Interchange Standard
General Systems Theory, see Systems
theory
GSK approach, 202, 209210
H, I
Hegelian idealism, 6
Hierarchical Linear Modeling, 172
Holon, 84
Indirectness, 113
Information theory, 10, 1314
Intergenerational coalitions, 118
Intergenerational triangulation and
enmeshment, 119
Interpersonal closeness-distance, 118
Interpersonal dominance
perceptions of, 3031
Interpretive perspective, 227230
Intimacy, 223224
Intrusiveness, 113
Inventory of Marital Conflict, 90
Iterative proportional fitting, 61
L
Leader-Member Exchange, 203
Levels of meaning, see Content and
Relational messages
Logical types, theory of, 15
M
Marital Communication Research, 8599
nonverbal affect, 9096
physical aggression, 9699
relational control, in, 8590
Markov models, 14, 155161, 166169
homogeneity, 156
order, 156
stationary, 156
Mental Research Institute, see Palo Alto
Group
Message control intensity, 30, 57, 87
Metacommunication, 15
247
SUBJECT INDEX
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), 118119
N
National Institute of Mental Health, 161
Nonverbal Affect Scheme, 190
Nonverbal behavior, 114115, 190, 224, 227
Nonverbal relational control, 3438
answering-questions, 35
nonsupport-disagreement, 35
order-instruction, 35
support-agreement, 35
O
Observer-based perspectives, 226227
Observer Video-Pro Instrument, 38
Odds Ratio, 65
One-across, 26, 5960, 63, 9495, 132,
139142, 146, 152153, 188, 204,
208210
One-down, 26, 5960, 63, 9495, 132, 136,
139142, 146, 182, 185186, 204
One-up, 26, 5960, 63, 9496, 105, 132,
139140, 144146, 169, 182183,
185187, 204, 206, 211
Organizational Research, 197213
deep structure, 210212
implications of organizational studies,
207213
leader-member research, 202207
method and setting, 198202
one-across problem, 208210
organic and mechanistic systems, 204205
socio-technical systems (STS), 205209, 212
P
Palo Alto Group, 5, 16, 104
Paradox, 15
Parallel, 12
Patient-centered medicine, 180, 184
Personality, 132
Phase Analysis, 186189, 192
Phi, 6566
Physical aggression, see Marital
Communication Research
Physician-patient interaction, 179192
review of research, 181189

Power, 181, 183, 199, 210212, 223
in action, 211212
in conception, 211
Pragmatic axioms, 17, 132
Punctuation, 10, 17
Q, R
Qualitative analysis, 76, 121, 227
Reciprocity, 12
Recursiveness, orders of, 15
Redundancy, 14, 87, 106
Relational Communication Control Coding
System (RCCCS), 2346, 55, 57, 93,
104, 105, 106, 109, 132133, 136,
150152, 181, 184185, 189191,
197199, 225, 232
deference, 30
development of operational procedures,
2338
equivalence, 30
reliability and validity assessment of
coding systems, 3846
structuring, 30
Relational messages, 1416
Reliability, 3943
Report, see Content messages
Role-identity model, 89
S
Schismogenesis, 1112, 1819, 23
Schizophrenia, 149174
Sequential analysis, 14, 5178, 219220
adjusted residuals, 62, 65
analysis of specific relational patterns,
6264
comparison of differences between
groups, 6467
examination of complex relational
patterns, 6775
contextual markers, 7475
directionality, reciprocity, and
preponderance, 6869
episodes, 6974
graphic displays, 7274
examination of existence of relational
structure, 5962
248
Sequential analysis (cont.)
examination of frequency of behaviors,
5559
representation of relational
communication sequences, 5355
Sequential Data Interchange StandardGeneral Sequential Querier (SDISGSEQ System), see also Sequential
analysis, 5355, 63, 7475, 106, 139,
151
analysis commands, 7778
event sequences, 54
interval sequences, 5455
multievent sequences, 54
state sequences, 54
timed event sequences, 54
winnowing technique, 6465
Social action, 8
Sociation, forms of, 7
Submissiveness, 30, 57, 90, 117, 132, 136, 143,
146, 153, 173, 182184
submissive joining, 136, 147
Support, 119120, 141
expression of, 88
withholding of, 88
Symbolic interaction, 8
Symmetry, 1112, 1618, 27, 105, 106, 132,
136, 145, 152, 231
competitive symmetry, 86, 9091, 9596,
106, 108, 113, 117, 119, 121, 122, 125,
133, 136, 143145, 153, 157158, 160,
164, 169, 181182, 186, 188189, 231
neutralized symmetry, 86, 95, 139, 143,
157158, 169, 182183, 203
submissive symmetry, 133, 136, 139140,
146
transitory symmetry, 185187
Systems Theory, 4, 10, 13, 18, 227
SUBJECT INDEX
entropy, 14, 106
redundancy, 14, 106
T
Talk-overs, 88, 186, 211
Therapy, brief family, 131147
attempted solutions, 134
exceptions, 134
therapeutic processes, 135147
Therapy, individual and family, 103126
family therapy, 108126
gender effects of, 106, 116
individual psychotherapy, 104108
solution-focused approach, 107
Transitory transacts, 27, 92, 98, 133, 157,
181183, 186
transactional redundancy, 87, 191
transitory patterns, 86
Triadic Interaction Analysis, see Family
Relational Communication Control
Coding System
Triangulation, 113
Trust, 223224
Type I error, 63, 84
Type II error, 84
Type III error, 84
V, Y
Validity, 4346
construct validity, 44, 106
discriminant validity, 44
predictive validity, 44
representational validity, 44
Yules Q, 6567

Lawrence Erlbaum - Relational Communication - An Interactional Perspective To The Study of Proces

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawrence Erlbaum - Relational Communication - An Interactional Perspective To The Study of Proces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RELATIONAL

An Interactional Perspective to the Study of Process and Form

L. Edna Rogers Valentin Escudero

LEAs Series on Personal Relationships

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

Copyright 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cover Art: Awakening by Carl B. Gacono, Ph.D., Austin, Texas

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acid-free paper,

About the Authors

PART I: RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION PERSPECTIVE

Observing Relational Communication

Analyzing Relational Communication

PART II: RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH CONTEXTS

Relational Communication Patterns in Marital Interaction

From Dyads to Triads, and Beyond: Relational Control

Relational Research in Brief Family Therapy:

Expressed Emotion and Interpersonal Control

Relational Control in PhysicianPatient Interaction

Organizational Relational Control Research:

PART III: REFLECTIONS ON THE RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Overview and Future Directions

This series from Lawrence Erlbaum is intended to review the progress in

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

To clarify the relational position, it is important to note that it does not

senting a contextual, historical backdrop to relational thinking and second,

About the Authors

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Marlene M. von Friederichs-Fitzwater (PhD, University of Utah) is Professor

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

noting the inherent contingencies of the communicative process when he

RELATIONAL THINKING: A BROAD VIEW

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION: A CLOSER VIEW

As two eyes in combination generate a binocular view, combined actions

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

behavioral observations, rather than apply a predetermined framework

Although Batesons original formulation of these interaction concepts

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

each diagonal step embedded within the ascending levels of description

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

relationship and a methodology for indexing communication processes at

ROGERS AND ESCUDERO

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

Ericson & Rogers (1973);

Ellis et al. (1976)

Folger & Sillars (1980)

Small group interactions

Social perception of relational control

Family therapy process

ESCUDERO AND ROGERS

Siegel, Friedlander, &

Modification of earlier coding systems to focus the analysis on

Communication in families with a schizophrenic member

Interpersonal communication in organizational context

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

2. OBSERVING RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION

H: If you dont agree on visiting them this year, you

W: For years I have been telling you that I am sick