Thursday, August 9, 2012

Reversal of Traditional Roles: a Research Proposal


Lora O'Brien
NUI Maynooth 2011 - 2012

Career Mother and Stay-at-home Father:  Does reversal of traditional roles affect the established gender-stereotype research outcome when examining demand/withdraw behaviour in dyadic relationships? 

Introduction
When researching materials for an essay, entitled: “An examination of the debate around Parental Alienation”, the author became interested in the treatment of biological gender categorisation and labelling.  For example, many of the research studies indicated that the Mother was more likely than the Father to be the Alienating Parent (such as Johnston, 2003; Baker, 2005; Baker 2006; and Bow et al, 2009), and it was unclear whether this finding was due to a female proclivity towards fearful/harmful behaviour upon relationship decline, or whether this trend could have been more clearly labelled as a ‘Primary Carer’ issue, rather than a ‘Mother’ issue.  Indeed, some of the findings indicated that when the Father was the Primary Carer (the parent with whom the children generally resided and were cared for most of the time), the likelihood of him being the Alienating Parent was similar (reference to Baker, 2006), although the sample sizes were far too limited to draw any conclusions for the general population.
On examining relationship research, in particular the body of work on demand /withdraw interactions in dyadic relationships, a similar pattern was noticed.  “In this pattern, the demander, usually the woman, pressures the other (partner) through emotional requests, criticism, and complaints, and the withdrawer, usually the man, retreats through defensiveness and passive inaction” (Christensen and Heavey, 1990, pg. 73).  This gender-stereotyped research outcome has been recorded across a number of studies (which are reviewed and detailed in the literature review below), including an observational study on demand/withdraw interaction in cross- and same- sex couples. 
The conflict structure theory of demand/withdraw behaviour, as outlined by Christensen and Heavy (1990), proposes that it is higher status and power that is the cause of woman demand - man withdraw interactions.  Men have the power, and the relationship is structured to suit them, so they withdraw from women’s demands for change.  They state:
Therefore, based on our results, we would argue that woman's role as demander results from her position in the social structure as a seeker of changes rather than from any inherent gender difference in demandingness. Being dissatisfied with the status quo, the wife engages in demanding behaviours in an attempt to create change…  Being more satisfied with the status quo, the husband engages in withdrawing behaviours to avoid change. (Christensen, Heavey, 1990, pg. 80)

If this is the case, an empirical study dealing with participants whose positions in the social structure are reversed, with the women having the greater power in the relationships and the men having less power, may yield significant results; either for or against the conflict structure perspective as a cause of demand/withdraw behavioural interaction within dyadic relationships.

Literature Review
The study of demand/withdraw interactions is intensive and on-going, in particular as this behaviour has been identified as “one of the central, and most intractable, destructive patterns of marital interaction” (Heavey et al, 1993, pg. 16).  As early as 1938, in one of the first studies ever conducted on marriage (by Terman, Buttenweiser, Ferguson, Johnson and Wilson), it was recorded that wives were complaining of their husbands’ withdrawal, while husbands complained of their wives’ complaints and criticism (referenced by Christensen, 1990, pg. 73).  This pattern has worn many labels, being called pursuer-distancer by Fogarty in 1976, appearing as the rejection-intrusion pattern referred to by Napier in 1978, and partners who are demanding-withdrawn by Wile in 1981.  This pattern is what has become most commonly referred to as the demand/withdraw pattern (Sullaway and Christensen, 1983).
Christensen and Heavy conducted a study in 1990 examining the effects of gender and social structure on the demand/withdraw pattern, which was replicated and extended by Heavey, Layne and Christensen in 1993.  In the latter study, which confirmed and extended the results of the former, the data indicated that “the common finding that women are demanding and men are withdrawing results from the additive effects of gender differences in conflict style plus the extant social structure” (pg. 25).  The authors of this study concluded that “gender-stereotyped couples are more at risk for deterioration in satisfaction because their conflict behaviour becomes more polarised and rigid over time, making it increasingly difficult for them to effectively resolve their conflicts” (pg. 25).  They posit that “couples whose interactions are the reverse of these stereotyped roles experience increasing levels of satisfaction over time, presumable because they are able to avoid a vicious cycle of polarisation and instead engage in more flexible and constructive problem resolution” (pg. 25).  The results of this proposed research could support or negate these conclusions.
In 2000, Caughlin and Vangelisti focused on an alternative explanation to the conflict structure causal theory for demand/withdraw behaviour, that of individual difference.  Individual difference theories do not allow for change in the structure of the conflict depending on who has power – theorists suggest that women have been socialised to seek closeness and intimacy in relationships, to problem solve, whereas men have been socialised to be independent, and so will withdraw while women attempt to engage (Rubin, 1983), or that men are more physiologically aroused during conflict and thus try to avoid it’s negative impact (Gottman and Levenson, 1986).  Their study concludes that while “power differences between men and women are a major determinant of the demand/withdraw pattern” (pg. 545), “several individual difference constructs, rather than only the desire for more closeness or more autonomy, influence couples’ tendency to engage in demand/withdraw communication” (pg. 546).  These include such variable factors as:
·         Desire for more closeness
·         Personality variables such as neuroticism, agreeableness and extraversion
·         Predisposition toward conflict (measured by argumentativeness, conflict locus of control, and flexibility)
It would certainly be fair to say that there is more to just gender involved in predicting a demand/withdraw pattern.
In a European study in 2005 (Verhofstadt, Buysse, De Clerco and Goodwin), the researchers wanted to empirically test the assumptions of physiological reactions being a contributive factor to this pattern, and so examined the influence of gender, conflict structure, and demand/withdrawal on emotional arousal and negative effect in marriage.  Their data revealed that “when their wife raises an issue, husbands try to avoid this discussion by withdrawing from the interaction.  Furthermore, they are less demanding in this kind of discussion, as opposed to discussions in which they are the agent of change” (pg. 463).  They read the data to suggest that “lower levels of avoidance and higher levels of engagement during marital conflict may be a strategy for wives aimed to diminish the intensity of their emotions in marital conflict”, due to the observation that “women are more emotionally invested in their marriages than men, and therefore prefer to discuss and confront marital stressors instead of avoiding them” (pg. 463).  They say that “future research on what exactly accounts for this gendered pattern in emotional reactivity would be interesting” (pg. 464).
The work of Eldridge, Sevier, Jones, Atkins, and Christensen in 2007 finds that, yet again “men are more likely to withdraw and women are more likely to demand” (pg. 224).  This study investigated the demand/withdraw pattern in 182 couples, in all states of marital distress (or none), and so is largely representative of marital interaction.  They found that variables such as distress level and marriage length contributed to determination of demand/withdraw roles (pg. 224).  They also found something significant in examining gender roles:  that although there was little or no gender disparity in roles if the discussion centred on change in the wife, “when the discussion was centred on the husband changing, whether the change was sought by the wife… or by the husband himself…, there was a gender-stereotyped difference in roles” (pg. 225).  Are men more resistant to change, bringing about the gender- stereotyped demand/withdraw patterns during interaction - and if so, why is this the case?  This may be explained by testing the conflict structure theory; that men do not see a reason to change the status quo in which they hold power.
In 2010 we come back around to the conflicting hypotheses on what is thought to be causal/primarily responsible for gender-stereotype differences in demand/withdraw behaviour, and in a study by Baucom, McFarland and Christensen the issue is looked at with a new focus; observed interaction in cross- and same-sex couples.  75 couples participated; 20 married straight, 20 unmarried straight, 20 unmarried lesbian, and 15 unmarried gay male couples.  Their findings indicated that “partners in all relationships are comparably resistant to granting changes desired by their partners” (pg. 240), and in this study, “sex differences in overall demand-withdraw behaviours replicate well-established differences in the overall pattern of demand-withdraw behaviours of women and men (i.e. women demand at significantly higher levels than men and men withdraw at significantly higher levels than women” (pg. 240).  To conclude, they state that “demand/withdraw behaviours were found to occur similarly across same- and cross-sex couples” (pg. 241), that “women demanded at higher levels than men, and men withdrew at higher levels than women” (pg. 241), and that “all partners were more likely to be in a demanding role during their own topic than during their partner’s topic” (pg. 241).

Research Design and Implementation
So, it has been shown in existing research outcomes that there is an accepted, measurable gender-stereotype pattern in which women demand and men withdraw during dyadic relationship conflict and interaction.  This pattern may be due to a number of factors, but it does hold true throughout every study we have examined here.  And starting with the earliest studies in 1938, a time when men’s status and power was socially and traditionally assured, it has been recorded that it is the women who criticise, complain, and are overly emotional. 
Depending on which causal theory you subscribe to, we find that the pattern can be explained by:
a)      individual difference explanation; women have had to use their natural/socialised inclinations towards problem solving and emotional engagement to elicit change in their relationships, while men seek independence
b)      power structure explanation; women have had to struggle against male status, privilege and complacency, striving to gain enough power to bring about the desired relationship changes. 
In their 1993 study, Heavey et al speculated that:
“gender-stereotyped couples are particularly at risk for deterioration in satisfaction because their conflict behaviour becomes more polarised and rigid over time, making it increasingly difficult for them to effectively resolve their conflicts.  Couples whose interactions are the reverse of these stereotyped roles experience increasing levels of satisfaction over time, presumably because they are able to avoid a vicious cycle of polarization and instead engage in more flexible and constructive problem resolution.”  (pg. 25)

In a reversed role situation, such as we may find in many homes today – where the woman is the main earner, living and working in a socially accepted position of power and status, while the man is raising children and working within the home environment, in a less socially accepted and dependent position – will the research outcome show a similar gender-stereotyped demand/withdraw pattern?
According to theory a), in such a situation the role reversal will make no difference, as the woman has been socialised “to be highly relationship oriented and to seek closeness and intimacy” (Heavey, Layne, Christensen, 1993, pg. 17), therefore the wives will replicate the demanding behaviour during conflict interaction which has been observed and reported in other studies, as seen in the literature review.  According to theory b), when women are in a situation where they (instead of men) “have greater power in a relationship, they have nothing to gain by discussing problems with their partner and may benefit from avoidance” (Heavey, Layne, Christensen, 1993, pg. 17), so it is their husbands who will replicate the demanding behaviour during conflict interaction which has been observed and reported (in women) in other studies. 
A large proportion of the research has taken a social/conflict/power structure perspective, a focus that was highlighted by Caughlin and Vangelesti (2000), when they researched instead from an individual difference perspective.  If the social structure perspective is the one which a majority of experts adhere to, it would follow that theory b) above will hold true.  Therefore during a conflict scenario in which traditional gender-stereotypes are reversed, the author would hypothesise that:  Wives will withdraw (Hypothesis 1a), and Husbands will demand (Hypothesis 1b).

Methodology
Overview:  4 groups, with 20 couples in each group, in matched pairs, to complete an initial questionnaire to identify topics for discussion, then to discuss 1 partner’s topic for 20 minutes, have a 20 minute refreshment break in which they complete a qualitative questionnaire detailing their emotional response to the discussion, then repeat the cycle; discuss the other partner’s topic, refreshment break and questionnaire. 

Participants
Due to the specific nature of their recruitment, it would be difficult to ensure complete single blind participation across all groups.  Participants will be recruited for participation in ‘a study of emotional reactions to communication in romantic relationships’, without mention of conflict or demand/withdraw behaviours, and will be compensated accordingly for their time.  They will complete a consensual qualitative research (CQR) questionnaire after each discussion, to measure their emotional self-response status after each topic – with this form to be constructed as recommended by Hill, Thompson and Williams (1997).  Participants will be told that this data collection is the entire purpose of the study.  The emotional response questionnaire will also add secondary qualitative data to the primary quantitative observational data which this study will record.
The ethics of recording the participants without their knowledge, and non-disclosure prior to the research should be carefully considered.  Full explanation, disclosure and right to withdraw will be given to all couples upon de-briefing, immediately after their session has finished.  This will allow for voluntary informed consent to be given before the data is studied and collated, but prevents evaluation apprehension during the course of the research.
For the purposes of this proposal, we will take ‘husband’ to mean the male partner in both a married or co-habiting couple, and ‘wife’ to mean the female partner in either a married or co-habiting couple.  As caring for children in the home is the traditional ‘woman’s work’, and the stay-at-home father is the most socially obvious reversal of roles, it would be most useful to research couples who have children as a standard across the study.
Criteria for inclusion will be that eligible couples:
·         must have been married (and living together) or co-habiting (and in the relationship) for at least a year by date of research
·         must have a child or children (living with them)
·         must be at least 18 years of age
Suggested sample would be a minimum of 20 couples per group, in 4 groups, balanced to provide ‘normal’ baselines within 2 matched pairings, as follows:


Group 1 – Standard, Traditional Roles.                20 couples in which the husband is the primary wage earner, and the wife stays at home taking care of the child/children.
Group 2 – Standard, Reversed Roles.                 20 couples in which the wife is the primary wage earner, and the husband stays at home taking care of the child/children.


Group 3 – Alternative, Traditional Roles.            20 couples in which there is a specifically chosen and agreed/decided relationship structure, where the husband is the primary wage earner, and the wife stays at home taking care of the child/children.
Group 4 – Alternative, Reversed Roles.              20 couples in which there is a specifically chosen and agreed/decided relationship structure, where the wife is the primary wage earner, and the husband stays at home taking care of the child/children.


Due again to the specific requirements of this study, opportunity sampling will be necessary.  Research on the target population - namely, married/co-habiting couples as defined in the groups above – has afforded a number of venues from which to recruit suitable participants. 
For Groups 1 and 2, the matched pair of ‘standard’ couples, there are many websites and forums world-wide which are designed and run for stay-at-home mothers, or for stay-at-home fathers, including the popular Irish site www.Dads.ie.  In these Groups, the roles may be chosen and deliberate, they may be financially practical, or they may be forced by circumstances such as unemployment or disability.   Advertising through the online sites will likely yield the required sample. 
For Groups 3 and 4, the matched pair of ‘alternative’ couples, we will need to review relationships only in which the roles are specifically and deliberately chosen, and in which both spouses are comfortable and content.  Modern exploration of sexuality and relationships has fostered large alternative communities in which female strength and power is celebrated, and indeed, sought after.  There are couples within these communities who live their daily lives in relationships that are specifically structured around the woman’s power and status, within a larger social environment in which female dominated relationships are entirely supported.  To access and recruit these couples, advertising can be achieved through websites such as www.fetlife.com (a self-proclaimed “Facebook for kinksters”), and fliers or word-of-mouth through Irish venues such as monthly social/support networking meetings (currently run in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Sligo), and the Sexuality Studies course currently run by Heinz Lechleiter (acting head) at Dublin City University. 

Procedures
To determine suitable topics for each couples interaction, couples will be brought to the testing site, and begin by each completing a self-report questionnaire, designed to identify problem areas within their relationship.  While the couple are on a 20 minute refreshment break, the experimenter then chooses topics for discussion based on the data received, with the constraints that the levels of dissatisfaction for each partner’s issue will be as equal and as high as possible, and also that the same issue will not be chosen for 2 partners to discuss.  If both highlighted high levels of dissatisfaction with the same issue, the next highest issue for each will be chosen to discuss. 
This process will highlight 2 topics, one of which has been identified as a particular problem by each spouse, which the couples are instructed to discuss within a 20 minute time frame, and complete a self-report questionnaire on their emotional state directly afterward.  The starting order for topic discussion for each couple will be alternated randomly each time, as will the order of reviewing for the experimenter, e.g. wife’s topic, then husband’s topic, or vice versa.  The couples proceed to discuss their first topic, with no knowledge that they are being visually and aurally recorded.  There is a 20 minute break for refreshments, and to fill in the questionnaire, and then the second topic is discussed, with another refreshment and questionnaire break afterwards.  The couples are then de-briefed, and permissions given.  In this de-briefing session, it is essential that: 
ü  The true primary purpose of study – observation of patterns - is clearly explained to participants
ü  Full explanation, disclosure and right to withdraw before recordings are examined
ü  The agreed compensation is to be provided regardless of consent, to ensure this is not a factor in receiving participant permission. 
ü  Should a couple, or an individual, refuse to provide full consent for further procedure, that couples recording is deleted from the files and from the study immediately
The experimenter later examines the visually recorded material for physical evidence of demand/withdraw behaviour.  Material to be reviewed will include examination of the initial questionnaire response sessions, both of the 20 minute discussions, and both of the refreshment/questionnaire breaks in the observations.

Measures
Problem areas identification:  Initial survey questionnaire designed to determine the topics for discussion.  This can be based on the ‘Problem Areas Inventory’ (Heavey, 1991, referred to in Baucom et al, 2010), a 7 point Likert-type scale in which respondents rate their dissatisfaction with their partners (ranging from 0 –‘completely satisfied’, to 6 –‘very dissatisfied’) over 22 areas of their relationship. 
Demand/withdraw observation will again be a 7 point Likert-type scale, where the experimenter rates each partner along the scale from 0 (none) to 6 (highest), depending on how clearly they display each of the 6 behavioural dimensions we will test for.  The 6 dimensions will be divided into 2 subscales; demand, and withdraw.  The demand subscale will consist of discussion (tries to discuss the problem, is engaged and emotionally involved in the discussion whether it makes him or her happy or upset), blames (blames, accuses or criticises the partner/uses critical sarcasm or character assassinations), and pressures for change (requests, demands, nags or otherwise pressures for changes in the partner/the partner’s behaviour).  The withdraw subscale will consist of avoidance (avoids discussing the problem by hesitating, changing topics, diverting attention, or delaying the discussion), emotionally withdraws (becomes silent, refuses to discuss topic, looks away, or disengages from discussion), and physically withdraws (folds arms, turns his or her back on the partner, moves to a different area in the room, or leaves the room).  This observational rating system is based on the Conflict Rating System as described by Heavy, Layne and Christensen (1993, pg. 19), and a suggested example is included in Appendix One.
The emotional response questionnaire will follow the consensual qualitative research (CQR) procedure (Hill et all, 1997), using open-ended questions to gather data, using words to describe phenomena, recognizing the importance of context, using an inductive analytic process, and verifying results by systematically checking against the raw data.  “The three steps for conducting CQR are developing and coding domains, constructing core ideas, and developing categories to describe consistencies across cases (cross analysis).” (Hill et all, 1997, Abstract, pg. 517).

Discussion and Limitations
This study will be limited by the opportunistic sampling which is necessary to identify the specific participants.  Results may not be reflective of the wider population, though it could be argued that if the recommended number of target participation sample is achieved, the numbers would be sufficient to allow for a fair indicator within the target population.  Double blind procedure is not achievable within the parameters as defined here, and single blind only partially achieved in that participants know they are being studied, but not exactly what for.  A more natural environment (outlined below), combined with the partial single blind procedure described, will limit the effects of evaluation apprehension to an acceptable degree.  Experimenter training has not been indicated within the existing procedure outlined here, but would ensure a more standardised observational record, as would using a team to make decisions by consensus, and enlisting external auditors to review data.  There are also potential limitations concerning investigator effects, unnatural environment, and inability to withdraw, controls for which are suggested as follows.
Limitations – investigator effects
As previous research has shown that partners are more likely to be in demanding role during their own topic (Baucom et al, 2010), the experimenter will select one of the three identified problem areas from each questionnaire without knowing whether it is the husband’s, or the wife’s, questionnaire that they are reviewing.  This will control for investigator expectancy on this issue.
Limitations – unnatural environment
The study area will be set up to allow for as natural an environment as possible.  Conflict discussion is most likely to happen in the home; therefore a homely domestic environment is desirable.  Participant couple will be greeted and inducted in a ‘kitchen’ room, with tea/coffee making facilities, snacks, a radio, and some popular magazines.  Emphasis will be placed on relaxation, and participants encouraged to “make yourself at home”.  The couples will be guided through two other rooms, each set out as ‘sitting room’ or ‘living room’ areas, with a desk and chair, television, stereo and music collection, books and magazines openly in evidence.  This will introduce the acceptability of movement from room to room.   Each partner will complete their questionnaires in private, in a separate living room area, after the experimenter has withdrawn from the study environment.  This allows for the idea of individual or even private space for each participant, with the kitchen area being viewed/used as a ‘common room’.
Limitations – inability to withdraw
“More extreme withdrawing behaviours, such as leaving the room, refusing to respond, or starting to do something else (e.g. read a book) may have been prevented by the study procedures that asked partners to discuss one topic for the full length of time.” (Baucom et al, 2010, pg. 240)
As participants will be unaware that they are being recorded, or of the exact nature of the study (being told it is ‘a study of emotional reactions to communication in romantic relationships’), they will be more relaxed during the discussions and refreshment/questionnaire breaks.  They are not given instruction to resolve the topic issue, nor do they think they will be required to do anything other than report on their emotions post discussion.  In addition, there will be 3 rooms in the study area, as described above, in order to allow for natural physical withdrawal, should this be desired by the participants.
Overall, it is hoped that a study such as outlined here would begin to answer the question on whether previously observed gender-stereotype research outcomes are affected by the reversal of traditional gender roles, and would open the door for further examination of gender-stereotypes.
Addendum:   During proposal presentation, the question was raised of whether gender-stereotyped roles are defunct, or outgrown, in modern society.  The author’s response, based on personal experience, was that this is not the case, but that should social/power structure prove to be irrelevant during the course of further research, this would be a desirable progressive outcome.
Word Count:  4,222

APPENDIX ONE
DEMAND/WITHDRAW OBSERVATION SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
Please familiarise yourself with the required observations as per questions below, then review the entire recording/s, taking counts as necessary (checklist provided).  Then proceed to answer the questions below, one set per topic.

Topic Under Discussion:                _____________________________________

How often have you observed this spouse attempting to physically withdraw, e.g. folding arms, turning his or her back, moving to a different area of the room, doing something else or leaving the room? 
Husband
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly








Wife
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly









How often have you observed this spouse attempting to engage in blame, e.g. blaming, accusing, criticising, using critical sarcasm, or using character assassination?
Husband
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly








Wife
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly









How often have you observed this spouse attempting to avoid the issue, e.g. hesitating, changing topics, diverting attention or delaying the discussion?
Husband
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly








Wife
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly









How often have you observed this spouse attempting to pressure for change, e.g. requesting, demanding, nagging, or otherwise pressuring for change in their partner’s behaviour/self?
Husband
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly








Wife
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly








How often have you observed this spouse attempting to emotionally withdraw, e.g. becoming silent, refusing to discuss the topic, looking away or disengaging from the discussion?
Husband
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly








Wife
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly









How often have you observed this spouse attempting to discuss the topic, e.g. tries to discuss the problem, is engaged and emotionally involved in the discussion whether it makes him or her happy or upset?
Husband
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly








Wife
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never
Not a Lot
Irregularly
Balanced
Regularly
A Lot
Constantly












FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE

Checklist per topic, Tick box as Behaviour is Observed:
Behaviour

























































Requesting




























Demanding




























Nagging




























Pressuring




























Discussing




























Engaged




























Emotionally Involved




























Folding Arms




























Turning the Back




























Moving Away




























Doing Something Else




























Leaving the Room




























Hesitating




























Changing Topic




























Diverting Attention




























Delaying Discussion




























Becoming Silent




























Refusing to Discuss




























Looking Away




























Disengaging from Discussion




























Blaming




























Accusing




























Criticising




























Critical Sarcasm




























Character Assassination

























































Anything Else?
























































































BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, A. (2005) ‘The Long-Term Effects of Parental Alienation on Adult Children: A Qualitative Research Study.’ The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33 (4) 289-302.

Baker, A. (2006) ‘Patterns of Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Qualitative Study of Adults Who were Alienated from a Parent as a Child.’ The American Journal of Family Therapy, 34 (1) 63-78.

Baucom, B., McFarland, P., Christensen A. (2010) 'Gender, Topic, and Time in Observed Demand–Withdraw Interaction in Cross- and Same-Sex Couples.' Journal of Family Psychology, 24 (3), 233–242.

Bow, J., Gould, J. and Flens, J. (2009) ‘Examining Parental Alienation in Child Custody Cases: A Survey of Mental Health and Legal Professionals.’ The American Journal of Family Therapy, 37 (2) 127-145.

Caughlin, J., Vangelisti, A. (2000) ‘An Individual Difference Explanation of Why Married Couples Engage in the Demand/Withdraw Pattern of Conflict.’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17 (4-5), 523-551.

Christensen, A., Heavey, C. (1990) ‘Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital interaction.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (1), 73-81.

Eldridge, K., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D., Christensen A. (2007) 'Demand–Withdraw Communication in Severely Distressed, Moderately Distressed, and Nondistressed Couples: Rigidity and Polarity During Relationship and Personal Problem Discussions.' Journal of Family Psychology, 21 (2), 218–226.

Fogarty, T. (1976) ‘Marital crisis’. In P. J. Guerin (Ed.), Family therapy: Theory and practice (pg. 325). New York: Gardner Press

Gottman, J., Levenson, R. (1986) 'Assessing the Role of Emotion in Marriage.' Behavioral Assessment, 8 (Vol. unknown), 31-48.

Heavey, C., Layne, C., Christensen, A. (1993) ‘Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension.’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61 (1), 16–27.

Heavey, C. (1991) ‘Causes and consequences of destructive conflicts in romantic relationships: Cognitive, affective, and behavioural predictors of course and outcome.’ (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.

Heckerling, P.  (2005) ‘The Ethics of Single Blind Trials.’ IRB: Ethics and Human Research , 27(4) 12-16.  [Consulted but not quoted]

Hill, C., Thompson, B., Nutt Williams, E.  (1997) ‘A Guide to Conducting Consensual Qualitative Research.’ The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4) 517-572.
Johnston, J. (2003) ‘Parental Alignments and Rejection: An Empirical Study of Alienation in Children of Divorce.’ The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31(2) 158-170.

Napier, A. (1978) ‘The rejection-intrusion pattern: A central family dynamic.’ Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 4 (1), 5-12.

Rubin, L. (1983) Intimate Strangers: Men and women together. New York, Harper & Row.

Sullaway, M., Christensen, A. (1983) ‘Assessment of dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45 (3), 653-660.

Terman, L., Buttenweiser, R., Ferguson, L., Johnson, W., Wilson, D. (1938) Psychological factors in marital happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wile, D. (1981) Couples therapy: A non-traditional approach. New York: Wiley.

Verhofstadt, L., Buysse, A., De Clerco, A., Goodwin, R. (2005) 'Emotional arousal and negative affect in marital conflict: The influence of gender, conflict structure, and demand-withdrawal.' European Journal of Social Psychology, 35 (4), 449–467.






1 comment:

Tyler Worgan said...

Well written article I must say.Thanks for sharing with us.
professional dissertation writing service