_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fam Proc 12:83-94, 1973

Decision-Making in Married and Unrelated Couples

William D. Winter, Ph.D.a
Antonio J. Ferreira, M.D.b
Norman Bowers, M.S.c
aProfessor of Psychology, California State University, San Jose, California.
bResearch Associate, California State University, San Jose, California.
cSchool Psychologist, Oak Grove School District, Oak Grove, California.

The decision-making performance of 20 married and 20 synthetic couples, all college students, was compared using
the Ferreira-Winter Questionnaire technique. Married couples showed (a) greater spontaneous agreement with each
other prior to conjoint discussion, (b) less politeness, (c) more intrusive interruptions, and (d) a lesser exchange of
explicit information between husband and wife. Although married couples arrived at more "democratic" or
representative decisions in a faster time, this was due to their greater degree of prior shared values and interests. The
effects of the history and context of the relationship between subjects upon their pattern of communication and possible
contrasts between normal and abnormal couples are discussed.
The increasing popularity of conjoint family therapy has stimulated our interest in the process of family communication.
A series of recent research studies has shown that decision-making in normal families differs in measurable ways from
decision-making in families with a pathological member (7). One variable that has consistently differentiated normal from
disturbed families has been termed "spontaneous agreement," a measure of the shared values and similar preferences
among family members that exist even before they begin the decision-making process (1). Spontaneous agreement has been
given a key place in the cycle of pathology that develops in disturbed families (2, 4, 6).
Since spontaneous agreement appears to be such an important differentiating variable, it becomes a matter of theoretical
importance to determine why this similarity develops in a family and how it affects their communication. The present study
was directed toward an examination of the relationship between the closeness or relatedness of a couple and their degree of
spontaneous agreement and the effect of their closeness upon the process by which they reach decisions. The more general
research question was, "Do strangers who are forced to reach a conjoint decision in a game-like context do so in a different
way than couples who are intimately associated?"

METHOD
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of marriage and extensive propinquity on the interaction of men and
women in an attempt to differentiate married couples from single, synthetic couples. The method employed was the
presentation of the Ferreira and Winter decision-making task (F-W Q) in which the couples were asked to mutually agree
on a given decision. The prediction was that certain variables found to be useful from previous research would differentiate
married from single, synthetic interaction.
The subjects were 20 married and 20 synthetic couples. The married couples were required to have been married or
living together for at least two years. The synthetic couples were made up of single people who were matched for age with
married couples. Matching was done on a plus or minus two-year basis, with the age relationship between the male and
female kept the same. Thus, each synthetic couple was individually matched with a corresponding married couple. All of
the subjects were college students who volunteered for the study from a wide spectrum of academic fields including
sociology, psychology, anthropology, history, education, business, economics, and English. None of the single people had
known each other prior to the study. Ages ranged from 19 to 29.
Subjects were tested on the San Jose State University campus, one couple at a time. First they were left alone in a small
quiet room to complete an experiment performed by a graduate student that involved viewing slides and making choices
agreeable to both members of the dyad. Then the seven-item questionnaire of Ferreira and Winter (1) was administered
according to the standard instructions used in their study. The subjects were told that the questionnaire contained a number
of situations which, although improbable, they were to pretend were real and true. They were told to examine the ten
choices and for each situation mark the three choices they liked the most and the three they liked the least; the four
alternatives that remained were to be left blank. Typical of the seven questions is, "Below is a list of non-living famous
people. If you had had a chance to know one of them personally, whom would you want to know?" This question is
followed by a list of 10 names such as Madam Curie and Albert Schweitzer.
After the couples had indicated choices individually on their questionnaires, they were asked to work together to come to
1

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

mutual agreement, as a couple, on the same questionnaire. The interaction between the couples completing the conjoint
questionnaire was tape-recorded during this time.

MEASUREMENTS
The family communication variables measured in this study were as follows:
(a) Spontaneous Agreement (SA). This is a count of the total number of times the members of the dyad agree
spontaneously on a given choice on their individual questionnaires, i.e., prior to consultation with each other. One
"spontaneous agreement" is counted whenever one member's choice (liked or disliked) matches the choice of the
other member of the dyad prior to getting together to discuss the item. This is the only measurement based entirely on
the individual questionnaires.
(b) Decision Time (DT). The length of time in seconds that it takes a couple to reach all the decisions on the conjoint
questionnaire, i.e., to complete their questionnaire together.
(c) Choice Fulfillment (CF). The total number of instances a positive or negative choice made by a member of the dyad
on his individual questionnaire appears on the questionnaire completed by the couple conjointly. In this study a
couples' CF score equals the sum of the individual male and female CF scores. CF is a measure of the extent both
partner's wishes are represented in their joint decisions.
(d) Silence (S). This is the length of time, measured in seconds, in which there is no verbal communication between the
members of the dyad in filling out the questionnaire together. In a previous study by Ferreira and Winter (2) the
interjudge reliability for silence in family discussions was high (r = .93).
(e) Interruption (Int.). This is a count of the number of times one member of the dyad interrupts the other member of the
dyad. An interruption is scored if the person making the intruding statement is putting down or disregarding what the
other member is saying. For example, if one member of the dyad says, "I think I would prefer fillet of sole, because I
really...," and at this point the other member interrupts with "Yuk, fish is a smelly food!" this would be scored as one
interruption. A statement is not scored as an interruption if it gives support or agrees with the opinion expressed by
the partner. For example, one member says, "Blue and grey cars are really ugly," and the other member concurrently
states, "Wow, no kidding!" This type of interaction is not scored as an interruption because the member of the dyad
who cuts in or intrudes is being supportive, and is not disregarding what the other person is saying. This Interruption
score is for the couple as a whole and was suggested by the work of Lennard & Bernstein (3).
(f) Explicit Information (Info.). This is any clear and explicit statement made by either member of the dyad in reference
to a specific liked or disliked alternative. One explicit informational unit is recorded for each clear statement. The
Info. scores have been defined fully in a previous article by Ferreira & Winter (2). For example, an Info. unit is
scored for an explicit declaration of choice (positive or negative) made in the past tense and disclosing the member's
responses to the individual, private questionnaire previously filled out by him ("I chose...," "I crossed off..."). In their
earlier study, inter-rarer agreement for this scale was .94.
(g) Politeness (P). This rating reflects the total interaction between couples and is based on an overall impression of how
the couples treat one another. Such things as tone of voice, asking questions of the other person, listening quietly, and
being supportive are looked for. The scale uses a range of zero (rude) to four (very polite). The inter-judge reliability
of this measure was r = .74 (synthetic), .81 (married couples).

HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis I: Married couples have greater SA than synthetic couples. This hypothesis is based upon the reasoning that
married couples have more similar likes and dislikes than people who are unfamiliar with one another.
Hypothesis II: There is greater CF for married couples than for synthetic couples. Married couples are more used to
the quid pro quo relationship and should be better able than synthetic couples to reach decisions that are satisfying to both
partners.
Hypothesis III: Married couples take less time (lower DT) to reach all decisions on the conjoint questionnaire than do
synthetic couples. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that married couples are more efficient at joint, family
decision-making. They have had to learn to compromise and have had a greater opportunity to make mutually satisfying
decisions than have unrelated people.
Hypothesis IV: Married couples express a greater number of explicit informational units than synthetic couples. We
would expect the interaction between married couples to be more efficient and task-oriented than between unrelated
couples. This means that married couples will probably express a greater percentage of explicit and clear statements in
reaching a decision; the synthetic couples will probably be more afraid of each other and somewhat less comfortable in
expressing a given opinion.
Hypothesis V: Synthetic couples spend more time in silence than do married couples. This would be expected since the
members of the synthetic dyads will probably feel more anxious and unsure of their role in a new situation. The married
2

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

couples probably will have already established definite and consistent methods of reaching decisions, which should reduce
conflict and enhance smoother, more flowing interaction.
Hypothesis VI: Synthetic couples demonstrate a greater degree of politeness in their interaction than married couples.
This hypothesis is based upon the assumption that strangers coming together for the first time will try very hard to be
courteous and polite. Married couples will have already progressed beyond the social bantering stage and will be
interacting on a much more personal level.
Hypothesis VII: Synthetic couples interrupt each other less than do married couples. Strangers in this research context
are expected to be more polite and courteous to their respective partners, and they will probably tend to interrupt less and
listen more quietly while their partner speaks.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
For Hypothesis I, IV, V, VI, VII, t tests for dependent scores were performed to determine whether there were significant
differences between the means of the married couples and those of the matched synthetic couples.
For the other hypothesis (II and III), analyses of co-variance were performed due to the need to correct the subjects
scores for level of SA. SA has been shown by Ferreira and Winter (1) to correlate with CF and DT.
Pearson r correlations between all of the 21 variables were computed to further clarify the meaning of the obtained
results.

RESULTS
The resultant t values for the seven hypotheses are presented along with their one-tailed probability values in Table 1 .
Table 1
t-Values Comparing Married and Synthetic Couples
X

SD

Hyp. I: SA
Married

20.25

2.91

Synthetic

17.10

4.40

Married

56.75

6.32

Synthetic

51.20

5.69

Married

787.10

301.00

Synthetic

939.60

215.76

Married

63.30

14.90

Synthetic

72.75

16.72

Married

111.45

75.60

Synthetic

133.80

65.90

Married

42.50

11.29

Synthetic

57.75

7.15

Married

6.70

3.97

Synthetic

4.15

3.29

2.83**

Hyp. II: CF
3.93**

Hyp. III: DT
-2.17*

Hyp. IV: Information

-2.02y

Hyp. V: Silence
-1.17

Hyp. VI: Politeness

-4.81**

Hyp. VII: Interruptions

2.13*

*p

< .05
< .01
y opposite to prediction

** p

Hypothesis I. The first hypothesis stated that married couples have greater SA than synthetic couples. As Table 1
3

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

indicates, this hypothesis was supported by the results (t = 2.83, p < .01).
Hypothesis II. The second hypothesis stated that there is greater CF for married couples than for synthetic couples, when
appropriate correction for initial SA is made. The t of 3.93 for raw CF indicates a significant difference between the two
groups in the predicted direction. When, however, the CF scores were corrected for initial level of SA in an analysis of
covariance, the resultant F of 1.615 was not significant, indicating that both groups were almost equally effective in
reaching mutually satisfying decisions when their initial spontaneous agreements were taken into account.
Hypothesis III. The third hypothesis stated that the DT for synthetic couples is greater than for married couples. As
Table 1 indicates, the resultant t for uncorrected DT was significant (t = -2.17, p < .025). When, however, the SA scores
were taken into account by using analysis of co-variance, the resultant F of 3.038 was not significant. Therefore, the
married and single couples were approximately equal in terms of the time it took for them to reach decisions on the
conjoint questionnaire, after correction for level of SA.
Hypothesis IV. The fourth hypothesis stated that married couples express a greater number of explicit informational units
than synthetic couples. It was not supported. There was a significant difference between the couples in the opposite
direction from the one predicted (t = -2.02, 2-tailed, p < .05): The synthetic couples had a larger total number of explicit
informational units than did married couples.
Hypothesis V. This hypothesis stated that synthetic couples spend more time in silence than do married couples. The
comparison between the two groups revealed a non-significant difference (t = -1.17, ns). Silence during decision-making
did not differentiate married from single dyads, although the difference between means was in the predicted direction.
Hypothesis VI. This hypothesis stated that there is a greater degree of politeness among synthetic couples than among
married couples. The result of this comparison indicates that there was a significant difference between the two groups (t =
-4.81, p < .01) in the predicted direction. Single couples were more polite.
Hypothesis VII. The seventh hypothesis stated that there is a greater number of interruptions among married couples
than among synthetic couples. As Table 1 indicates, the resulting t value was significant (t = 2.13, p < .025). Married
couples interrupted each other more often.

DISCUSSION
The confirmation of Hypothesis I supports the previous findings of Ferreira and Winter (1), that SA is an important
variable in group interaction. In their study, normal families were shown to have greater spontaneous agreement about what
their members liked or disliked, prior to any exchange of information, than abnormal families. This difference was
attributed to impaired intrafamily communication in the abnormal families (although the influence of selective mating
cannot be ruled out). Generalizing from their study, it was expected that married couples who have lived together for at
least two years would have more shared likes and dislikes, and therefore higher SA, than couples who had never met before
and that the level of SA would affect the dyadic decision-making process.
Married couples were also faster in reaching decisions, and their decisions better represented the individual choices they
made prior to conjoint discussion. Thus far, the obtained results confirmed our expectations, which were based on previous
normal versus abnormal family comparisons, and would lead one to speculate that the differences in decision-making found
in previous studies merely reflected the greater discrepancy in values and interests (SA) among abnormal family members.
However, contrary to our previous findings with abnormal families, correction for the couples' initial level of spontaneous
agreement wiped out the significant differences in Decision Time and Choice Fulfillment. Apparently, the unrelated couples
had an initial disadvantage in that they had fewer common desires and interests, but the efficiency and sensibleness of their
communication process was essentially no different from that of married couples. This is in contrast to our earlier findings
that abnormal families showed lower CF and higher DT even when these scores were corrected for initial SA. Differences
in the subject pools make a direct comparison of the two studies improper. However, it would appear logical to design
future research to test the hypothesis that the inefficient decision-making found in abnormal families is based not only on
their low communality of interests, but also on some disturbance in the communication process itself, presumably a
disturbance related to negative emotions of anger, frustration, and hostility (2), which keeps them from using effectively the
SA they have.
Although our married and unrelated couples did not differ in such broad indicators of the quality of their decision-making
as speed, fulfillment of individual wishes, and silence, there were differences found in the way their decisions were reached.
In our previous studies, abnormal families not only showed lower spontaneous agreement, but also shared less explicit
information with one another, which compounded their difficulty in reaching efficient decisions. However, contrary to our
prediction, the unrelated couples, despite their lower SA scores, expressed a greater number of Explicit Informational Units
than did the married couples. Since they did not know each other and had no accumulation of mutually, hammered-out
decisions, the unrelated couples quite reasonably set about expressing their opinions in an open manner so that
decision-making could proceed. The married couples, who had a greater degree of SA, probably needed to express lesser

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

amounts of information regarding their personal wishes, since they were in agreement on so many choices even before they
began to talk. Probably both groups viewed the situation as more of an intellectual problem-solving task than did the
abnormal families in the previous research, and the unrelated couples simply set about obtaining the information they
needed to solve the problem.
The degree of relatedness in the couples also affected their communications in more subtle ways. Unrelated couples were
more polite to each other than were married couples. This result is in line with the Ryder (5) study, in which he observed
that strangers were more gentle and polite in their interactions than were husband-wife dyads. The present finding that
married couples intrude upon and interrupt each other more often than do unrelated couples supports the results obtained
for politeness. Unrelated strangers tend to listen respectfully to one another, whereas married couples are often rude to each
other, which suggests that counselors should be cautious in interpreting impoliteness in and of itself as necessarily
reflecting a bad marital relationship.
There were other indications that the context of previous interactions in which these problem-solving discussions
occurred had a decided effect on the communication process that took place. For example, although Interruption was
greater and Politeness lower in married couples, there was a subtle difference in how these variables interacted in our two
groups of dyads. For stranger couples, Politeness and Interruption correlated positively (r = .65, p < .01); for married
couples the correlation was negative, but not significant (r = -.38, p < .10). When the unrelated couples interrupted each
other, they became more wary, respectful and polite; when the married couples cut each other off and put each other down,
they became a little more impolite.
Whether this interruptive disrespect in married couples is associated with ease of communication, friendly banter, or
bitter tension may be a variable of importance in the future study of normal and abnormal couples. Of interest here is the
further finding that the unmarried dyads showed a negative correlation between Interruptions and Silence (r = -.59, p <
.01), whereas for married couples the correlation was positive (r =.48, p < .05). For strangers, the greater the number of
interruptions, the less time spent in silence; the opposite was true for marrieds. It appears that single couples could intrude
upon one another without disrupting the flow of interaction, while the communication of the married couples was impaired
when one member of the dyad interrupted the other. Since they share an intimate relationship with a past history and a
future, this type of problem-solving task has different connotations for married couples. Married dyads may be hurt or
offended by an intrusion because of what this implies about their relationship with a spouse who can affect them deeply;
unmarried couples are less emotionally involved, more task oriented, and more attuned to the larger social contexts such as
boy-girl relationships, meeting the expectations of the examiner, society's idea of good manners, etc. In this regard, it is of
interest that for unrelated couples there is a significant negative correlation between Info. and Int. (r = -.46, p < .05), but no
relationship existed for marrieds. To sum up, unrelated couples responded to each other more politely, and when their
partner interrupted what they were saying, the interchange became more polite and verbalizations continued, but there was
a holding back of personal expression of opinions. That is, they talked as much but stuck their necks out less; they played it
cool. This could have been predicted from our knowledge of normal, first-acquaintance behavior between men and women.
There are more subtle differences in the communications of the two groups that are not captured by our rather gross
measurement techniques. For example, when the married couples tried to decide what foreign countries they wanted to live
in for a year, the situation had an element of reality to it. They had gone on vacations together and living abroad was a
possible joint activity for them, one that could carry forward their close relationship. For the strangers this task seemed
far-fetched and sometimes brought out erotic fantasies if the partner were attractive, withdrawal if not. In addition, married
couples used other elements of their joint lives to help them reach decisions without serious conflict. Some married couples
resolved disagreements by deciding that their child would be better off growing up in a certain country or would prefer a
certain food. Others made references to information furnished by relatives ("Remember when your mother went to Italy and
... "), to statements made by their spouses on previous occasions, or to their spouses' career interests to help reach a
satisfactory compromise. Finally, it should be noted that some married couples used the questionnaire to continue their
ongoing efforts at intense mutual- and self-exploration, while others dealt with it in a matter-of-fact impersonal manner.
The acquaintanceship process in our culture is subtle and complex, and it is not surprising that we have found
differences between married and unrelated couples. The emotional closeness, shared frame of reference, and previous
honing of sharp interpersonal edges throws a current decision by marrieds into a broader, personal time perspective. Their
mutual decisions have a history of past wins, losses, and compromises, with associated emotions, and they also have a
future which the current decision process will effect. Strangers must grope to understand each other, and their interactions
are predicted more on stereotypes, social expectancies, and attitudes toward being evaluated. These differences are worthy
of extended study in their own right. However, in view of our interest in helping families become healthier, we must ask
what light these findings might shed on what goes wrong in abnormal families. Our results indicate that normal married
couples differ from normal unmarried couples mainly by representing different points on the acquaintance dimension. But
we can speculate that abnormal couples have interpersonal difficulties not because they lack physical closeness, but
because something goes wrong in the acquaintance process itself. It is not simply that they do not know each other and do
not share a similar point of view, though this is true enough, but rather that their relationship fits into a historical context of
5

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

disappointment, hurt feelings, and anger, which makes efficient and satisfying decision-making impossible. Our guess is
that normal stranger couples keep up their guard trying to make a good impression without striking a sour note. Normal
married couples have let down their guard somewhat and can afford to treat each other roughly because they feel
comfortable in their relationship with a spouse who shares their point of view to a large extent. In contrast, the poor mate
choice and/or the history of personal hurts in married abnormal couples bring with them a pattern of anger, silence,
withdrawal, non-communication of feelings, inconclusive and unsatisfying decisions, and lack of mutual identification.
These speculations should be turned into researchable hypotheses, keeping in mind that the variables we have measured
have different meanings as a function of the history of the communicating parties.

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Ferreira, A. J. and Winter, W. D., "Family Interaction and Decision-making," Arch. of Gen. Psychia., 13,
214-223, 1965.
Ferreira, A. J. and Winter, W. D., "Information Exchange and Silence In Normal and Abnormal Families," Fam.
Proc., 7, 251-276, 1968.
Lennard, H. and Bernstein, A., Patterns in Human Interaction, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969.
Murrell, S. A., "Family Interaction Variables and Adjustment of Non-clinic Boys," Child Development, 42,
1485-1494, 1971.
Ryder, R. G., "Husband-Wife Dyads Versus Married Strangers," Fam. Proc., 7, 233-238, 1968.
Schuham, A. I., "Activity, Talking Time, and Spontaneous Agreement in Disturbed and Normal Family
Interaction," J. Abnorm. Psychol., 79, 68-75, 1972.
Winter, W. D. and Ferreira, A. J., Research in Family Interaction, Palo Alto, Science & Behavior Books, 1969.

Reprint requests should be addressed to William Winter, Ph.D., Building K, California State University, San Jose,
California 95192.