CIinicnlPrycholo~ Reulew, Vol. 13, pp. 3-14, 1993 0272.73.58/93 $6 00 + .

OO
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright @ 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.

THE SEQUENCE OF MARITAL CONFLICT:

AN ANALYSIS OF SEVEN PHASES OF
MARITAL CONFLICT IN DISTRESSED AND
NONDISTRESSED COUPLES

Andrew Christensen
Lauri Pasch

University of California, Los Angeles

ABSTRACT. Seven sequential stages of marital conJict are delineated: (a) conjlicts of interest, (6)
stressful circumstances, (c) precipitating events, (d) engagemznt versus avoidance, (e) interaction scenario,
Q,l immediate outcome, and (g) return to normal. Selectid theory and empirical research concerning d;ffer-
ences between distressed and nondistressed couples are presentedfor these stages.

When Derick arrived home from work without the groceries Sally had asked him to pick up,
she denounced him angrily for his error and complained that dinner would be late, the
childrens homework and bed time would be delayed, and the evening would be ruined.
Derick apologized for his error but attacked Sally for making such a big deal out of a simple
mistake. Sally explained that it was not just this error that upset her, but his general failure to
take more responsibility for household tasks. Derick defended his record and charged that
Sally was compulsive with all household matters. They argued back and forth for 10 minutes
before Derick stormed out to pick up take-out food for dinner.

From this example, we can distinguish seven sequential stages that are common across
marital conflicts. First, there is a conzict of interest between the spouses. Incompatible
differences in what each member wants from each other and the relationship often set the
stage for overt conflict. In our example, Sally and Derick had different standards and
expectations for housework and household responsibilities. These differences existed from
the beginning of their relationship but only led to an overt conflict when a provocative
incident such as Derick forgetting the groceries occurred.
A second feature of conflict is stressful circumstances. As couples get tired, irritated, and
depleted from the stressful demands placed upon them, they are more likely to engage in
conflict. In the present case, Sallys increased work load during the week had made her
more aware and less tolerant of Dericks unequal participation in housework. Similarly,
Dericks demands at work that day made him more likely to forget Sallys request to pick
up groceries.

Correspondence should be addressed to Andrew Christensen, Department of Psychology, Universi-

ty of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1563.
4 A. Christensen and L. Pasch

A third feature of conflict is a precipitating iruident. Couples often start an overt conflict in
response to what is perceived as a provocative behavior by one or both. In our example,
Dericks coming home without the groceries was clearly the precipitant for the conflict
between them.
Once a precipitating event has occurred, couples may enguge or avoid discussion of the
issue, which is the fourth phase of conflict. At one extreme of complete avoidance, there
may be no overt conflict at all. For example, Sally might have suppressed her anger at
Derick so he barely noticed it in her voice. Likewise, Derick might have suppressed his
anger in response to Sallys accusation. If couples do engage in a discussion of the incident,
they may have a relatively brief encounter as in the case of Sally and Derick above, or they
may expand the discussion into a several-hour marathon encounter.
If a couple engages in discussion, a fifth phase - an interactional scenario - takes place. The
partners may exchange various forms of negative behavior such as accusations and insults.
They may defend their positions in the conflict, or they may negotiate some solution. In
the case of Sally and Derick, Sally takes more of an accusing role, while Derick defends
and justifies himself. They move quickly from the smaller issue of the groceries to the
larger issue of responsibility for household tasks. What takes place in this scenario is not
just interactional behavior. Spouses think and feel during the process as well. They make
judgments about each others motives and experience anger and resentment toward each
others actions.
At some point the couple stops discussing the conflictual topic. At least for the time
being, the overt conflict is over. The couple is left with an immediate outcome, which marks
the sixth phase of conflict. Partners may feel resolved about the problem, understood by
their partner, or validated in their negative view of their partner.
A conflict may not be over when it is over. In the aftermath of a conflict, partners may be
distant from each other. This distance and their subsequent angry reactions may reignite
the conflict or may elicit other conflicts. The couple may need to go through a process of
reconciliation before they return to their normal behavior. In our example, Derick and
Sally were distant with each other when Derick arrived home with take-out food. They
took another day apart before they returned to their usual interactions with each other.
This return to normal marks the seventh and final phase of conflict. While the conflict may be
remembered and may have future effects on their relationship, its impact on their immedi-
ate interaction has ceased.
In this article we selectively review theory and empirical research relevant to these seven
stages of marital conflict, focusing specifically on how distressed and nondistressed couples
differ at each of these stages. Clinicians can probe marital conflicts more thoroughly and
intervene in them more effectively if they have a framework for analyzing such conflicts,
for relating their various parts, and for organizing the diverse literature on conflict. By
focusing on a simple developmental sequence of seven stages of marital conflict, we hope
to provide such a clinically useful framework. These seven stages are based in part on
Petersons (1983) conceptualization. Our first four stages are quite similar to his; our last
three move beyond.

PHASES OF MARITAL CONFLICT

Conflicts of lntefest

The literature on conflict makes an important distinction between a structural conflict of

interest and open or overt co+& (Peterson, 1983). The former refers to an incompatibility
 Sequence of Marital Con$ict 5

between partners needs, desires, and preferences, while the latter refers to their interac-
tion about these differing preferences. A structural conflict of interest may exist without
erupting into open conflict. For example, a husband and wife may differ on whether or not
to have children, but largely ignore this difference during courtship and early marriage.
Likewise, an open conflict can exist without any conflict of interest, as when a couple
argues based on a misunderstanding. However, in most cases structural conflicts of inter-
est, if they are important, will eventually lead to open conflict.
Couples can have conflicts of interest about almost anything from the trivial to the
profound. However, some conflicts come up more often than others, and some seem more
important than others. We propose that the most common and important conflicts of
interest occur around central dimensions of the relationship. To understand our proposal,
we need to describe some of the central dimensions of marital relationships (see also
Epstein, Baucom, & Rankin, this issue, for a discussion of relationship dimensions.)
Several theorists have proposed that certain dimensions are the central or defining features
of interpersonal relationships. Kelley and his colleagues (Kelley et al., 1983) propose the
dimension of closenzssas central to defining relationships. By closeness they mean the extent to
which partners have frequent, intense, and diverse interchanges that last over an enduring
period of time. This dimension of closeness refers to the extent to which spouses lives are
interconnected, and captures common lay conceptions of closeness.
Another dimension that figures into many theories of relationships is dominance or power.
Kelley and his colleagues (1983) discuss the asymmetry that commonly exists between
partners, and how power can be the basis of that asymmetry. In his review of circumplex
models of interpersonal behavior, Wiggins (1982) finds evidence for a major dimension of
dominance. By dominance and power, theorists refer to a hierarchical relationship be-
tween partners. One member may have more influence and control than the other in such
areas as decision-making, division of labor, and the like.
Let us now consider the types of conflicts that could occur along these dimensions.
Conflicts of interest along the closeness dimension will concern the kind of contact the
couple has with each other and with family and friends. Specific conflicts might concern
time together, contact with family and friends, privacy, disclosure, and independent activ-
ity. Conflicts along the dominance dimension will concern decision-making and responsi-
bility for various tasks in the relationship. Specific conflicts might concern responsibility
for and authority over housework, child care, house decoration, and money management.
We believe that serious conflicts of interest will often occur along these dimensions for
three reasons. First, couples are likely to have different preferences for the nature or level
of closeness between them and for the particular dominance structure that exists between
them. Based on their experiences in their own family of origin or on their own personality,
partners will rarely want their relationship structured in exactly the same way along these
two dimensions. Second, these differences will not be trivial ones, because they define the
very nature of the relationship. One spouse may believe that this is really not a marriage
unless a certain level of closeness or sexual intimacy is achieved. Likewise, one partner
may feel the marriage is embarrassingly archaic unless both partners have their own
checking account. Finally, these differences can affect partners self-esteem in the relation-
ship. One spouse may not feel loved unless a certain level of closeness is achieved. Another
may not feel important or autonomous unless they are in charge of certain areas such as
child care or finances. Thus, the importance of these dimensions for spouses self-esteem
and for the very definition of their relationship, combined with a likelihood of different
preferences by each member, makes conflict over these issues highly likely.
Empirical evidence is consistent with these views about the importance of conflicts of
interest over closeness and dominance. Christensen (1987) showed that conflicts of interest
6 A. Christensen and L. Paxh

over closeness were highly associated with marital dissatisfaction. Christensen and Shenk
(1991) showed that conflicts of interest over closeness and psychological distance were
much more common in clinic and divorcing couples than in nondistressed couples. Several
studies have shown a relationship between power distribution and marital satisfaction (see
Gray-Little & Burks, 1983 for a review).

Stressful Circumstances

Major life stresses, such as the birth of a child and daily stresses, such as work demands,
often have negative effects on marriage. Research examining the effects of major stressors
often focuses on marital satisfaction or stability and not marital conflict per se, but we can
probably assume that marital dissatisfaction and marital instability are usually accompa-
nied by marital conflict. For example, evidence from many studies suggests that a modest
but reliable reduction in marital satisfaction occurs in couples following the birth of their
first child (Cowen et al., 1985). In addition to reductions in marital satisfaction, these
studies have also noted a decline in positive affect frequency and quality of interactions,
and an increase in reported levels of overt conflict. Although major stresses may often
adversely affect marital functioning, some studies have found a wide range of functioning
in families encountering major stressful events, with some couples reporting marital
improvement as a consequence of weathering stressful events together (Kazak & Marvin,
1984).
Daily life stressors may also affect marital functioning, but as with major stressors, the
way couples handle the stressors may determine whether the effects will be negative,
neutral, or even positive. For example, Repetti (1989) examined the effects of husbands
daily work load on marital interaction. Greater demands at work were associated with a
same-day increase in social withdrawal from the spouse, and a decrease in expressions of
anger. However, when the moderating role of spouse support was examined, the relation-
ship was found only for husbands who came home to supportive wives. Repetti has
suggested that supportive spouses provide an environment that facilitates the stressed
partners recovery through social withdrawal.
Clearly, major life stressors and daily stressors put couples at risk for conflict and
dissatisfaction, but those negative consequences can be avoided or even transformed into
positive consequences by the couples ability to assimilate stress. We suggest two mecha-
nisms, mentioned briefly by Christensen and Shenk (1991), by which stressors can affect
marital conflict. First, stressors can affect marital conflict by increasing each spouses need
for support while simultaneously decreasing their ability to offer support to the other. How
might this occur? It is well-known that the experience of stress can create physiological
arousal, negative affect, and fatigue (Repetti, 1992). In addition to the resulting distress
for the individual experiencing the stressor, this state can lead to cognitive processing
deficits. For example, experimental data has repeatedly shown that individuals exposed to
stress have difficulty solving problems, judging the probable consequences of their deci-
sions, and evaluating relevant information (e.g., Jarvis, 1982). Additionally, the negative
mood states associated with stress generate an inward focus on ones own needs and
concerns (e.g., Wood, Saltzberg, & Goldsamt, 1990). Experimental studies of the afteref-
fects of stress on social behavior have shown that after exposure to unpredictable and
uncontrollable stressors subjects are less likely to engage in helping behavior and more
likely to display aggression (Cohen & Spacepan, 1978).
The applications of these types of findings to natural interpersonal contexts are begin-
ning to be investigated (e.g., Whaler & Dumas, 1989). In the context of a marital
 Sequence of MaritalConjikt 7

interaction, stress-induced cognitive processing deficits and the tendency toward self-focus
may lead to an inability to accurately perceive the partners intentions, to understand the
partners point of view, and to recognize the needs of the partner.
Second, stress can increase the potential for marital conflict by increasing existing, or
creating new, conflicts of interest between the needs or goals of husband and wife. The
transition to parenthood provides a clear example of how this can occur. There is often a
conflict of interest in marriage over who performs household tasks. However, when the
couple has a new baby, the burden of housework and child care is increased tremendously,
often leading to dissatisfaction on the part of the wife if she is left with an unequal
proportion of the responsibility (Cowen et al., 1985). The division of labor over household
duties and child care can lead to conflict in first-time parents because the birth of the child
increases an existing conflict of interest (over who will be responsible for the care of the
home).
Stress may create new conflicts of interest in couples as well as exacerbate old ones.
Consider, for example, how individuals naturally differ in their preferred manner of
coping with stress. One partner may prefer to talk about the problem and share feelings
regarding it with their spouse. The other partner may prefer to keep feelings private and
spend less time talking about the problem. Small differences between partners that were
not a source of conflict before may become an insurmountable problem when exacerbated
by the experience of a major stressful event.

Precipitating Events

The presence of conflicts of interest and stressful circumstances do not, by themselves,

lead to an overt conflict. A precipitating event, which is usually some negative behavior, is
required to trigger a marital argument. A number of researchers have asked couples to
record the daily occurrence of positive and negative events in their relationship. Not
surprisingly, they have found that distressed couples report more negative events and
fewer positive events per day than nondistressed couples (e.g., Jacobson, Follette, &
McDonald, 1982). Therefore, distressed couples have more frequent negative events dur-
ing the day that could provoke a marital argument.
Not only do distressed couples emit more negative behavior that can serve as precipi-
tants of conflict, but their affective reactions to these behaviors are more pronounced.
Several studies that have investigated the covariation between daily marital negative be-
havior and daily ratings of marital satisfaction have shown greater covariation in distressed
than in nondistressed couples (e.g., Jacobson et al., 1982). The common interpretation of
these findings is that distressed couples show greater affective reactivity to the daily
variation in their spouses negative behavior toward them. Nondistressed couples seem less
affected by these daily variations. This greater affective reactivity in distressed couples
could increase the likelihood of negative behavior precipitating an argument.
Peterson (1983) examined the types of events that serve as precipitants for conflicts. He
asked couples to jointly determine their most important interaction for a specific time period
and then separately write their own individual account of it. Based on his analysis of conflict
interactions in these data, Peterson determined that the four most frequent precipitants of
conflict were (a) criticism, (b) rebuff, (c) illegitimate demand, and (d) cumulative annoyance. It is not
hard to understand intuitively how these kind of behaviors might lead to conflict. However,
the offending quality in these behaviors lies not just in the acts themselves, but in how they
are received by the partner. Certainly an illegitimate demand might be viewed as quite
legitimate by the giver of the demand but as illegitimate by the partner.
8 A. Christensenand L. Paxh

Fincham, Bradbury, and Grych (1990) h ave developed a model of how marital partners
internally process events that may be the precipitants of conflict. In their model, primary
and secondary processing are distinguished. Primary processing refers to the initial attention
given to the event. The perceiver considers both the extent to which the partner has
violated a standard for appropriate behavior, and the personal relevance of the event.
Secondaryprocessi~~refers to the attribution the perceiver makes for the events. Both primary
and secondary processing can lead to affective reactions; attributions of blame to the
partner are especially relevant in interpreting precipitating events in that they may lead to
anger toward the partner. Importantly, secondary processing leads to efficacy expectations
concerning what can be done to alter the situation. These expectations, along with part-
ners affective reactions, jointly determine conflict behavior. For example, a husband who
interprets his wifes comments as a hostile attempt to put him down, and who believes
that he can teach her a lesson, 1s likely to respond to her comments with anger and
argumentative behavior.

Engagement Versus Avoidance

The dominant view amongst marital theorists is that engagement is more constructive
than avoidance of conflict. Raush, Barry, Hertel, and Swain (1974) argue that engage-
ment gives couples the opportunity to learn more about each other, to differentiate from
each other, and to solve the problem confronting them. Wile (1981) proposed that with-
drawn partners are one of three classic types of dysfunctional interaction. He suggests
that chronic withdrawal is a dull, lonely, and profoundly deprived state, adopted only
because the alternative, communication, is experienced as even more punishing (p. 150).
The investigation of mutual avoidance of conflict in couples has been limited by practi-
cal reasons. The common methodology of having couples discuss their problems under
observation in the laboratory precludes investigation of avoidance. The experimenters
instructions force the couple to engage in discussion; presumably the couples would not
even participate in the research if they were complete avoiders. Of course, it is possible to
look at interactive behaviors that might indicate avoidance, such as changing the topic,
denying the importance of a topic, irrelevant comments, or outright refusal to discuss a
particular issue. But complete avoidance is impossible to study in the laboratory, almost by
definition.
The research done on avoidance has been generally supportive of the clinical theory in
that avoidance seems to be associated with marital dissatisfaction. Using the Communica-
tion Patterns Questionnaire (Christensen & Sullaway, 1984), Noller and White (1990)
found that couples low in satisfaction rated avoidance as more likely than couples higher in
satisfaction. Using the same questionnaire, Christensen and Shenk (1991) found that
clinic and divorcing couples rated avoidance as more likely than nondistressed couples.
Other researchers have also shown a relationship between avoidance and relationship
dissatisfaction (e.g., Canary & Cupach, 1988).
Despite this evidence for the link between avoidance of conflict and dissatisfaction in
marriage, some observational studies have found couples who use avoidance maneuvers
and yet maintain a satisfied marriage. For example, Raush et al. (1974) concluded:
Despite our initial biases, some couples who employed what we would ordinarily think of
as pathological defenses in evading conflict seemed as happy with their marriages as
others . . given a context of mutual affection, avoidance did not seem to contraindicate
viable and happy marriages (p. 203).
In trying to explain why couples avoid or engage in conflict, some theorists have
 Sequence of Marital Conflict 9

suggested that efficacy expectations play a role (e.g., Doherty, 1981). Presumably those
couples who believe that their efforts to solve conflict will be successful are more likely to
engage in conflict than those who do not have such beliefs. Presumably these efficacy
expectations result, in part, from successful and unsuccessful experiences in discussing
conflict. Bradbury and Fincham (1987; Fincham & Bradbury, 1987) also suggest motiva-
tional factors may determine avoidance and engagement. For example, commitment to
the relationship and negative affect about the partner may affect willingness to engage in
conflict and persistence in problem-solving efforts. Efficacy expectations may have little
relevance to a partner bent on retaliation through conflict discussion.

Interaction Scenario

If both partners do not avoid the conflict, an interactional scenario develops. In this
section, we describe three broad interactional scenarios: (a) demand/withdraw interac-
tion, in which one member engages in conflict discussion while the other avoids and
withdraws; negative mutual engagement, in which both partners engage in conflict discus-
sion but with negative actions; and positive mutual engagement, in which both partners
engage in conflict discussion, but with positive actions.

Demand/Withdraw interaction Paftern. In this pattern, one member tries to discuss the
problem, criticizes the other for their behavior, and demands change. The partner tries to
avoid discussion of the problem, defends him or herself, and withdraws from the interac-
tion. Clinical theorists have used a variety of labels for this interaction scenario, such as
the pursuer-distancer pattern (Fogarty, 1976) and the demand/withdraw interaction pat-
tern (Christensen, 1988).
Christensen and his colleagues developed self-report and observational measures of this
interaction pattern and showed that both are strongly associated with relationship dissatis-
faction (Christensen, 1987, 1988; Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Christensen & Shenk,
1991; Heavey, Layne, & Christensen, in press). Throughout their research, they have
demonstrated a gender linkage in the pattern, with women more likely to be in the
demanding role and men in the withdrawing role. They have suggested that the conflict of
interest between the couple determines in part the demand/withdraw interaction pattern.
In their research a conflict of interest regarding closeness and independence is associated
with demand/withdraw interaction. Further, the person wanting greater closeness is likely
to take on the demanding role, while the person wanting greater independence is likely to
take on the withdrawing role (Christensen, 1987, 1988). The interactional behaviors of
starting a discussion, criticizing the partner for their behavior, and pressuring for change
can be seen as interactional attempts to generate greater closeness between the pair, while
behaviors such as avoiding an interaction, defending ones behavior, and withdrawing
from discussion can be seen as efforts to achieve independence and autonomy.
Christensen and his colleagues have suggested that demand/withdraw interaction is not
limited to a conflict of interest over closeness, but may reflect any conflict of interest where
partners have a differential investment in change. The spouse wanting change in the
current relationship is likely to be the demander, while the partner favoring the status quo
is likely to be the withdrawer. From the point of view of the one seeking change, discussion
about the problem, criticism of current behavior, and pressure for new behavior are
avenues to create change. From the point of view of the withdrawer, discussion will only
lead to argument or a change in the current situation, both of which are undesirable (see
Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Heavey et al., in press, for evidence for this position).
10 A. Christensen and L. Paxh

Generally, women want more change in marriage than do men (Margolin, Talovic, &
Weinstein, 1983). Presumably, this position of wanting more change leads them to take on
the demanding role and men the withdrawing role more often than the reverse. Two major
areas in which women want change are closeness and household tasks. Women tend to
want greater closeness, while men want greater independence in marriage (Christensen,
1987, 1988). Women do more housework and child care than their husbands even when
both are employed full-time outside of the home (Robinson, 1977). Therefore, women also
often want changes in the allocation of household responsibilities. Both these conflicts of
interest as well as others may lead to the demand/withdraw interaction pattern.

Mutual Negative Engagement. Wile (1981) d escribes angry partners as one of three
classic dysfunctional conflict patterns. In this pattern, partners attack, criticize, and blame
each other. Similarly, Canary and Cupach (1988) describe a distributive strategy as one of
three broad patterns of conflict discussion. In this strategy, partners compete with each
other, attempt to dominate each other, and find fault with each other. Both of these
theoretical classifications describe what we mean by mutual negative engagement.
The empirical data are consistent with theoretical speculations that distressed couples
have conflict marked by negative engagement. Observational studies of the problem-
solving of distressed versus nondistressed couples consistently reveal higher frequencies of
negative behaviors in distressed versus nondistressed couples. For example, distressed
couples exhibit more negative behaviors such as criticism, put-down, hostility, and nega-
tive nonverbal acts. Also, distressed couples are more likely to engage in negative se-
quences of interaction such as negative reciprocity and counter-complaining (see Weiss &
Heyman, 1990 for a review of observational research on marital interaction).
Not surprisingly, distressed couples are characterized not only by a higher rate of
negative behaviors and negative interaction sequences, but also by a higher rate of nega-
tive affective experience. In fact, ratings of negative affect are among the most powerful
and consistent discriminators of distressed and nondistressed couples. When couples rate
their own affect during a discussion (e.g., Schachter & OLeary, 1985) or while viewing a
videotape of their discussion (Levenson & Gottman, 1983) when observers rate affect
during a marital conflict discussion (e.g., Gottman, 1979), or when physiological mea-
sures of affect are taken during a marital conflict discussion (Levenson & Gottman, 1983),
distressed couples consistently show more negative affect than nondistressed couples.
Research has not directly addressed the cognitive activity that occurs during ongoing
marital interaction, or what Fincham, Bradbury, and Scott (1991) call on line process-
ing (p. 137). They suggest, however, that during the fast action of conflict discussion,
automatic cognitive processing rather than controlled cognitive processing prevails. This
important distinction (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977) refers to whether cognitive processing is
initiated deliberately and voluntarily versus whether it is triggered by events and proceeds
quickly without awareness. Because automatic processing is just that-automatic-it may
pose greater difficulties for assessment and intervention than controlled processing. How-
ever, the common therapeutic strategy of interrupting marital interaction in order to
discuss the thoughts and feelings that have arisen (Jacobson & Holtzworth-Monroe, 1986)
is an attempt to expose, assess, and alter automatic processing. Like the psychodynamic
therapist who tried to make the unconscious conscious, the marital therapist often tries to
turn automatic processing into controlled processing.
A promising approach for explaining some of what goes on in negative engagement,
particularly the behavioral part, is coercion theory (Patterson, 1982). This theory suggests
that partners use aversive behavior to win behavior change from the other. However, each
 Sequenceof Marital ConfZict II

responds contingently to the aversive behavior of the other with aversive counter reactions.
The negative interaction escalates as partners shape each other into exhibiting more and
more aversive actions and counteractions. While each may achieve some short-term goals
of forcing a concession on the partner or injuring them with a telling remark, the overall
result is an aversive exchange for each where each increasingly uses pain to influence the
others behavior.

Mutual Positive Engagement. Positive engagement is a mirror image of negative engage-

ment. In this approach partners take a cooperative, prosocial stand in which they disclose
their feelings and positions, seek areas of agreement, negotiate and compromise on possi-
ble solutions, and express trust in the other. Some theorists have labeled this an integrative
strategy of conflict resolution (e.g., Canary & Cupach, 1988).
Not surprisingly, the empirical data indicates that nondistressed couples are more likely
to show this strategy of mutual positive engagement than distressed couples. The observa-
tional literature has indicated that satisfied couples during problem-solving are more
likely to express approval and caring, empathy, problem solution, and problem descrip-
tion. Satisfied couples are also more likely to demonstrate positive affect (see Weiss &
Heyman, 1990 for a review).
Self-report measures of positive engagement are also highly associated with marital
satisfaction. For example, scores on the Marital Communication Inventory (Bienvenu,
1970) that assess such communication factors as regard, empathy, self-disclosure, and
discussion are highly correlated with measures of marital satisfaction (see Baucom &
Adams, 1987 for a review). Recently, Christensen and Shenk (1991) showed that their self-
report measure of mutual constructive communication, which assessed mutual discussion
of problems, expression of feelings, understanding of views, negotiation of solutions, and
resolution of problems, distinguished between nondistressed couples, clinic couples prior
to therapy, and divorcing couples.

Immediate Outcome

Once a conflict discussion is concluded, partners are liable to experience a range of

cognitive and affective reactions. After the conflict is over they have more time to analyze
why it happened and sort out their feelings about it than they did during the rapid action
of the conflict. Spouses are likely to engage in a search for explanations for the conflict and
for their partners behavior during the conflict. A large body of research on cognition in
marriage has shown that distressed couples interpret their partners behavior in ways that
maximize its negative impact and minimize its positive impact. Distressed couples are
likely to see the cause of negative events as located in the partner, as reflecting stable and
global characteristics of the partner, and as being intentional, selfishly motivated, and
blameworthy. For positive events, distressed couples are likely to see the cause as located
outside of the partner, as reflecting unstable and specific traits of the partner, and as being
unintentional and reflecting selfish and blameworthy motivations. The findings for non-
distressed couples are the opposite, in that they make attributions that maximize the
impact of positive behavior and minimize the impact of negative behavior (see Bradbury
& Fincham, 1990; Fincham et al., 1991 for reviews).
It is important to note that this attribution research has not been conducted directly
following a conflict. Instead, distressed and nondistressed couples have been asked to
evaluate hypothetical and real partner behavior considered in isolation (e.g., partners are
asked to evaluate a partner behavior presented in questionnaire format). However, we are
12 A. Christensen and L. Pasch

suggesting that this research may be most generalizable to the immediate reactions follow-
ing conflict as well as to reactions to precipitating events (see above). This assumption
must of course be tested empirically.
Couples have affective as well as cognitive reactions to conflicts. Unfortunately, only a
few studies have directly examined affective reactions by having couples rate these reac-
tions immediately after a conflict discussion. Koren, Carlton, and Shaw (1980) observed
couples in a series of conflict tasks and had them rate their satisfaction with these discus-
sions. They showed that observers coding of criticism negatively predicted, while observ-
ers coding of responsiveness positively predicted satisfaction with the interactions. Heavey
et al. (in press) showed that observer ratings of demand/withdraw interaction and husband
and wife demanding behaviors were negatively associated with immediate satisfaction
with the outcome of the discussion, while husband and wife positive behaviors were
positively associated with immediate satisfaction with the outcome of the discussion. In
general, it seems likely that positive engagement will lead to immediate satisfaction with a
conflict discussion, while negative engagement, avoidance, and demand/withdraw inter-
action will lead to immediate negative reactions.
Cognitive and affective reactions following conflict are likely to interact with each other.
If spouses conclude that an argument was caused by their partners blameworthy actions,
they are likely to fuel their own anger toward their partners. Similarly, affect may cause
selective retrieval of memories that are consonant with the particular affect. Following a
conflict, an angry spouse may easily recall additional instances of partners negative
behavior but less readily recall instances of partners positive behavior (see Bradbury &
Fincham, 1987; Fincham & Bradbury, 1987).

Return to Normal

At some point after a conflict, partners return to their normal way of relating. Though a
particular conflict may have long-term consequences on their relationship, its immediate
effects are over. We know virtually nothing about the process of returning to normal. How
long does it take? When are direct attempts at reconciliation or apology necessary? What
features of the conflict determine these parameters ? This neglect in the literature is
unfortunate, because the process of recovery may be as important as the conflict itself.
Our clinical observation suggests that many couples can endure intense and painful
conflicts but recover fairly quickly from them without any apparent damage. They can
laugh at their conflicts and be forgiving of each others transgressions. Other couples seem
to experience many scars from relatively few conflicts. They are deeply hurt by the
interactions and carrying a grudge is the rule rather than the exception.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE PHASES

Up until this point, we have focused on seven sequential phases in marital conflict and
specific differences in structure and process that satisfied and dissatisfied couples evidence
at each of these phases. We have suggested that such information can inform clinical
assessment and intervention efforts by suggesting where problems may lie. What we have
not addressed is the relative importance of these phases for clinical assessment and inter-
vention.
Where should clinicians put most of their attention ? Should they help couples lower
their external stresses, train them to alter their interactional scenarios, or assist them in a
faster recovery? Unfortunately, the research does not offer much guidance in selecting the
most important phases. Of course, a therapist could give equal attention to each phase.
 Sequence of Marital COT@& 13

However, that might spread the therapeutic focus too thin, and it is likely that some stages
are more important than others. Furthermore, the importance of particular phases may
differ across couples.
We believe that the beginning and ending phases may be more important than the
middle phases because the earlier and later phases may be more amendable to interven-
tion. Changing how couples think, feel, and act during the heat of a conflict is a daunting
task. The action is too fast, the emotions too hot, the thinking too automatic. In our work
with couples, we make every effort to prevent violent or destructive actions during the heat
of a conflict. However, when violence and destruction are not threats, we focus our
therapeutic attention on the beginnings- the conflicts of interest, how stress may exacer-
bate them, and provocative events may trigger them-in the belief that understanding and
modification of these factors is relatively more easy and may reduce the likelihood and
intensity of later conflict. In addition, we focus on recovery (the return to normal) in the
belief that the period following conflict gives couples the opportunity to calm down, to
assess the conflict more rationally, and to take corrective action (see Christensen &Jacob-
son, 1991; Epstein et al., this issue).
At present these are untested beliefs of ours. Despite the many advances in research,
much is unknown about marital conflict, particularly about what interventions may alter
it. Until research provides this guidance, much will be left to the intuition and predilection
of individual practitioners.

Baucom, D. H., &Adams, A. N. (1987). A ssessing communication in marital interaction. In K. D. OLeary

(Ed.), Assessment ofmarital&cord(pp.139-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bienvenu, M. J. (1970). Measurement of marital communication. The Farnib Coordinator,19, 26-31.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1987). Affect and cognition in close relationships: Towards an integrative
model. Cognitionand Emotion, 1, 59-87.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psycholo@cal Bulletin,
107,3-33.
Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated with conflict tactics.
Jourmd OfSocial and PersonalRelationships, 5, 305-325.
Christensen, A. (1987). Detection of conflict patterns in couples. In K. Hahlweg & M. J. Goldstein (Eds.),
Understandingmayor mental disorders. The contributionoffamily mteractionresearch(pp. 250-265). New York: Family
Process Press.
Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.),
Perspectiveson maritalinteraction(pp. 3 l-52). Cl evedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of
marital interaction.Journal ofPersonality andSocial Psychology, 59, 73-81.
Christensen, A., &Jacobson, N. S. (1991). Intzgrativebehavioralcou,blestherapy. Unpublished treatment manual.
Christensen, A., & Shenk, J. L. (1991). C ommunication, conflict, and psychological distance in nondistressed,
clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal ojConsulttng and Clinical Psycholo~, 59, 458-463.
Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Commnlcation Patterns Questionmwe. Unpublished manuscript, University
of California, Los Angeles.
Cohen, S., & Spacepan, S. (1978). The aftereffects of stress: An attentional interpretation. EnvironmmtaIPsycholo-
gy and Nonverbal Behmior, 3, 43-57.
Cowen, P. C., Cowan, P. A., Heming, C., Garrett, E., Coysh, W. S., Curtis-Boles, H., & Boles, J. A. (1985).
Transitions to parenthood: His, hers, and theirs. Journal ofFam+ Issues, 6, 45 1-481.
Doherty, W. J. (1981). Cognitive processes in intimate conflict: II. Efficacy and learned helplessness. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 9, 35-44.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). Cognitive processes and conflict in close relationships: An attribu-
tion-efficacy model. Journal ofPersonality and Social P&u~logy, 53, 1106-l 118.
Fincham, F. D., Bradbury, T. N., & Grych, J. H. (1990). Conflict in close relationships: The role of intraper-
14 A. Christensen and L. Pasch

sonal phenomena. In S. Graham & V. S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Application to nchieuemnt, mental health and
inlerpersomd conflict (pp. 161-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fincham, F. D., Bradbury, T. N., & Scott, C. K. (1991). Cognition in marriage. In F. D. Fincham & T. N.
Bradbury (Eds.), T~ppzycholoy o/mrnqe. New York: Guilford.
Fogarty, T. F. (1976). Marital crisis. In P. J. Guerin (Ed.), Family fherapy~ Theory nndpmctice (pp. 325-334). New
York: Gardner.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital inferaclton: Experimental tnuesli@iom. New York: Academic.
Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). P ower and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psycholo&
Bulletin, 93, 513-538.
Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (in press). Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A
replication and extension. Jourml of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. C., & McDonald, D. W. (1982). Reactivity to positive and negative behavior in
distressed and nondistressed marital couples. Journal ofConsultiq and Clinrcal Psychology, 50, 706-714.
Jacobson, N. S., & H&worth-Munroe, A. (1986). Marital therapy: A social-learning-cognitive perspective. In
N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook ofmartfal therapy (pp. 29-70). New York: Guilford.
Jarvis, I. L. (1982). Decision-making under stress. In L. Goldberg-u & S. Brezmitz (Eds.), Handbook ofs/resr,
Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 69-87). New York: Free Press.
Kazak, A., & Marvin, R. (1984). Differences, difficulties, and adaptation: Stress and social networks in families
with a handicapped child. Farnib Relations, 33, 67-77.
K&y, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E.,
Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York: Freeman.
Karen, P., Carlton, K., & Shaw, D. (1980). Marital conflict: Relations among behaviors, outcomes, and
distress. Journal ofConsulting
and Clinical Psychology, 48, 460-468.
Levenson, R. W.. & Gottman, J. M. (1983). M arital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange.
Journal ofPersonality and So&l Px$u~logy, 45, 487-597.
Margolin, G., Talovic, S., & Weinstein, C. D. (1983). Areas of change questionnaire: A practical approach to
marital assessment. Journal ofConsullinp
and Clinical Psycholo~, 51, 920-931.
Noller, P., & White, A. (1990). The validity of the Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Psychological Assess-
ment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychoiogy, 2, 478-482.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercivefamily process. Eugene, OR: Cast&x.
Peterson, D. R. (1983). Conflict. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G.
Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 360-396). New York:
Freeman.
Raush, H. I,., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). 0 munication, conflict, and marrtige. San
Cm
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Repetti, R. L. (1989). Effects of daily work load on subsequent behavior during marital interaction: The roles of
social withdrawal and spouse support. Journal ofPersonaLly and Social Psycholo~, 57, 651-659.
Repetti, R. L. (1992). Social withdrawal as a short-term coping response to daily stressors. In H. S. Friedman
(Ed.), Hostility, coping, and health (pp. 151-165). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Robinson, J. P. (1977). How Americans use time. New York: Praeger.
Schachter, J., & OLeary, K. D. (1985). Affective intent and impact in marital communication. The American
Journal ofFami(y Therapy, 13, 17-23.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing. II: Percep-
tual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psycholo@zl RIXJ~~W,84, 127-190.
Weiss, R. L., & Heyman, R. E. (1990). Observation of marital interaction. In F. D. Fincham &T. N. Bradbury
(Eds.), Thzpsy~holo~ ofmrrla.~e (pp. 87-l 17). New York: Guilford.
Whaler, R. G., & Dumas, J. E. (1989). Attentional problems in dysfunctional mother-child interactions: An
interbehavioral model. Psycholo@ Bulletin, 105, 116-130.
Wiggins, J, S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall &J.
N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch methods in clinicalpsycholo~ (pp. 183-221). New York: Wiley.
Wile, D. B. (1981). couples therapy: A non-tradttioml approach. New York: Wiley.
Wood, J. V., S&berg, J. A., & Goldsamt, L. A. (1990). D oes affect induce self-focused attention?. Journal of
Personalily and Social Psychology, 58, 899-908.