Baylor Communication Behavior Coding System (BCBC)

By: Keith Sanford

Last Updated: September 1, 2006

This manual describes a system for coding behavior in married couples during interactions that involve relationship conflict. The coding system is intended for use in research settings where couples are first asked to identify and area of conflict in their relationship, and then asked to discuss and attempt to resolve the issue while their conversation is video recorded. The focus of this coding system, then, is on different types of communication during conflict. There are several reasons why it is important to assess conflict in married couples. It may be safe to say that all marriages experience conflict from time to time – and indeed, just about any close interpersonal relationship is likely to experience at least an occasional disagreement. Conflict is also important because it can lead to variety of different outcomes in a relationship. Although there is a myth that conflict is always bad for relationships, it would be more accurate to say that only some types of conflict are detrimental. Specifically, conflict is harmful when couples use forms of negative communication that prevent the conflict from being resolved. In contrast, when couples are able to resolve their conflicts, then conflict can actually be healthy for a relationship. Thus, conflict is important because it is common, and because it has the potential to be both beneficial and harmful.

The Harmful Side of Conflict

Conflict is likely to be detrimental for a relationship when it is unresolved. Moreover, unresolved conflict is especially problematic if it is frequent, or severe, or if the conflict escalates out of control. Researchers have identified several types of negative communication behavior that interfere with a couple’s ability to resolve conflict, and these forms of negative communication predict of a wide range of negative outcomes in marriage. As might be expected, couples that frequently use negative communication tend to be unhappy in their marriages. In longitudinal studies that assess married couples over a time span of several years, a consistent finding is that negative communication during conflict predicts future declines in relationship satisfaction. Moreover, negative communication during conflict is one of the best predictors of whether or not a couple will eventually divorce. In addition, couples are at increased risk for domestic violence when they experience high levels of unresolved conflict.

Having frequent or severe unresolved marital conflict can be an intensely agonizing and painful for a couple. Along this line, one of the most common reasons that people seek psychological help is because of problems with marital conflict. Moreover, there is a strong association between unresolved marital conflict and clinical depression. Research indicates that people are more likely to become depressed when they experience high levels of marital conflict, and also conversely, problems with depression can exacerbate conflict in marriage. Given the amount of stress associated with unresolved conflict, it is not surprising that unresolved conflict is also associated with negative physiological responses in the body. In observational research conducted in medical settings, it has been found that negative communication during conflict predicts increases in stress hormones and decreases in immune system functioning.

Unresolved conflict is not only painful for the couple experiencing the conflict, but if they have children, the conflict can be difficult for their children as well. Research indicates that, when married parents experience conflict, children as young as four years old are able to tell whether or not the conflict is resolved. Moreover, although children are not typically disturbed by resolved conflict, they tend to experience negative emotional reactions to unresolved conflict. In addition, unresolved conflict in marriage can interfere with the parents’ ability to care for their children. Parents stressed by marital conflict may be less responsive and less affectionate to their children, and they may use less effective forms of discipline. If two parents have conflict over issues specifically related to child discipline, their parenting may be compromised by inconsistencies between them in their parenting style. Currently, a growing body of research indicates that high levels of negative communication between married parents have many harmful consequences for children, including delinquency, emotional problems, and poor academic performance.

These negative consequences of unresolved marital conflict are of special concern because marital conflict is a relatively common problem. Current estimates are that over 90% of people in the United States will marry at some point in their lives, and unfortunately, a large number of these marriages are likely to become distressed. The prevalence of unresolved conflict in marriage is indicated, in part, by estimates that about half of all first-time marriages will end in divorce. Presumably, many more couples experience high levels of conflict but do not divorce. Taken together, this suggests that most people will experience problems with unresolved relationship conflict at some point in their lives.

The Beneficial Side of Conflict

Although unresolved conflict can have many negative consequences, it would be a mistake to conclude that conflict is always bad. Conflict should be viewed as a natural occurrence when two unique individuals seek to establish a close interpersonal relationship. Inevitably, two different individuals will have two different sets of memories, viewpoints, perceptions, opinions, desires, and feelings. In addition, even partners with the best intentions and the deepest love will make occasional mistakes that hurt each other. Thus, conflict is a natural part of a loving relationship.

Not only is conflict natural, but it is a necessary for the development of an intimate relationship. Imagine, if you can, a marriage (or any other close interpersonal relationship) with no conflict. Imagine having a partner that agreed with everything you ever said and did, and that always liked everything you liked. Because such a partner would merely agree with everything you ever thought or felt, you would never learn the intimate wants, needs, desires, thoughts, and emotions of this partner. You could never have an engaging conversation together. After you stated your opinion regarding any matter, the partner would agree, and the conversation would be over. To the extent that love involves accepting and valuing a unique individual for who he or she is, you could not truly love this partner, for your knowledge of this partner would be too shallow. Thus, a relationship without conflict is a relationship without intimacy.

Not only is conflict sometimes necessary for intimacy, but the mere presence of conflict can often be an indication that a relationship is intimate. When two partners trust each other and have faith in the stability of their relationship, they may feel safe to share honest feelings and desires with each other, even if such honesty leads to temporary conflict. In addition, in a close, interdependent relationship, the behavior, thoughts, and emotions of one partner will likely have consequences for the other partner, and will therefore matter to the other partner. For example, I am unlikely to become upset if I greet a stranger in the grocery store and the stranger purposefully ignores my greeting. In this situation, I wouldn’t care what the stranger thinks or does; I may not even care why the greeting was ignored, and I certainly would not voice disapproval to the stranger. The situation would be different, however, if my spouse purposefully ignored my greeting. Because my relationship with my spouse is important to me, I care about what my spouse thinks and does, and I would be concerned why my greeting was ignored. Moreover, I would probably feel irritated and I would likely pursue the matter further with my partner even if it led to a brief conflict. Thus, the more a person cares about his or her partner, the more upset that person will become if he or she perceives a problem in the relationship. This means that the threshold for experiencing conflict is much lower in a relationship that is close and intimate than it is in a relationship that is formal, superficial, or transitory.

Conflicts are also important because they can lead to increased understanding and trust between partners. For example, a wife may think that her husband is spending too much time away from home, and this could lead to a conflict. In the course of dealing with this conflict, the husband may learn about the wife’s feelings, and also, the wife may learn that the husband has well intentioned reasons for spending time away from home. In the end, the husband may be motivated to spend more time at home, and the wife may view the husband with increased empathy. Moreover, having weathered a conflict together, the couple may have a shared experience that increases their bond together, and they may have greater confidence in their ability to resolve future conflicts. In other words, the couple would have a closer, stronger relationship after resolving the conflict together.

In summary, conflicts can be both harmful and beneficial for relationships. This raises the question: what determines whether a conflict will be good or bad? One of the most important factors is whether or not the conflict is eventually resolved. Conflict becomes problematic when a couple is unable to reach some form of resolution. Notably, resolution could take many forms. For example, it could involve two partners reaching a mutually agreeable viewpoint, or negotiating a plan of action, or being able to accept each other, or in some cases, reaching an “agreement to disagree.” In general, a conflict could be regarded as being resolved when partners reach a point where they understand and feel understood by each other. If a couple is able to get to this point with their conflicts, then their conflicts are likely to be beneficial rather than harmful for their relationship.

Basic Categories of Communication Behavior

In analyzing couple’s communication during times of relationship conflict, couple’s behavior could be divided into two basic categories: positive and negative. Positive behavior is defined as behavior that moves the couple toward resolution, whereas negative behavior is defined as behavior that hinders resolution. It is important to note that this definition is based on the extent to which a behavior is likely to lead to resolution and not necessarily on the extent or severity of conflict. Thus, negative behavior is NOT equated with the presence of conflict, and conversely, positive behavior is NOT equated with the absence of conflict. The key question, then, is not whether a couple experiences conflict, but rather whether a couple resolves their conflicts.

In addition to distinguishing between positive and negative behavior, it is also useful to make a distinction between two components of communication: expression and response. One part of communication involves expressing one’s own viewpoint to a partner, and another part of communication involves responding to the partner’s viewpoint. Notably, the distinction between expression and response is somewhat artificial, and at times, the distinction can seem fuzzy. Often, a given statement is both an expression of one’s own viewpoint and a response to the partner’s viewpoint. However, for the sake of the following discussion, this distinction will be useful.

Taken together, it is useful to consider two different distinctions: (1) a distinction between positive and negative behavior, and (2) a distinction between expressing one’s own view and responding to the partner. By combining these two distinctions together, it is possible to identify four types of communication behavior:
1. Negative expressions of one’s own viewpoint
2. Positive expressions of one’s own viewpoint
3. Negative responses to the partner
4. Positive responses to the partner

These four types of communication behavior represent the four communication codes that are used in this coding system. Specifically, coding will involve assigning one score for each of these four categories of communication to each spouse for each minute of conversation. These four types of communication will be discussed in more detail below.

Distinguishing Positive and Negative Own Views

One of the judgments to be made when coding couples conflict conversations is to determine whether a person’s expression of his or her own viewpoint is positive or negative. In general, positive own views includes the polite communication of important information that is useful for resolving the conflict, and negative own views includes impolite communication of information that is not necessary for resolving the conflict.

When a couple is attempting to resolve a conflict, many types of information could be important. For example, it may be important for each partner to communicate his or her own understanding of what is causing the conflict, or how to resolve the conflict, or what defines the central problem, or useful background information that is pertinent to the conflict. In addition, important information includes one’s own perspectives, memories, thoughts, desires, opinions, and emotions. Indeed, if two partners keep their personal thoughts and feelings suppressed and hidden, then it would be virtually impossible for them to resolve a conflict. To reach resolution, both partners need to know what the conflict is about, and both partners need to know why the other is feeling upset. Thus, couples need to find a constructive way to express their own personal and internal thoughts and feelings. Overall, the most important information that one needs to communicate during a conflict is information about the self.

However, what often happens during a conflict is that, instead of expressing one’s own thoughts and feelings, a person talks about things that are external to the self. Specifically, a person talks about his or her partner, or talks about external events or alleged facts in the situation. Statements that refer to the partner often take the form of criticizing the partner for something he or she did, or blaming the partner for something, or accusing the partner of having certain thoughts or motives. When a person is talking about the partner, the person may use phrases such as: “you did,” or “you always,” or “you don’t.” Statements that refer to external events or alleged facts often take the form of a persuasive argument where a person tries to convince the partner of some truth or fact. Thus, when a person is talking about external events or alleged facts, the person may use phrases such as “it never,” or “the fact is,” or “the true way it happened is.” In contrast to these negative types of communication, when a person is talking about the self, the person may use phrases such as “I would like,” or “I feel,” or “my point of view.”

To further illustrate the difference between these types of communication, consider the following two statements that a wife might make after working hard to clean up the bedroom and then noticing that her husband threw dirty socks on the floor.

This first example would be classified as negative own views:
You left your socks on the floor again. You are always leaving your socks on the floor and you always expect me to clean up after you. When you leave dirty clothes on the floor, it attracts bugs.

This statement is negative because it focuses on what the partner did and it involves factual claims regarding the extent to which dirty clothes attract bugs. This statement does not express the extent to which the wife felt unappreciated, which is likely to be the core issue in this situation. That is, the statement focuses on what the husband did rather then on what the wife felt. Thus, the husband is likely to respond defensively. He is likely to deny that he always leaves socks on the floor, to deny that he expects the wife to clean up after him, and to dispute the claim that dirty socks attract bugs. This, in turn, could lead to an argument about socks and bugs, and such an argument is unlikely to be resolved because it totally misses the core issue.

In contrast, the next example would be classified as a positive own views:
I felt irritated when I saw your socks on the floor because I felt like you did not appreciate my attempts to keep the bedroom clean. I would feel appreciated if we could make a plan for how we can keep socks off the floor.

This statement is positive because the wife focuses on herself, what she felt, how she interpreted the situation, and what she would like. Notice that the word “you” occurs frequently in the negative statement, whereas the words “I” and “we” occur frequently in the positive statement. Also notice that because the wife is talking about her own perspective in the positive statement, she does not make claims that the husband can easily deny or dispute. Indeed, it would be odd for the husband to say, “I don’t believe you were really irritated,” or “I don’t believe you really perceived the situation that way,” or “I don’t believe you really want that plan.” Taken together, the positive statement is likely to lead toward a resolution of the conflict because it focuses the conversation on the core issue and it is least likely to elicit defensiveness from the spouse.

Another way of determining whether a statement is positive or negative is by considering the extent to which a statement is polite. Polite behavior could be defined as any behavior that indicates one’s desire to be cooperative and not adversarial. Humans may be especially attentive to whether behavior is polite. Throughout the history of human civilization, it has been important for humans to determine which people are likely to be cooperative and which people are likely to be exploitive or dangerous. On the one hand, we need people to help us. Without help from others, a single person can not raise children, obtain sufficient food, and build adequate housing. On the other hand, we need to be careful who we trust, for it is wise to be wary of people that could potentially harm or cheat us. Thus, humans in most (if not all) societies use and rely upon a complex set of signals that communicate the extent to which one intends to be cooperative and the extent to which one plans to follow the established social rules for cooperative interaction. These signals constitute what is regarded as polite behavior. Such signals could include a hand shake, a smile, or a greeting, to indicate one’s friendly intentions; or saying “please” to show that one is requesting rather than demanding something; or saying “thank you” to acknowledge receipt of another’s cooperative efforts; or addressing someone with an appropriate title to show that one intends to adhere to the socially established rules and hierarchies that govern cooperative behavior. Another way that people distinguish polite and impolite behavior is by attending to tone of voice. A whiny voice is often viewed as impolite because it indicates that a person believes something is unfair, and is therefore resisting cooperation. A harsh, staccato, or sarcastic tone of voice would be viewed as impolite because it indicates that a person is being adversarial.

Conflict resolution requires a great deal of cooperation between partners. Thus, when there is conflict in a relationship, each spouse may pay close attention to whether or not the other is being polite. By determining the politeness of a partner’s behavior, one can predict the extent to which the partner is likely to be cooperative, and one can thereby devise an appropriate strategy for addressing the conflict. When spouses appear impolite, they send each other signals that they are being adversarial. Consequently, each partner is likely to expect to be attacked, and each is likely to devise a strategy that involves counterattack and defense. This approach may be good for self protection, but it is unlikely to lead to resolution. In contrast, when spouses appear polite, they send each other signals that they want to be cooperative. Consequently, each partner is likely to devise a strategy based on trust and mutual support. Partners are thereby motivated to work as a team, to understand the other’s point of view, to express one’s own vulnerable thoughts and feelings, and to agree to changes requested by the other. In this way, polite behavior facilitates conflict resolution.

It is important to clarify that a person does not need to go overboard with manners to be considered polite. Polite behavior does not require a person to be overly obsequious, flattering, or formal. In the context of a conflict, polite behavior can be simply remaining reasonably calm and neutral during the discussion. When partners are discussing an emotional topic, it is natural for each partner to express emotion in their words and in their tone of voice. It would be a mistake to judge communication as being impolite merely because it is emotional. Indeed, to resolve a conflict, it is important for each partner to find an appropriate way to express his or her feelings to the other.

In summary, there are two basic criteria that can be used to determine whether a person’s expression of his or her own view is positive or negative. The first criterion has to do with whether the statement refers to the self, and the second criterion has to do with whether the statement sounds polite. Positive own views are statements regarding the self and they are polite. Negative own views are statements regarding the partner, or some external fact, and/or they are impolite.

Distinguishing Positive and Negative Responses

Another judgment that needs to be made when coding couples conflict conversations is to determine whether a person’s responses to the partner are positive or negative. In general, a positive response occurs with a person indicates that he or she values what his or her partner just said. A negative response occurs when a person indicates the he or she did not value what was said.

A couple needs to accomplish two tasks to successfully resolve a conflict. First, as discussed previously, each partner needs to share important information about oneself. Second, each partner needs to understand the other’s viewpoints and feelings. This means that partners need to listen carefully to each other, and moreover, each partner needs to demonstrate that he or she understands and values what the other has to say. Indeed, it does not do any good for one partner to share important information about the self if the other partner does not appear to understand or value that information. A person will not feel that a conflict is resolved if his or her statements are being devalued, ignored, or misinterpreted. Thus, feeling understood is a prerequisite to conflict resolution. In fact, in many conflict situations, couples find that once they both feel understood by the other, there is nothing more to resolve.

Conflict resolution, therefore, is most probable when each partner demonstrates that he or she values and understands what the other has to say. This can be accomplished in many ways. For example, a person may simply agree with the partner or state that he or she understands the partner. Often, understanding can be communicated with short phrases such as “yes,” or “I agree,” or “you have a good point,” or “I see why you feel that way.” At a deeper level, a person can demonstrate understanding by paraphrasing the partner or by appropriately expanding on the partner’s statements. Overall, an ideal response communicates the following message to the partner:
What you are saying is precious to me and I want to hear it. I want to listen closely so I can understand you completely.

It is important to note that, although positive responses often involve agreeing with one’s partner, it is not necessary to agree with one’s partner to give a positive response. In other words, it is possible to validate a partner without agreeing with the partner. Along this line, the following statement would be a positive response:

I understand why you want us to go to Kalamazoo. You have good reasons and I would probably feel the same if I were in your position. For me, however, I would still prefer that we not go.

This statement is a positive response because it not only expresses understanding of the partner’s viewpoint, but also indicates that the viewpoint is reasonable and based on “good reasons.” Thus, this statement validates the partner’s viewpoint even though the speaker does not agree with the partner.

In contrast to positive responses, which validate the partner’s viewpoints, negative responses devalue the partner’s statements. More often than not, a negative response involves defensiveness. A defensive response occurs when a person believes that he or she has been criticized, and consequently, wants to explain why the criticism is untrue or inappropriate. Thus, a defensive response is designed to protect oneself against a perceived attack from the partner. There are many types of defensive responses. Sometimes a person simply makes a counter attack and criticizes the partner in return. In addition, a person may deny that the criticism is true, or provide an excuse or explanation for why the criticism is unreasonable or inappropriate. A person may also argue that the criticism is misguided, based on faulty logic, and therefore not valid. The common element to all these forms of defensiveness is that they invalidate the partner’s point of view.

Although negative responses often involve defensiveness, it is possible for partner’s to invalidate each other without being defensive. For example, it would be a negative response if a person simply indicates that the partner’s viewpoint is trivial, or not related to the topic at hand, or unimportant. In addition, a person may simply attempt correct the partner or to point out flaws in the partner’s logic. Taken together, a negative response is any response indicating that the partner’s viewpoint is not valuable because it is somehow wrong, faulty, misguided, inappropriate, unreasonable, or simply not important.

Having described the general differences between positive and negative own views and responses, the following sections describe specific types of behavior that are important to notice when coding couples conflict interactions.

Types of Negative Own Views

In general, an expression of one’s own viewpoint is considered negative if it focuses on the partner, or makes claims about alleged facts, or is impolite. Specific examples of different types of statements that are considered negative own views are listed below.

Criticism: general
In general a statement is considered criticism if it focuses on the partner and suggests something negative about the partner. Typically, the person giving the criticism has good intentions. That is, the person is merely trying to point out a problem that needs to be fixed. However, as previously discussed, expressions of criticism typically elicit defensiveness from the partner. Moreover, because criticism focuses on the partner rather than the self, it typically does not express what is most important. Taken together, criticism often interferes with conflict resolution.

Criticism: “you” statement
Many criticisms begin with the word “you.” As a coder analyzing couple’s conflict communication, the word “you” should be like a red flag. The word “you” signals that a criticism is likely to follow. Below are a few examples of “you” statements.

• You left a mess in the kitchen.
• You don’t know how to fix that.
• You are making the problem worse.
• Why can’t you simply put the soap in first?

Criticism: negative attribution
Attributions are the explanations that one spouse makes for the behavior of his or her partner when something negative happens in the relationship. Researchers have made distinctions between several different types or categories of attributions. One type is called “causal attributions.” Causal attributions include the explanations people make for what directly caused a negative event to occur. Causal attributions also include the judgments people make regarding the nature and characteristics of the identified cause. For example, causal attributions include judgments regarding (1) whether the cause of the negative event is something that is internal or external to the partner, or (2) whether the cause of the negative event something global that influences other aspects of one’s marriage, or (3) whether the cause of the negative event is something stable that remains consistent over time. In addition to making attributions regarding the cause of a negative event, people can also make attributions regarding whether the partner should be held responsible or blamed for the negative event.

At the most general level, attributions could be described as being either positive or negative. Negative attributions view the partner as the cause of negative events, hold the partner responsible, and blame the partner. In contrast, positive attributions excuse the partner from blame. Table 1 provides list of different types of positive and negative attributions and examples for each type. Each example in the table is a specific attribution that a husband might make if his wife came home one hour late.

Negative attributions	Positive Attributions
Internal attribution – The husband thinks the event was caused by something internal to his wife. Example: She is irresponsible and inconsiderate.	External attribution – The husband thinks the event was caused by something external to his wife. Example: She got stuck in traffic.
Global attribution – The husband thinks the event is caused by a global problem that affects several aspects of the marriage. Example: She generally does not care if her behavior inconveniences me.	Specific attribution – the husband thinks the event is caused by something that does not affect other aspects of the marriage. Example: She has trouble keeping track of time when she forgets her watch.
Stable attribution – The husband thinks the event is caused by something that is stable and unchanging. Example: She has a habit of always being late.	Situational attribution – The husband thinks the event pertains only to a single situation. Example: She was late today, but she is usually on time.
Responsibility attribution – The husband thinks that the wife is responsible for the event and had the ability to change it. Example – She could have kept better track of time.	Non-responsibility attribution – The husband thinks that the wife is not responsible for the event because she did not have the ability to change it. Example – She can not help it if she lost track of the time.
Blaming attribution – The husband blames the wife for the event and thinks she should have acted differently. Example – She knew I was counting on her to be home on time and it is her fault my plans for the day are ruined.	Non-blaming attribution – The husband excuses the wife from blame and thinks she made the best decision possible. Example: She is late because she generously decided to spend extra time doing something to help me.

Traditionally, attributions are conceptualized as a type of cognition. That is, attributions are thoughts people have regarding the causes of an event. However, if the attributions are verbalized to a partner, they become communication behavior. Most importantly, if a negative attribution is verbalized, it is considered a type of criticism. Below are a few examples of criticism that involve negative attributions.

• The kitchen is a mess because you left it that way.
• We are short on money because you bought that new truck.
• You could have at least called me first.
• You don’t get it done because you don’t try hard enough.
• It’s your fault that we have to pay this fine.

Criticism: exaggerated statement
Exaggerated statements are simply overstated criticisms. Rather than focusing on a particular concern regarding a single incident, exaggerated statements are global and sweeping. They make the problem bigger than it needs to be. Typically, exaggerated statements accuse the partner of having long term habits and stable traits that are negative. This category of criticism actually overlaps with both global attributions and stable attributions. Like global attributions, exaggerated statements sometimes accuse the partner of doing something that causes problems in many areas. Like stable attributions, exaggerated statements sometimes accuse the partner of having a negative trait or habit that occurs frequently and has occurred over a long period of time.

Exaggerated statements are often easy to recognize because they usually contain the words “always” or “never.” A statement that includes the words “always” or “never” is rarely true. A person may yell at people frequently, but no one always yells at people. If a person is accused of always yelling at people, that person is likely to respond defensively by pointing out several instances when he or she did not yell. Similarly, a person that rarely does the dishes might become defensive if he or she is accused of never doing the dishes. Below are some examples of criticisms that are exaggerated statements.

• You never show appreciation for the things I do.
• You always interrupt me.
• You are always going out with your friends.
• You have never told me what you are feeling.

Criticism: mind reading
Another type of criticism includes statements in which a person claims to know what the other is thinking, or feeling, or wanting. It is as if the person is claiming to have accurately read the mind of his or her partner and discovered that the partner is thinking or feeling something negative. In this type of criticism, a person both indirectly implies that he or she knows what is on the mind of the partner, and criticizes the partner for what is allegedly on his or her mind. Thus, the partner is accused of having a negative thought, motive, desire, plan, or feeling. Most people to not like being told what they are thinking or feeling. Thus, people typically respond to this type of criticism by defensively denying that they have the thought or feeling of which they are accused. A common response is to simply say “that’s not true” with a whiney tone of voice. For mind reading to be classified as a type of criticism, it must be evident that the partner does not agree. Below are examples of criticisms that involve mind reading.

• You do it on purpose to annoy me.
• You don’t think that my trip is important.
• You just want me to be your servant.
• You don’t appreciate how hard I work.

Contempt
In addition to the different types of criticism discussed above, another type of negative own views includes statements involving contempt. In general, contempt is more extreme than criticism. As previously discussed, when people make critical statements, they often have good intentions in wanting to fix a problem. In contrast, statements involving contempt appear to be purposefully designed to make the partner feel bad. Contempt includes statements that are intended to hurt, devalue, demean, humiliate, or make fun of the partner. For example, calling the partner a name would clearly be contempt.

Often, contempt is expressed by using sarcasm. Thus, if a spouse is being sarcastic, chances are the statement is contempt. However, not all sarcastic statements involve contempt. The easiest way to determine whether or not a sarcastic statement involves contempt is to consider the extent to which both partners are having fun. A statement is NOT contempt if both partners appear to be enjoying the sarcasm and would be happy for the sarcasm to continue for awhile. In contrast, a sarcastic statement is probably contempt if one partner clearly does not like the sarcasm, or even if one partner merely seems a little uncomfortable with the sarcasm. Examples of statements expressing contempt are listed below.

• Why did you have to be such a moron?
• Ok, we will have you checked for Alzheimer’s then.
• You create such a pleasant home atmosphere by nagging at me non stop.
• You were being such a complete jerk about the whole thing.

Domineering
Another type of negative own views is domineering statements. When a person is being domineering, the person assumes a position of authority, expertise, dominance, power, or control. Generally, a domineering statement will sound similar to how a parent lectures or scolds a child, or tells a child what to do, or gives the child strong advice. Sometimes domineering statements are accompanied by hand gestures such as pointing or thumping with one’s fingers to emphasize key points. A spouse is being domineering if he or she assumes the role of an expert on some matter and begins explaining something to the partner, and the partner does not appear to enjoy hearing the information. Other forms of domineering include ordering the partner or making demands on the partner. In addition, statements directed toward the partner that use words like “should” or “must” are likely to be domineering. For example, it would be domineering to tell a partner what he or she should do or what he or she must do.

It is important to note that domineering involves more than merely assuming position of authority or expertise. For a statement to be domineering, the position of authority or expertise must be taken without the partner’s consent. In other words, a domineering statement is, by definition, aversive to the partner. Thus, a statement is NOT considered domineering if a person is merely providing useful or important information, or if the partner appears to want the information that is being provided. A statement is NOT considered domineering if a person is merely offering friendly advice. Rather, domineering is an unwelcome and forceful statement designed to instruct, order, control, or persuade the partner. Some examples of domineering statements are listed below.

• You agree we want to save money, right? And you agree that, to save money, we need to spend less than we make, right? And therefore, something has to give, right? And it would be best to cut something frivolous, like our deluxe cable TV package, right? If not that, then you tell me what we should cut. If you don’t like it, then you tell me a better plan.
• Well, you better clean it. I certainly am not doing it.
• You should stop whining about it and you should just tell them to go away.
• You’ve got to realize, that is just how my friends are. There is nothing you, or I , or anyone can do about it. You’ve just got to accept that.

Factual claim
Criticism, contempt, and domineering are types of negative own views that focus on the partner rather than on the self. Factual claims are negative own views that focus on something external to the self, but not necessarily on the partner. Specifically, factual claims involve statements regarding some alleged fact or some external event. Often, two spouses will have different memories regarding what took place on a particular occasion, or exactly when something happened, or how frequently some event occurs. In these cases, spouses may argue back and forth making, each making factual claims regarding what truly happened.

Research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that people’s memories for past events are often inaccurate. For example, in some studies psychologists have staged fights or robberies in front of onlookers and then asked the onlookers to describe what happened. Typically, each onlooker will have a different account of what took place. Human memory does not work like a video camera. Rather, memory involves a creative process in which information processed, interpreted, and organized in line with a person’s existing beliefs, expectations, and knowledge. This means that two married partners will almost certainly have differing memories for previous events. Thus, and argument over factual claims regarding what actually happened is likely to be futile.

In addition to claims about historical events, factual claims can include statements that simply assert the truth on some matter. On the one hand, such statements are similar to domineering statements in that the person is taking on the role of an expert. As with domineering statements, a factual claim is generally aversive for the partner. On the other hand, factual claims are different from domineering statements in that they don’t address the partner like a child. Although factual claims generally sound argumentative, they are less intimidating, forceful, or controlling than domineering statements. Examples of different types of factual claims are listed below.

• You did not get home until after ten. I know it was after ten because my television show is over at ten, and I had already turned the television of and was standing in the kitchen when you came home.
• It couldn’t possibly have been after ten when I came home. I recall looking at the clock when I left and it was a few minutes after nine, and it takes me twenty minutes at most to get home.
• I rarely do that. This is only the second time it has happened.
• I am not going to get hurt while hunting. Statistically speaking, it is more dangerous to drive a car than to hunt rabbits.

Loaded question
In some cases, criticism can be expressed in the form of a question. It is important to realize that a question almost always involves an attempt to steer a conversation in a certain direction. The person asking the question is implicitly identifying a particular issue that he or she thinks is important and asking the partner to address that issue. Consider for example a job interview. In this situation, the employer is in a more powerful position than the applicant, and the employer directs the interview by asking most of the questions. Thus, questions are often controlling. Of course, this is not a problem in normal conversation when two people equally share the responsibility for asking each other questions. However, when there is a conflict in a relationship, it is common for one person to ask questions that steer the conversation in a particular direction that favors his or her own viewpoint. Thus, in the context of a conflict conversation, questions are more often harmful than helpful.

One type of question that is especially problematic is a loaded question. A loaded question is really a statement disguised as a question. The person asking a loaded question does not actually want to learn something from the partner. Rather, the person is making a statement, and the statement is rephrased as a question. For example, the statement “I work hard to make sure that I take the trash out every Monday,” can be rephrased as a question, “When was the last time I forgot to take the trash out?” The person asking this question has not really forgotten how often he or she takes the trash out. Rather, the person is using the question to make the point that he or she has consistently taken the trash out. Thus, the question would be called a loaded question. Other examples of loaded questions are listed below.

• Who gives you the right to order me around?
• You had the phone with you, why didn’t you just call me?
• I needed to know the information yesterday. Why couldn’t you have just told me then?
• Do you think I enjoy having people yell at me?
• Well, you were an hour late. What did you expect me to do?

Impolite Statement
Negative own views can include any statement that is impolite. All of the previously discussed categories for negative own views could involve impolite statements. Although it is possible to make a polite criticism or a polite factual claim, these types of statements are frequently made impolitely. Moreover, statements that involve contempt or domineering are, by definition, impolite. Taken together, most forms of impolite behavior could be classified in one of the previously discussed categories. However, if a statement does not fit into one of the previously discussed categories, but it is made in an impolite manner, it would still be classified as negative own views. For example, a person may provide useful general information about the issue under discussion, or even important information about the self, but do so using an impolite tone of voice. Any statement that is impolite would be classified as negative own views.

Types of Positive Own Views

In general, an expression of one’s own viewpoint is considered positive if it is polite and it either focuses on the self, or provides information that is useful for resolving the conflict. Specific examples of different types of statements that are considered positive own views are listed below.

Personal information about self
The most positive expression of one’s own views involves politely sharing something personal and intimate about oneself. Personal information can include desires, emotions, opinions, and perspectives.

Personal information about self: desires
Desires include anything for which a person requests or hopes. Often, a desire involves requesting something from the partner – asking the partner to do something, or stop doing something, or change something, or agree to something. Desires also include proposed plans or solutions, as well as dreams and goals. Examples of positive own view statements that share a desire are listed below.

• I wish we had a new car
• I would like you to help me clean the house this weekend.
• What I really want is for you to appreciate how hard I work.
• I would like to have a few minutes of peace and quiet when I first get home each evening.
• I want you to not swear in front of the children.
• I would like you to do it without me having to ask.

Personal information about self: emotions
Positive expressions of emotion include any feelings or affect that a person shares politely. This includes both positive and negative emotions. Although it would be negative to feel angry and criticize the partner, it would be positive to feel angry and tell the partner. Expressions of emotion could involve feelings such as angry, annoyed, irritated, sad, hurt, lonely, and rejected. Examples of positive expressions of emotion are listed below.

• I am feeling angry about that.
• At the time, I felt hurt.
• I have been feeling stressed.
• I am feeling annoyed.
• When it happened, I felt rejected.

Personal information about self: opinions
Opinions involve a personal judgment regarding what is true, correct, wise, or appropriate. Opinions also include judgments regarding which solution or plan of action is best. Although opinions are similar to factual claims in that both types of communication can involve a statement regarding what is true, opinions are different in that the opinions are given as a personal viewpoint and not as a fact. Thus, to claim “it is a fact that. . . ” is negative, whereas to simply state “from my perspective. . .” is positive. Examples of positive sharing of opinions are listed below.

• For me, it is more important to make sure that our children get a good education than to live in a big house.
• I think it is wise to make sure we put money into our savings account each month.
• I think we could save money in the long run by upgrading our furnace now.
• What I remember is that they never have enough space.
• I think that holding hands in public is a sign that two people love each other.

Personal information about self: perspectives
Perspectives include a person’s interpretations and memories of events. If a husband is feeling angry because of something his wife did, the husband’s perspective includes his memory regarding what the wife did and his reasons for feeling angry. It is important for spouses to share their perspectives with each other because the same event could mean different things to different people. For example, consider the possible interpretations a husband could make if his wife does not take out the trash on a given day. He could think that his wife did not take out the trash: “Because it is my job and not hers,” or “Because she does not respect me,” or “Because she was busy mowing the lawn,” or “Because she is lazy.” Of course, it is also possible that this situation will not mean anything to the husband. He may not interpret the situation any more that he would ascribe meaning to why his wife puts on her left sock first and her right sock second. Clearly, different interpretations of an event can lead to different feelings, and therefore, it is useful if partners understand each other’s interpretations.

Notably, perspectives are sometimes similar to attributions in that they can involve an explanation for the partner’s behavior. However, an important difference is that a perspective is given as one’s own thoughts regarding how things appeared to oneself, whereas attributions are asserted as accurate portrayals of the partner. Thus, it is negative to claim “you did it because you are selfish,” whereas it would be positive to say, “at the time, it seemed like you just thinking of what you wanted for yourself and not considering my preferences.” Examples of positive sharing of perspectives are listed below.

• I interpreted your comment to mean that you wanted to leave the party.
• It seemed to me that you just wanted me to leave you alone.
• I don’t feel like you understand me.
• When you leave a mess in the bathroom, I feel like you don’t care about my efforts to keep it clean.

General information about the self
In addition to sharing desires, emotions, opinions, and perspectives, people can also share other, less personal, information about oneself. Compared to desires, emotions, opinions, and perspectives, general information about the self includes statements that are less intimate and less directly related to the conflict. However, general information about the self is still polite, useful information. Examples of general information about the self are listed below.

• After work, I am all worn out.
• I spent the entire day cleaning the basement.
• I have been looking for some new socks for you.
• I typically each my lunch late.

Problem description
A problem description is a statement where a partner simply describes his or her viewpoint on what the problem is. This type of statement is useful because it can help the couple identify and focus on the key issue that is causing the conflict. In general, a good problem description will have a “we” focus rather than a “you” focus. The problem is framed as something that involves both partners equally. In this way, the person giving the problem description suggests that both partners share equally in the responsibility for addressing the problem. In addition, a positive problem description is presented as one’s own personal viewpoint on the situation and not as an indisputable fact. Also, as a general rule, a positive problem description must be polite, or at least relatively neutral. Problem descriptions can include descriptions of what each person’s role appears to be in the problem, or a description of outside factors that influence the problem, or a description of different possible solutions to the problem, or a description of a key issue that needs to be addressed. Examples of polite problem descriptions are listed below.

• I think that part of the problem is that we both come home feeling tired and stressed at the end of the week.
• I think that I am more likely to do all my cleaning on Saturday, whereas you would rather do a little bit each day.
• It seems like the key thing we need to figure out is whether or not we want to use daycare for our children.
• It seems that what happened is that I wanted to watch television when you wanted to talk to me.

Task oriented information
Another type of positive own views is statements that provide important information that is useful for resolving the conflict. Task oriented information can include back ground information, information that clarifies the situation, or information that is important to consider before making a decision on a matter. For example, if the couple is discussing their vacation, it may be useful to provide information regarding the number of vacation days a person has, or the price and availability of different hotels, or the amount of travel time required to reach different destinations.

In some ways, task oriented information could seem similar to factual claims in that both types of communication involves statements regarding something that is external to the self. However, there are several important differences. Task oriented information is involves a polite statement that is unlikely to be disputed by the partner. In other words, it is information that both partners would agree is useful, valid, or important. In contrast, factual claims involve statements that are impolite, or that a partner is likely to dispute. In general, factual claims involve statements on topics that are a matter of contention between the partners. In contrast, task oriented information includes information that the partner wants to hear. Examples of task oriented information are listed below.

• Monday is a holiday and the children will be out of school all day.
• This one does not have the chrome finish, but it does have a bigger fan.
• We have enough money in our savings to get the green one right now, but we would need to borrow money to get the red one.
• My brother said he would be willing to watch the children for the weekend.

Meta-communication The term “meta” can mean to transcend or go above something in order to examine its nature or structure. Thus, meta-communication involves an objective analysis and reflection on how one is communicating with one’s partner. In other words, it is communication about communication. It occurs when a spouse takes an objective look at how the couple is communicating and then shares his or her evaluation with the partner. Often times, meta-communication involves an observation that the couple is getting off track or not focusing on the key issue. This type of communication is helpful because it can keep the couple focused on resolving the conflict. Meta communication can also include statements that clarify or organize the structure of the conversation, including whose turn it is to talk, what the topic is, or what should be discussed next. Examples of meta-communication are listed below.

• I feel like we have made some progress on this issue.
• I think we are getting off track.
• I was not finished with my point. Did you want to say something first, or should I continue?
• Sounds like we both agree that the roof needs to be fixed.

Affection and complements
In the course of discussing an area of conflict, couples will occasionally show affection for each other or complement each other. Affection and complements are useful for conflict resolution because they are a form of polite behavior that indicates the extent to which one loves his or her partner and/or the extent to which one desires to cooperate with the partner. Affection can include both verbal and non-verbal signs of affection. For example, it includes reaching out to hold the partner’s hand, or having a facial expression that shows strong empathic concern. Complements include anything that describes something positive about the partner. Examples of affection and complements are listed below.

• You do a great job spending time with the kids.
• I really appreciate that.
• Un uh, go on (said while reaching out to touch the partner)
• I love you.

Negative Response

In the normal sequence of a conversation, one person will give his or her own views regarding a matter, and then the other person will respond. The response could be a positive response that validates the partner’s previous statement, or a negative response that invalidates or ignores the partner’s previous statement. The most common type of negative response is defensiveness. Typically, people become defensive when they perceive that they have been criticized. Thus, when one partner makes a critical statement, the other partner is highly likely to follow with a defensive response. In general, defensive responses are statements designed to protect oneself from a perceived attack from the partner. With a defensive statement, a person attempts to protect the self by invalidating what the partner said. The following section describes specific types of negative, or invalidating, responses.

Refutation
A refutation simply involves refuting the partner’s previous statement. In this type of defensiveness, a person states, either directly or indirectly, that his or her partner’s previous statement is not true, or incorrect, or not accurate. Refutation also includes comments intended to correct something the partner said. For example, if the wife complained, “this is the fourth time this week that you have watched sports on television,” it would be considered refutation if the husband responded by saying, “I have only watch sports twice this week.” To an extent, refutation overlaps with other forms of defensiveness because most types of defensiveness involve at least a degree of refutation. Examples of statements involving refutation are listed below.

• That’s not true.
• I have never done that.
• That’s not the way it happened.
• No, I wasn’t late. In fact, I was five minutes early.

Deny fault
If a person is accused of wrongdoing by a partner, in some cases, a person may agree with the partner’s description of what actually occurred, yet disagree that he or she did anything wrong. In this case, the person would be denying fault. In denying fault, the person focuses, not on whether he or she engaged in an alleged behavior, but rather, on why he or she should not be blamed for this behavior. Thus, a person may deny fault by stating that his or her behavior was appropriate, expected, or inevitable, and that the partner’s accusation is unreasonable, misguided, or illogical. In addition, a person can deny fault by making excuses, or giving explanations for one’s own behavior.

• There is nothing I can do about it.
• It is just natural, all men do that.
• The reason I did that is because I am concerned about the safety of our children.
• Well, if I didn’t nag, nothing would ever get done.

Yes butting
Yes butting occurs when a person first seems to agree with the partner and then proceeds to invalidate the partner. This type of defensiveness is called “yes butting” because people often begin their sentence with the words “yes, but.” The word “yes” gives an initial assent and the word “but” is followed by a rebuttal. The rebuttal could be any form of defensiveness. Thus, “yes butting” is simply any form of defensiveness that is preceded by a statement that indicates agreement with the partner. The rebuttal suggests that the initial agreement was not genuine. To be considered a “yes but,” both the initial assent and the subsequent rebuttal need to be part of the same response. Below is an example of a conversation filled with “yes but” statements.

• Yes, but sometimes you spend a long time playing computer games.
• Yah, but I only do it on Saturdays.
• Well yes, but Saturdays are the main time we have time to do stuff together.
• I do not disagree, but it is also the only chance I get to play computer games.
• Yes, but I don’t think you need to play every Saturday.
• That’s true, but you spend time reading the paper every Saturday, and you don’t need to do that either.
• Yes, but reading the paper is different from computer games. I think it is important to stay informed on what is happening in the world.

Counter attack
Sometimes people respond to a perceived criticism from the partner by returning criticism. In this way, spouses may engage in a battle of exchanging criticisms. Each counter attack is both a negative own view and a negative response to the partner. This type of exchange could be described as “cross complaining.” Often, this type of exchange has the quality of a children’s argument. Sometimes the person defending oneself merely levels the same accusation back at the partner. For example, after being accused of being messy, the person might say, “How can you accuse me of being messy? You are the one always making a mess.” This pattern of exchange seems to follow the children’s argument “I’m rubber and you are glue. Everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.” A counter attack is particularly dangerous because it can make a conflict snowball as each partner adds new criticisms to the list. Examples involving counter attack are listed below.

• Partner A: “You always leave a mess in the kitchen when you cook.” Partner B: “Well, you leave a mess in the bedroom each morning.”
• Partner A: “You always accuse me of not helping take care of the children.” Partner B: “You are always watching television, and you leave me to do all the work.”
• Partner A: “You didn’t give me a hug when I needed it.” Partner B: “You expect me to magically know when you need comfort and then you blow it out of proportion if I don’t notice.”

Missing the point
A subtle form of negative responding occurs when a person appears to have missed the point of what his or her partner said. To be considered a form of negative response, missing the point should involve either poor listening or an intentional disregard for the partner’s viewpoint. A response should NOT be considered negative, however, if a person makes a sincere effort to understand the partner, yet there is a genuine misunderstanding. Rather, a response should be considered missing the point only when a person fails to give a sufficient amount of effort into understanding his or her partner. This could include situations in which a person is not listening carefully to his or her partner, and also to situations in which a person intentionally ignores or distorts the partner’s communication. Often, the person missing the point appears to be arbitrarily changing the topic. In addition, when a person misses the point, his or her response may not seem logically connected to the partner’s previous statement. Missing the point is invalidating because it gives one’s partner the impression that his or her viewpoint is not sufficiently important to receive consideration, or not worth understanding, or not worth a thoughtful response. Examples in which one partner is missing the point are listed below.

• Partner A: “When we go to parties with our friends, I feel like you abandon me.” Partner B: “That party at the Smith’s house last month was a real dud. Next time they have a party, I think we should stay home.”
• Partner A: “On Saturdays the house is a mess, and you won’t help, so I get stuck cleaning it all.” Partner B: “Why don’t you clean the house on Thursday evenings instead?”
• Partner A: “I had a long day. Traffic was terrible all the way home, and you don’t seem to care that I’m tired and stressed.” Partner B: “I keep trying to tell you that traffic is better if you take 8th street.”

Nitpicking
Another form of invalidation occurs when a person corrects some trivial detail in the partner’s previous statement. This is similar to missing the point in that a person fails to respond to the partner’s main point, and instead redirects the focus of the conversation onto some other topic. In the case of nitpicking, this redirection involves correcting a perceived error that the partner made. For example, if a husband is states, “When our son lost his lunch box last Wednesday, you yelled at him for no reason,” it would be nitpicking if the wife responded by saying, “He lost his lunchbox on Thursday, not Wednesday.” Often, a person engages in nitpicking with good intentions. The person is simply trying to fix a perceived mistake in the partner’s statement, or a perceived deficiency in the partner’s understanding of some topic. Often, nitpicking is similar to refutation in that a nitpicking person may claim that his or her partner’s statement is not true or accurate. However, nitpicking is milder than refutation, in part because nitpicking is not necessarily defensive, and because it does not involve attempt to negate the main point of the partner’s statement. To be considered nitpicking, the response should appear to be mildly annoying to the partner; it should pertain to irrelevant information, and it should interrupt the flow of the conversation. Thus, a quick clarification that does not annoy the partner and that does not distract the partner from his or her main point would not be considered nitpicking. Examples involving nitpicking are listed below.

• Actually, the reason the computer does that is because you are holding the shift key down.
• The word is pronounced “wash,” not “warsh.” There is no “r” in it.
• That happened after my parents left, not while they were still here.
• Actually, it is not technically accurate to say that phone is free, the cost is incorporated into their startup fee.

Impolite verbal and nonverbal cues
A response can also be invalidating simply because of the way it is stated. Often times, when people are being defensive, they speak with a high pitched, whining tone of voice. They may emphasize certain words that highlight how much they disagree with the partner. For example, after being accused of forgetting to buy milk, a wife might say, “but I did buy milk, we just used it up quickly,” and she might place emphasis on the word “did” by saying it louder or by extending the word longer and speaking with a whining tone of voice. In addition, nonverbal cues such as sighing or rolling one’s eyes (looking up toward the ceiling with an exasperated facial expression) can be signs of invalidation. Thus, when evaluating the extent to which a statement is defensive, it is important to pay attention to a person’s verbal and nonverbal cues.

Positive Response

In general, a response is considered positive if it highlights the validity or value of the partner’s statement. In a perfectly positive response, a person essentially gives his or her partner a message that “The things you have to tell me are precious to me, and I really want to hear and understand you.” There are several ways that a response can be validating. For example, validating responses include identifying ways in which the partner’s statement is true, accurate, understandable, reasonable, or logical. A response is also validating if it demonstrates empathy for the partner, or if it demonstrates an accurate understanding of the partner, or if it demonstrates a sincere desire to understand the partner. The following section describes specific types of positive responses.

Assent (but NOT a “yes but”)
On the one hand, it is important to keep in mind that a person does not have to agree with a partner to validate the partner’s viewpoint. On the other hand, the most common form of validation is to simply agree with one’s partner. A response that expresses agreement with the partner is considered assent. Often, a response involving assent consists of only one or two words. For example, a person may simply say, “yes” and then let the partner continue.

It is important to distinguish assents from “yes but” responses. By definition, a “yes but” response begins with an initial assent; however, the assent is followed by a subsequent negation. When a person expresses assent as part of a “yes but” statement, it should be regarded ONLY as a “yes but” statement and NOT as an assent. If a person gives an assent, and then negates that assent, the statement is no longer considered assent. For example, it is considered assent if a person says, “you’re right.” However, it is NOT assent if a person says, “you’re right, but your plan would never work.” Occasionally, a person will give an assent response at one point in the conversation, and then later make a response that negates the assent. If there is a break or pause between the assent and the negation, it can be difficult to determine how to code the response. It could be an assent (followed by separate response at another point that is negative) or merely a “yes but” response. In general, if the assent and the negation seem to be all part of the same thought, it should be considered a “yes but.” For example, if the “yes” and the “but” are stated at two separate points merely because a person was interrupted by the partner and not given a chance to finish his or her statement, the response should be considered a “yes but.” In contrast, if the “yes” and the “but” are separate because they represent two different thoughts, expressed in two separate speaking turns, the initial assent could be considered an assent. Examples of statements that would be considered assent are listed below.

• Yes
• I agree
• You are right
• That is true
• That is a good point

Conveying understanding
It is also a type of positive response when a person states that he or she understands what his or her partner is saying. Statements that convey understanding are similar to assents in that they are often brief comments that validate the partner and encourage the partner to continue speaking. The only difference is that an assent indicates “I agree with you,” whereas conveying understanding indicates, “I understand you.” Responses that convey understanding include statements telling the partner that his or her viewpoint is clear, logical, sensible, and coherent. As with assent, the response is NOT considered positive if it is part of a “yes but” statement. In addition, the response must be genuine to be considered a response that conveys understanding. A response that is flippant, or superficial, or insincere does not convey understanding. Along this line, it is relatively common for people to attempt to convey understanding when they have ulterior motives. A person may say, “I get your point,” merely because he or she wants the partner to shut up. A person may say, “I hear what you are saying” as a strategy for launching a counter argument. A response should be regarded as conveying understanding only when it is clear that the person truly understands and values his or her partner’s viewpoint. Examples of statements that convey understanding are listed below.

• I understand
• I see your point
• I see what you mean
• That makes sense
• I know how your feel

Validating Expansion
On of the best ways a person can validate a partner is to give a response that expands on the partner’s comments. In contrast to brief statements that convey understanding, in which a person merely claims to understand the partner, in a validating expansion, a person demonstrates that he or she understands the partner. In a validating expansion, the person takes the partner’s viewpoint and builds on it, and adds to it, in a manner that supports and affirms the partner’s original perspective. For example, if a wife says, “In the next election, I will NOT vote for Senator Slimy,” it would be a validating expansion if the husband responds, “I heard that Senator Slimey has been receiving illegal cash contributions from the Megatoxin Corporation, and it certainly looks like he has been telling lies.” The husband’s statement clearly demonstrates that he sees the wife’s position as logical, valid, and understandable. Moreover, his statement demonstrates that he is able to view the world from his wife’s perspective, and that he can add to the wife’s statement in a manner that is consistent with her viewpoint. This requires more mental effort than merely saying, “I understand you.” Thus, a validating expansion represents a higher level of validation than an assent or a statement that merely conveys understanding. It is important to note, however, that a statement must be consistent with the partner’s viewpoint to be considered a validating expansion. If a person adds to the partner’s ideas in a manner that strays from the partner’s original message, then the response should be regarded as “missing the point” and not a validating expansion. To be considered a validating expansion, it should be apparent that the partner regards the expansion as an accurate and affirming response to his or her viewpoint. Examples of validating expansions are listed below.

• Partner A: “The problem is that the kids need time to play and unwind before dinner.” Partner B: “It is like, after spending all day at school, they need some time to just be kids and have fun.”
• Partner A: “Last night I was trying to tell you about it, but you did not seem to be listening to me.” Partner B: “It makes sense that you did not think I was listening. I was off on another planet or something.”
• Partner A: “When I came home from work today, I really wanted you to give me a backrub.” Partner B: “After a long stressful day at work, a backrub would feel wonderful, and I guess it would also show you that I appreciate you.”
• Partner A: “I wish you would stop doing that because it interrupts the kid’s naps.” Partner B: “And then they don’t get enough sleep and you spend all afternoon trying to handle grumpy kids.”

Validating humor
Sometimes a person will give a validating expansion that also intended to be humorous. If the response is truly a validating expansion, and if both partners seem to be enjoying the humor, then the response should be considered validating humor. However, it is important to be careful in evaluating the nature of humor. On the one hand, humor sometimes eases tension and can be beneficial for conflict resolution. On the other hand, humor is often more harmful than helpful. As previously discussed, sarcastic humor is typically a form of contempt. In addition, people often make jokes or laugh because they are feeling nervous. A wife may make a humorous comment about the husband, and the husband may laugh, but this does not mean the husband is enjoying the humor. He may be laughing because he feels anxious and not because he thinks the wife’s statement is truly funny. Thus, for humor to be considered positive, it must be clear that both partners are truly enjoying the humor. A possible example of validating humor is listed below.

• Partner A: “When you are watching television, you never listen to me.” Partner B: “Yes, I know I tune you out. Maybe if you put on a gorilla costume and danced the hula in front of the television you could get my attention.”

Paraphrase
A paraphrase is type of positive response that is similar to a validating expansion. The only difference is that a validating expansion adds to the partner’s ideas, whereas a paraphrase reflects partner’s ideas without adding additional content. Both a validating expansion and a paraphrase require a relatively high degree of mental effort. They both require a person to see the world from the partner’s perspective and to make a statement that accurately reflects that perspective. In a paraphrase, a person uses his or her own words to summarize what the partner is saying.

Although paraphrases are highly validating, they are also rare. People do not naturally paraphrase each other. Moreover, in the course of everyday conversation, it would be awkward and inefficient if partner’s paraphrased each other. For example, if a husband says, “Please pass the milk,” there is no need for the wife to respond with a paraphrase, “What I hear you saying is that you want to drink some milk, and want me to assist you by picking up the milk and handing it to you.” Although paraphrases are not natural in the course of everyday conversation, they can be extremely useful when a couple is discussing an area of conflict. Paraphrases are useful for two reasons. First, when couples paraphrase each other, they ensure that there is no miscommunication taking place. This is important because it is not uncommon for couples to spend a long time arguing over some topic only to discover, in the end, that they simply misunderstood each other. Second, when a person gives an accurate paraphrase, the partner can feel confident that he or she is being understood. As discussed previously, one of the most important factors that determine whether a conflict will be resolved is the extent to which partners feel understood. Thus, even though paraphrases are rare, when they do occur, they can be highly beneficial for conflict resolution. Examples of paraphrases are listed below.

• Partner A: “I spent several hours cleaning the house and you didn’t say anything. You didn’t even seem to notice.” Partner B: “You didn’t feel like I appreciated your hard work.”
• Partner A: “I know the Elite Childcare Program costs more, but it would be worth it because we know our children would be safe.” Partner B: “In other words, the safety of our children is more important than money.”
• Partner A: “When the children misbehave, you give them warnings, but you never follow through so your warnings don’t mean anything.” Partner B: “So, you’re thinking that I need to be more firm with the children.”
• Partner A: “When your family comes, they start talking and making plans and I can’t get a word in edgewise.” Partner B: “You feel excluded.”