Communicated Perspective-Taking During Stories of Marital Stress: Spousesâ•Ž Perceptions of One Anotherâ•Žs Perspective-Taking Behaviors

Perspective-taking has important connections to social and relational functioning, making it an important skill for marital adjustment (Long & Andrews, 1990). The current study investigated the types of behaviors indicative of communicated perspective-taking from the participant perspective as couples told stories of stressful relational events. Using a stimulated recall procedure, 68 husband and wife pairs jointly told the story of a stressful relational experience and then separately viewed their videotaped interaction and evaluated their spouses’ perspective-taking behaviors. Agreement, attentiveness, relevant contributions, coordination, positive tone, and freedom represented the categories of behaviors spouses judged to reflect perspective-taking. In contrast, disagreement, inattentiveness, irrelevant contributions, lack of coordination, negative tone, and constraint all emerged as categories of behaviors lacking in perspective-taking. Findings also indicated that disagreement, attentiveness, inattentiveness, negative tone, coordination, lack of coordination, and constraint were significantly related to general judgments of perspective-taking for husbands. For wives, on the other hand, disagreement, inattentiveness, irrelevant contributions, and constraint were the only significant negative correlates of general perspective-taking judgments. Perspective-taking is a consequential but understudied, behavior in marriage. Previous research indicates that husbands’ and wives’ cognitive perspectives can differ significantly when making sense of interactional conflict and stress (Sillars, Roberts, Leonard, & Dun, 2000). Moreover, established links between perceptions of others’ cognitive perspectiveK E L L A S , W I L L E R , A N D T R E E S , S O U T H E R N C O M M U N I C A T I O N J O U R N A L 7 8 (2 0 1 3 ) 2 taking ability and social (Davis, 1983) and relational (Long, 1993) functioning suggests that perspective-taking is an important skill for marital adjustment (Long & Andrews, 1990). Although perspective-taking refers to the psychological ability to put oneself in another’s shoes (Davis, 1980) and has been examined primarily as a cognitive construct (e.g., Kurdek, 1978; Oswald, 1996; Péloquin & Lafontaine, 2010), it is an important communication skill when considered relationally. Communicated perspective-taking is the manifested evidence of cognitive perspective-taking. Behaviors that interpersonally communicate that one has put himself or herself in another’s shoes may offer evidence to the relational partner that he or she is cared about and understood. Indeed, observers’ judgments of communicated perspective-taking between relational partners has been linked to individual wellbeing (e.g., less perceived stress in husbands; Koenig Kellas, Trees, Schrodt, LeClairUnderberg, & Willer, 2010) and relational functioning (e.g., greater relational satisfaction, Shröder-Abé & Shütz, 2011; greater family satisfaction, cohesion, and adaptability, Koenig Kellas, 2005). Investigations into communicated perspective-taking to this point, however, offer general descriptions of perspective-taking behavior. Perspective-taking behavior has been considered broadly including both general judgments that individuals demonstrate an understanding of the relational partners’ point of view (e.g., Shröder-Abé & Shütz, 2011) and ratings of behavioral indicators including the degree to which partners attend to and confirm each other’s perspectives (e.g., Koenig Kellas, 2005; Koenig Kellas et al., 2010). Extant investigations into communicated perspective-taking, however, do not offer detailed insight into the specific communication behaviors that make one feel understood, confirmed, and validated. In other words, we know little about the particular behaviors that make spouses feel as if their partner is communicatively attending to their perspectives. This is important in answering calls for research that investigate more specifically what couples do to validate each other. For example, Heyman argues that current research paradigms focusing on couples’ interactions “seem well-suited to understanding what nondistressed couples do not do that perhaps protects them from distress but is poorly suited to understanding what they do that promotes satisfaction” (2001, p. 7, emphasis added). Bradbury, Johnson, and Story (2001) also recommend an increased focus on prosocial marital behavior in preventive interventions for couples. Additional research is needed to identify the types of specific behaviors that constitute communicated perspective-taking from the perspective of spouses in order to bolster our understanding of how couples (un)successfully communicate a sense that they understand each other (Sillars et al., 2000). Such research is important to the development of educational and intervention programs aimed at improving marital communication, providing practitioners with tangible behaviors couples might employ in an effort to communicate perspective-taking. Thus, in order to investigate the kinds of behaviors that spouses communicate and identify as communicating perspective-taking in marriage, the current study examines those behaviors identified by spouses during the shared telling of the story of a stressful relational experience. In what follows, we review previous research on perspective-taking as a cognitive and communicative construct. We then present the results of a study in which 68 married couples identified specific communication behaviors that represented varying K E L L A S , W I L L E R , A N D T R E E S , S O U T H E R N C O M M U N I C A T I O N J O U R N A L 7 8 (2 0 1 3 ) 3 degrees of perspective-taking during a videotaped storytelling interaction about marital stress. Perspective-Taking as a Cognitive and Communicated Construct Most researchers who study perspective-taking define it as the cognitive ability to understand others’ thoughts and feelings (Kurdek, 1978; Oswald, 1996). Cognitive perspectivetaking includes examining multiple viewpoints and mentally putting oneself in another’s shoes (Davis, 1980). Perspective-taking also has been referred to as the cognitive component of empathy and linked with similar constructs, such as role-taking (see Lobchuck, 2005; Long, 1993). A related concept, empathic accuracy, refers to the accurate understanding of a partner’s thoughts and feelings (e.g., Ickes, 1993) and research in this area emphasizes the cognitive match between partners’ perceptions of the others’ thoughts and feelings and their actual thoughts and feelings. Indeed, Verhofstadt, Buysse, Ickes, Davis, and Devoldre (2008) argue that perspective-taking should predict empathic accuracy. This type of cognitive skill has several important outcomes. As a cognitive component of empathy, perspective-taking positively relates to the likelihood of helping others and social competence and negatively relates to social dysfunction (Davis, 1983; Oswald 1996). Long and Andrews (1990) found that one’s ratings of general perspective-taking (i.e., general beliefs about one’s ability to take others’ perspectives), self-dyadic perspective-taking (i.e., rating one’s own perspective-taking behavior within a specific relationship), and otherdyadic perspective-taking (i.e., rating one’s partner’s perspective-taking behavior within that relationship) were all predictive of marital adjustment, especially for husbands across all three measures. Long and Andrews concluded that there are both cognitive and behavioral subcomponents of perspective-taking, warranting further investigation of its behavioral components. Some research has attended to perspective-taking as a behavioral move (Long & Andrews, 1990) or interpersonal process (e.g., Lobchuck, 2006). For example, Davis, Capobianco, and Kraus (2004) identified perspective-taking as a central component to potential responses in interpersonal conflict. Communication researchers interested in conversational skills have examined perspective-taking and its related constructs as elements of communication competence (e.g., Spitzberg, 2007; Spitzberg & Hurt, 1987), social/communication skills (e.g., Segrin et al., 2007; Segrin & Taylor, 2006), emotional support skills (e.g., Burleson & Kunkel, 2002), and confirmation (see Dailey, 2006, 2008). Perspective-taking also has a central place in observational work on interactional sense-making (Koenig Kellas, 2005; Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2006; Koenig Kellas et al., 2010; Trees & Koenig Kellas, 2009). In their research on interactional sense-making, Koenig Kellas, Trees, and colleagues define communicated perspective-taking as the ways in which interactional partners acknowledge, attend to, and confirm one another’s perspectives in interaction (Koenig Kellas, 2005; Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2006). In studies on joint storytelling about marital (Koenig Kellas et al., 2010) and family (Trees & Koenig Kellas, 2009) stress, observers rated behavioral indicators of perspective-taking, including statements that express understandK E L L A S , W I L L E R , A N D T R E E S , S O U T H E R N C O M M U N I C A T I O N J O U R N A L 7 8 (2 0 1 3 ) 4 ing of multiple viewpoints, acknowledge others’ insights, affirm the validity of others’ experiences and/or agree verbally or nonverbally. Similarly, Shröder-Abé and Schütz (2011) operationalized interactional perspective-taking in conflict by assessing the degree to which the partner demonstrated an effort to take on the partner’s point of view and consider both sides in the conflict. Findings from these initial studies of communicated perspective-taking indicate it positively relates to family satisfaction, family cohesion, family adaptability, overall family functioning (Koenig Kellas, 2005; Trees & Koenig Kellas, 2009), parental and peer comforting skills (Burleson & Kunkel, 2002), perceptions of family supportiveness (Trees & Koenig Kellas, 2009), and relationship closeness (Shröder-Abé & Shütz, 2011). Perspective-taking negatively relates to mental health symptoms and perceived stress for husbands (Koenig Kellas et al., 2010). Moreover, communicated perspective-taking appears to be an important behavior for distinguishing between families who engage in joint sense-making versus those who make sense individually or fail to make sense of family stress (Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2006). Extant research, thus, has painted a picture in which general behavioral manifestations of perspective-taking, such as attentiveness and confirmation, are related to individual and relational well-being. However, a more comprehensive catalogue of the behaviors that constitute communicated perspective-taking is warranted. An examination of micro-level processes from participant perspectives offers insight into the behaviors that build feelings of intimacy (Prager, 2000). As both a cognitive and communicative construct, the most indepth insight about communicated perspective-taking may be gained at the intersection of cognition and communication: namely in how one perceives his or her interactional partners’ behaviors. Communicated Perspective-Taking in the Context of Stories about Relational Difficulty Spouses’ identification of the communication behaviors that reveal attention (or lack of attention) to perspectives in communication offers a focused exploration of a specific and consequential but understudied practice in marital interaction about difficulty (Long, 1993). We are interested in a more specific and nuanced understanding of what perspectivetaking behaviors look like, particularly from the point of view of the spouse to whom they may communicate (or not) a sense of belonging, understanding, and we-ness. Asking spouses to identify the behaviors that communicate perspective-taking allows for a more detailed picture than extant a priori definitions of what exactly partners do to provide visible evidence of the cognitive process of perspective-taking during interactions. Moreover, a thorough understanding of the processes and behaviors that communicate perspective-taking to spouses may ultimately allow for insight into those behaviors that contribute to relational satisfaction, functioning, and support. Bates and Samp (2011), for example, found that partners’ perceived empathic accuracy positively related to conflict resolution in romantic relationships, suggesting that relational partners’ perceptions of perspective-taking can be important for successful conflict management. Understanding one’s partner and demonstrating that knowledge to them also contributes to relational closeness and stability (Harvey & Omarzu, 1997). K E L L A S , W I L L E R , A N D T R E E S , S O U T H E R N C O M M U N I C A T I O N J O U R N A L 7 8 (2 0 1 3 ) 5 One place to examine evaluations of spousal perspective-taking behavior is in the interactive patterns through which partners create the couple’s reality of the relationship (Stephen, 1984) and jointly make sense of difficulty. Couples create meaning together in part through jointly remembering and constructing their relational stories (e.g., Baxter & Pittman, 2001; Doohan, Carerre, & Riggs, 2010). Relationships are fashioned through talk (Duck, 1994), and couples often create the reality of their relationships by telling stories about the relationship together or jointly. Indeed, research shows that how couples manage these joint tellings positively predicts marital satisfaction when couples are similar in their storytelling style (Veroff, Sutherland, Chadiha, & Ortega, 1993) and negatively predicts divorce when couples glorify the struggle rather than describe their marital history as chaotic (Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992). Although perspective-taking is an important skill across contexts, it may be particularly important when couples are attempting to discuss relational difficulty. Telling stories of marital stress can be a site of conflict and/or an opportunity to collaboratively create meaning. For example, relational partners might disagree on the events that occurred and may correct each other, thus changing the shape of the storytelling and potentially impacting the relationship and the identities of the involved parties. When partners face stressors, making sense of them can be particularly challenging if they view the stressor and/or each other’s role in it differently. When partners discuss stress or marital conflict, they are forced to confront each other’s differing perspectives. In sum, the ways in which couples tell stories together provides a window into both marital climate and marital functioning (Fiese & Winter, 2009; Koenig Kellas, 2005; Veroff et al., 1993). It also provides a context in which communicated perspective-taking is particularly salient. Joint storytelling offers a context in which spouses might readily observe the degree to which their partners attend to and confirm their perspective in the narrative that is constructed and the types of communication strategies that behaviorally indicate perspective-taking. Thus, the first research question in the current study asks: RQ1: What behaviors do spouses identify as indicative of their partner’s perspective-taking in jointly told stories of stress? Alongside descriptions of the behaviors that spouses identify as indicators of perspectivetaking in shared storytelling about relational difficulty, additional insight can be drawn from exploring which behaviors identified carry the most weight for judgments of partner perspective-taking, or the degree to which spouses feel their partners engage in communicated perspective-taking generally over the course of an interaction. Relational partners’ interpretations of interpersonal behaviors can be more predictive of relational health than the behaviors themselves (e.g., Sillars, Roberts, Dun, & Leonard, 2001; Vangelisti, Corbin, Luchetti, & Sprague, 1999). Research establishing links between cognitions partners have for communication about disagreement and marital satisfaction, for example, identifies important connections between spouses’ perspectives about their partners’ communication and their marital culture (e.g., Sillars et al., 2000; Vangelisti et al., 1999). Sillars et al. found that “in severe conflicts and dissatisfied relationships, the individuals had more angry, K E L L A S , W I L L E R , A N D T R E E S , S O U T H E R N C O M M U N I C A T I O N J O U R N A L 7 8 (2 0 1 3 ) 6 blaming, and pessimistic thoughts and less focus on content issues” (2000, p. 480). Similarly, Vangelisti et al. observed that dissatisfied partners voiced significantly more negative thoughts about their spouses and fewer positive thoughts about their partner or relationship than satisfied partners. Exploring the connections between the behaviors identified by spouses and spouses’ perceptions of their partners’ perspective-taking overall allows investigation of the links between behaviors and cognitive judgments. Certain behaviors may be more influential for spouses in overall judgments of the degree to which their partner understands them (e.g., behaviors such as explicit statements of confirmation may carry more weight than behaviors demonstrating attentiveness to the other or vice versa). Thus, the second research question asked: RQ2: Which perspective-taking behaviors are related to (a) husbands’ and (b) wives’ ratings of the degree to which their partners communicated perspective-taking during jointly told stories of stress? Finally, husbands and wives may differ in the types of behaviors that are particularly important for their assessments of perspective-taking. Specifically, Sillars et al. (2000) found that when it came to perspective-taking husbands tended to focus more on self and issue appraisal and focused less on relationship issues or their wives’ communication. Wives, on the other hand, were more other oriented and focused more on the engagement, avoidance, and confrontation of their partners than were husbands. In addition, Long and Andrews (1990) found that perceptions of cognitive perspective-taking, although significant for both husbands and wives, were stronger predictors of marital adjustment for husbands. Finally, Koenig Kellas et al.’s (2010) observational ratings of communicated perspective-taking showed that both wives’ and husbands’ perspective-taking behaviors were significantly related to reduced negative mental health symptoms and perceived stress for husbands, yet neither husbands’ nor wives’ perspective-taking behavior was predictive of wives’ mental health or perceived stress. Based on these findings and the general lack of evidence for how perspective-taking operates relationally for wives, we were interested in possible differences between husbands and wives in the types of perspectivetaking behaviors that predicted their ratings of the degree to which their partners attended to, understood, and confirmed their perspectives during an interaction about marital stress. Thus, the third research question asked: RQ3: Do the correlations between perceptions of partners’ communicated perspective-taking during jointly told stories of stress and perspectivetaking behaviors differ between husbands and wives?