The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System and links to well-being in marital conflict

Jody Koenig Kellas; Kristen Carr; Haley Kranstuber Horstman; David Dilillo

doi:10.1111/pere.12177

The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System and links to well-being in marital conflict

Jody Koenig Kellas, Kristen Carr, Haley Kranstuber Horstman, David Dilillo

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

Research highlights the importance of perspective taking as a cognitive ability. A growing body of research also suggests that communicated perspective taking (CPT)—or how interactional partners acknowledge, attend to, and confirm each others' perspectives during interactions—enables collaborative sense-making of shared difficulties with significant links to individual and relational health. The purpose of the current study was to further operationalize the construct and to test the relation between CPT and well-being in married couples' (n = 80) conversations about conflict. The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System (CPTRS) was developed and tested as a reliable observational system. Findings indicate that husbands' CPT predicted wives' relational satisfaction, and wives' CPT predicted husbands' relational satisfaction. Implications and future applications of the CPTRS are discussed.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	185-202
Number of pages	18
Journal	Personal Relationships
Volume	24
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12177
State	Published - Mar 1 2017

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Social Psychology
Anthropology
Developmental and Educational Psychology
Life-span and Life-course Studies

Access to Document

10.1111/pere.12177

Cite this

@article{3f90f9c613cc4843b43c0ca8ca1f2d2e,

title = "The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System and links to well-being in marital conflict",

abstract = "Research highlights the importance of perspective taking as a cognitive ability. A growing body of research also suggests that communicated perspective taking (CPT)—or how interactional partners acknowledge, attend to, and confirm each others' perspectives during interactions—enables collaborative sense-making of shared difficulties with significant links to individual and relational health. The purpose of the current study was to further operationalize the construct and to test the relation between CPT and well-being in married couples' (n = 80) conversations about conflict. The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System (CPTRS) was developed and tested as a reliable observational system. Findings indicate that husbands' CPT predicted wives' relational satisfaction, and wives' CPT predicted husbands' relational satisfaction. Implications and future applications of the CPTRS are discussed.",

author = "Kellas, {Jody Koenig} and Kristen Carr and Horstman, {Haley Kranstuber} and David Dilillo",

note = "Funding Information: The data used for the current study were collected as part of a larger National Institute of Mental Health–funded study examining the associations between child maltreatment and adult marital functioning in newly married couples. In the current study, participants included 80 heterosexual dyads in Wave 3 (2 years after the initial meeting) of the data collection. Dyads consisted of 80 husbands and wives who had been married for approximately 3 years (M = 34.72 months, SD = 2.51) at the time of the interaction. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 50 years (M = 27.01, SD = 4.58). Across husbands and wives, the majority was Caucasian (96.9%, n = 155). The data used for the current study were collected as part of a larger National Institute of Mental Health–funded study examining the associations between child maltreatment and adult marital functioning in newly married couples. In the current study, participants included 80 heterosexual dyads in Wave 3 (2 years after the initial meeting) of the data collection. Dyads consisted of 80 husbands and wives who had been married for approximately 3 years (M = 34.72 months, SD = 2.51) at the time of the interaction. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 50 years (M = 27.01, SD = 4.58). Across husbands and wives, the majority was Caucasian (96.9%, n = 155). Participants were randomly recruited from a publicly available marriage license database in the Midwestern United States. Couples were mailed a letter inviting them to participate that included instructions on how to contact the investigators. To qualify for participation, couples were required to be at least 19 years of age and be married 1 year or less at the time they were recruited. Of the 1,465 married couples who were contacted regarding possible participation, 202 couples (14.5%) agreed to participate in the larger study, and 80 couples were randomly selected from the larger data pool through the use of a random number generator for inclusion in the current study. Participants in the study visited the data collection laboratory on three occasions over a 2-year period. After providing informed consent, spouses first completed a series of self-report questionnaires described below. Each spouse then selected a topic of conflict they wished to discuss with their partner during the study. Commonly selected topics included financial issues, improving relationships with family, and health concerns. Upon selecting their conflict topic for discussion, couples were videotaped conversing for 8 min. Participants were paid $300 as compensation for their full participation in the duration of the larger study. To measure CPT, a new rating instrument was created in the current study—the CPTRS. The CPTRS is a global rating system that assesses each relational partner's CPT behaviors over a number of dimensions across the entirety of an interaction. Global—as opposed to microanalytic—coding systems enable the macrolevel assessments of gestalt patterns relevant to relational communication (Kerig,). Because we were interested in how CPT characterized interactions and contributed to an overall portrait of sense-making about shared stressors, a global system in which CPT was measured across the interaction was appropriate. The CPTRS was created in a number of steps. First, previous research on the typology of CPT behaviors (Koenig Kellas et al.,) and the ISM rating system (Koenig Kellas & Trees,) were used to create an initial set of relevant behaviors for observational assessment. These behaviors included ISM's global rating of attentiveness to and confirmation of others' perspectives as well as the specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors identified by Koenig Kellas and colleagues in their study on spouses' observational recall of each others' CPT behaviors. These included agreement–disagreement, attentiveness–inattentiveness, relevant–irrelevant contribution, coordination–uncoordination, positive tone–negative tone, and freedom in storytelling–constraint in storytelling. Second, we reviewed existing observational systems designed to measure spousal communication for conceptual and operational overlap with CPT and to engage in a form of negative case analysis (Bulmer,), ensuring that we had not missed any other relevant dimensions of CPT. Specifically, per Heyman's () guidelines for selecting a valid and reliable coding system to assess couple communication, we searched Heyman's meta-analytical table for our construct of interest and identified all communication constructs that seemed related. Although several constructs overlapped with CPT (e.g., affective and engagement dimensions of the Behavioral Affective Rating Scale; Johnson,), none of the existing observational coding systems measured it directly. After reviewing these materials, we created a rating system that included the following dimensions of CPT behavior: (a) contributing (ir)relevant information, (b) conversational (in)attentiveness, (c) creating space for the spouse to talk, (d) (dis)agreement/(mis)understanding, and (e) affective tone. We also added two additional dimensions based on the ISM rating system (Koenig Kellas & Trees,), including (f) global attentiveness of other's perspectives and (g) global confirmation of other's perspectives. We then created a rater training manual that defined CPT (CPT behaviors include things like the degree to which a person verbally and nonverbally acknowledges, attends to, and confirms the views of other teller(s)) and included a description and examples of each of the seven dimensions of perspective-taking behaviors. Examples included both verbal (e.g., asking interested questions) and nonverbal (e.g., nodding) behaviors. The training manual also included rater training guidelines, instructions, and a scoring sheet for each husband and wife across the 80 couples. Each dimension was rated separately for husbands and wives across the entire 8-min interaction on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (low, strong lack of perspective-taking behaviors or strong demonstration of negative behaviors) to 5 (high, strong degree of perspective-taking behavior and no negative behaviors). Four undergraduate research assistants unaware of the study hypotheses were trained on the initial CPTRS in a series of steps. First, raters were familiarized with the concept of CPT and the eight dimensions of CPT behaviors. Per the guidelines of Fiese and colleagues (), we provided videotaped examples of both relatively high and relatively low scores for each dimension of CPT as we trained raters on that dimension. In line with Cissna, Garvin, and Kennedy (), we trained raters on conflict interactions from the larger data set (Wave 1 and Wave 2) to ensure the validity of their training but to avoid conflating overall interrater reliability across the sample. Next, raters practiced rating several interactions for each dimension, discussing the basis for their scores until they reached verbal consensus (Fiese et al.,). During this process, it became clear that some of the CPT behaviors emerging from previous research on joint storytelling were not relevant to CPT in the context of conflict. Specifically, this included behaviors that contributed (ir)relevant information to the interaction. This dimension was therefore dropped from the rating system and raters continued their training on the remaining seven behaviors. Additionally, although not present in Koenig Kellas and colleagues' () typology of CPT behavior, rater training and extant relevant coding schemes illuminated the relevance of validating partner identity as a dimension of CPT. Thus, this dimension was added to the CPTRS and rater training materials. Each of the final seven dimensions rated in the CPTRS are defined and exemplified in Table. Conversational (in)attentiveness Nonverbal and verbal involvement or listening behaviors that demonstrate engagement in the interaction (or disengagement, not being attentive, not listening). Creating space for the spouse to talk The degree to which spouses give each other room to communicate, demonstrating a willingness to both listen and seek out the other person's perspective. (Dis)agreement/(mis)understanding The degree to which partners communicate consistency in perspective or style; agreement versus disagreement, and statements of or nonverbal indicators of (mis)understanding. Affective tone Behaviors that set the mood of the interaction. This can include behaviors that illustrate tension, stress, a relaxed mood, and/or humor. Positive affect, such as humor, love, and affection foster positivity, kindness, and gentleness, and can indicate an orientation toward valuing the other's perspective. Negative affect includes hostility, contempt, and fosters negativity and a mood that does not promote perspective taking. (In)validating partner identity Verbal or nonverbal behaviors that help the partner feel understood, validated, valued, and accepted as a person. This is different from agreement and understanding in that agreement/understanding refers to agreeing with something the partner said. Invalidating the partner refers to communication that rejects the partner or devalues him or her as a person. Global rating: Attentiveness to other's perspective The degree to which the husband/wife, as he/she engages in the overall interaction, acknowledges the other's views and perspectives, and combines and integrates them into a meaningful discussion of the conflict. Global rating: Confirmation of perspectives The degree to which the husband/wife is confirming of the experience/perspective of his/her spouse and responds positively to his/her contributions to the conversation. This focuses specifically on how the husband/wife responds to others' content contributions to the conversation. Rater training continued twice per week for 6 weeks and then once per week for 7 additional weeks. Once comfortable with the seven dimensions of CPT, training included a weekly independent rating of five videotaped interactions for husbands and wives for a total of 10 rating sessions across seven dimensions (n = 70 ratings). Rater training continued in this manner until raters were reliable on all seven dimensions. Once initial reliability was achieved, all four raters rated the remainder of the data in Wave 3. Interrater reliability was assessed regularly throughout this process to guard against coder drift. Interrater reliability across the entire data set (see Table) demonstrated consistency across all seven dimensions and warranted averaging all four raters' data into one composite score for each of the seven items across husbands and wives. The overall alpha reliability across dimensions (α =.93) justified averaging all seven dimensions into one CPT score for husbands and wives, respectively. Participants' psychological symptoms were measured using Derogatis and Melisaratos's () Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The scale consists of 53 items measuring husbands' and wives' physical and mental symptoms, such as “Feeling inferior to others” and “Feeling keyed up or tense.” Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert-type scale in which participants rate the extent to which they have been bothered (0 = not at all to 4 = extremely) by various symptoms in recent weeks. Researchers have provided evidence of construct validity and excellent alpha reliability for the original scale of.95 (Derogatis & Melisaratos,), and in this study, the scale produced an alpha coefficient of.92 (husbands) and.95 (wives). Items were summed to create a composite score (M = 15.78, SD = 2.91 [husbands]; M = 16.38, SD = 2.56 [wives]). Participants' marital satisfaction was measured using Norton's () six-item Quality of Marriage Index (QMI). The QMI has several advantages over other similar measures designed to evaluate marital quality. Specifically, the QMI uses a relatively small number of statements that evaluate the “goodness” of marriage holistically rather than relying on agreement or affection to predict marital quality (Norton,). In the current study, participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements such as “We have a good marriage” and “My relationship with my partner makes me happy” using a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (very strong disagreement) to 7 (very strong agreement). Consistent with previous usage of the measure, the QMI measure produced excellent internal reliability with an overall alpha coefficient of.96 (husbands) and.95 (wives) in the current study. Items were summed to create a composite score of marital satisfaction (M = 28.62, SD = 5.91 [husbands]; M = 28.15, SD = 3.84 [wives]). The hypotheses in the current study examined the extent to which the CPT behavior of one spouse predicted marital satisfaction (H1) and mental well-being (H2) of the other spouse and oneself. Both hypotheses were tested using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM; Cook & Kenny, Kenny, Kashy, & Cook,), which estimates both actor effects and partner effects. In this study, actor effects summarize the association between a marital partner's score on a predictor variable with their own score on an outcome variable, whereas partner effects reference marital partners' score on a predictor variable with their partner's score on an outcome variable. Muth{\'e}n and Muth{\'e}n's Mplus 6.11 was used to estimate the APIM parameters using structural equation modeling. Each APIM was estimated using manifest indicators given the relatively modest sample size used in the current study, and all estimates were generated while controlling for all other effects in the model (Cook & Kenny,). One-tailed tests of statistical significance were set at p <.05. Publisher Copyright: Copyright {\textcopyright} 2017 IARR",

year = "2017",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/pere.12177",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "24",

pages = "185--202",

journal = "Personal Relationships",

issn = "1350-4126",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System and links to well-being in marital conflict

AU - Kellas, Jody Koenig

AU - Carr, Kristen

AU - Horstman, Haley Kranstuber

AU - Dilillo, David

N1 - Funding Information: The data used for the current study were collected as part of a larger National Institute of Mental Health–funded study examining the associations between child maltreatment and adult marital functioning in newly married couples. In the current study, participants included 80 heterosexual dyads in Wave 3 (2 years after the initial meeting) of the data collection. Dyads consisted of 80 husbands and wives who had been married for approximately 3 years (M = 34.72 months, SD = 2.51) at the time of the interaction. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 50 years (M = 27.01, SD = 4.58). Across husbands and wives, the majority was Caucasian (96.9%, n = 155). The data used for the current study were collected as part of a larger National Institute of Mental Health–funded study examining the associations between child maltreatment and adult marital functioning in newly married couples. In the current study, participants included 80 heterosexual dyads in Wave 3 (2 years after the initial meeting) of the data collection. Dyads consisted of 80 husbands and wives who had been married for approximately 3 years (M = 34.72 months, SD = 2.51) at the time of the interaction. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 50 years (M = 27.01, SD = 4.58). Across husbands and wives, the majority was Caucasian (96.9%, n = 155). Participants were randomly recruited from a publicly available marriage license database in the Midwestern United States. Couples were mailed a letter inviting them to participate that included instructions on how to contact the investigators. To qualify for participation, couples were required to be at least 19 years of age and be married 1 year or less at the time they were recruited. Of the 1,465 married couples who were contacted regarding possible participation, 202 couples (14.5%) agreed to participate in the larger study, and 80 couples were randomly selected from the larger data pool through the use of a random number generator for inclusion in the current study. Participants in the study visited the data collection laboratory on three occasions over a 2-year period. After providing informed consent, spouses first completed a series of self-report questionnaires described below. Each spouse then selected a topic of conflict they wished to discuss with their partner during the study. Commonly selected topics included financial issues, improving relationships with family, and health concerns. Upon selecting their conflict topic for discussion, couples were videotaped conversing for 8 min. Participants were paid $300 as compensation for their full participation in the duration of the larger study. To measure CPT, a new rating instrument was created in the current study—the CPTRS. The CPTRS is a global rating system that assesses each relational partner's CPT behaviors over a number of dimensions across the entirety of an interaction. Global—as opposed to microanalytic—coding systems enable the macrolevel assessments of gestalt patterns relevant to relational communication (Kerig,). Because we were interested in how CPT characterized interactions and contributed to an overall portrait of sense-making about shared stressors, a global system in which CPT was measured across the interaction was appropriate. The CPTRS was created in a number of steps. First, previous research on the typology of CPT behaviors (Koenig Kellas et al.,) and the ISM rating system (Koenig Kellas & Trees,) were used to create an initial set of relevant behaviors for observational assessment. These behaviors included ISM's global rating of attentiveness to and confirmation of others' perspectives as well as the specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors identified by Koenig Kellas and colleagues in their study on spouses' observational recall of each others' CPT behaviors. These included agreement–disagreement, attentiveness–inattentiveness, relevant–irrelevant contribution, coordination–uncoordination, positive tone–negative tone, and freedom in storytelling–constraint in storytelling. Second, we reviewed existing observational systems designed to measure spousal communication for conceptual and operational overlap with CPT and to engage in a form of negative case analysis (Bulmer,), ensuring that we had not missed any other relevant dimensions of CPT. Specifically, per Heyman's () guidelines for selecting a valid and reliable coding system to assess couple communication, we searched Heyman's meta-analytical table for our construct of interest and identified all communication constructs that seemed related. Although several constructs overlapped with CPT (e.g., affective and engagement dimensions of the Behavioral Affective Rating Scale; Johnson,), none of the existing observational coding systems measured it directly. After reviewing these materials, we created a rating system that included the following dimensions of CPT behavior: (a) contributing (ir)relevant information, (b) conversational (in)attentiveness, (c) creating space for the spouse to talk, (d) (dis)agreement/(mis)understanding, and (e) affective tone. We also added two additional dimensions based on the ISM rating system (Koenig Kellas & Trees,), including (f) global attentiveness of other's perspectives and (g) global confirmation of other's perspectives. We then created a rater training manual that defined CPT (CPT behaviors include things like the degree to which a person verbally and nonverbally acknowledges, attends to, and confirms the views of other teller(s)) and included a description and examples of each of the seven dimensions of perspective-taking behaviors. Examples included both verbal (e.g., asking interested questions) and nonverbal (e.g., nodding) behaviors. The training manual also included rater training guidelines, instructions, and a scoring sheet for each husband and wife across the 80 couples. Each dimension was rated separately for husbands and wives across the entire 8-min interaction on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (low, strong lack of perspective-taking behaviors or strong demonstration of negative behaviors) to 5 (high, strong degree of perspective-taking behavior and no negative behaviors). Four undergraduate research assistants unaware of the study hypotheses were trained on the initial CPTRS in a series of steps. First, raters were familiarized with the concept of CPT and the eight dimensions of CPT behaviors. Per the guidelines of Fiese and colleagues (), we provided videotaped examples of both relatively high and relatively low scores for each dimension of CPT as we trained raters on that dimension. In line with Cissna, Garvin, and Kennedy (), we trained raters on conflict interactions from the larger data set (Wave 1 and Wave 2) to ensure the validity of their training but to avoid conflating overall interrater reliability across the sample. Next, raters practiced rating several interactions for each dimension, discussing the basis for their scores until they reached verbal consensus (Fiese et al.,). During this process, it became clear that some of the CPT behaviors emerging from previous research on joint storytelling were not relevant to CPT in the context of conflict. Specifically, this included behaviors that contributed (ir)relevant information to the interaction. This dimension was therefore dropped from the rating system and raters continued their training on the remaining seven behaviors. Additionally, although not present in Koenig Kellas and colleagues' () typology of CPT behavior, rater training and extant relevant coding schemes illuminated the relevance of validating partner identity as a dimension of CPT. Thus, this dimension was added to the CPTRS and rater training materials. Each of the final seven dimensions rated in the CPTRS are defined and exemplified in Table. Conversational (in)attentiveness Nonverbal and verbal involvement or listening behaviors that demonstrate engagement in the interaction (or disengagement, not being attentive, not listening). Creating space for the spouse to talk The degree to which spouses give each other room to communicate, demonstrating a willingness to both listen and seek out the other person's perspective. (Dis)agreement/(mis)understanding The degree to which partners communicate consistency in perspective or style; agreement versus disagreement, and statements of or nonverbal indicators of (mis)understanding. Affective tone Behaviors that set the mood of the interaction. This can include behaviors that illustrate tension, stress, a relaxed mood, and/or humor. Positive affect, such as humor, love, and affection foster positivity, kindness, and gentleness, and can indicate an orientation toward valuing the other's perspective. Negative affect includes hostility, contempt, and fosters negativity and a mood that does not promote perspective taking. (In)validating partner identity Verbal or nonverbal behaviors that help the partner feel understood, validated, valued, and accepted as a person. This is different from agreement and understanding in that agreement/understanding refers to agreeing with something the partner said. Invalidating the partner refers to communication that rejects the partner or devalues him or her as a person. Global rating: Attentiveness to other's perspective The degree to which the husband/wife, as he/she engages in the overall interaction, acknowledges the other's views and perspectives, and combines and integrates them into a meaningful discussion of the conflict. Global rating: Confirmation of perspectives The degree to which the husband/wife is confirming of the experience/perspective of his/her spouse and responds positively to his/her contributions to the conversation. This focuses specifically on how the husband/wife responds to others' content contributions to the conversation. Rater training continued twice per week for 6 weeks and then once per week for 7 additional weeks. Once comfortable with the seven dimensions of CPT, training included a weekly independent rating of five videotaped interactions for husbands and wives for a total of 10 rating sessions across seven dimensions (n = 70 ratings). Rater training continued in this manner until raters were reliable on all seven dimensions. Once initial reliability was achieved, all four raters rated the remainder of the data in Wave 3. Interrater reliability was assessed regularly throughout this process to guard against coder drift. Interrater reliability across the entire data set (see Table) demonstrated consistency across all seven dimensions and warranted averaging all four raters' data into one composite score for each of the seven items across husbands and wives. The overall alpha reliability across dimensions (α =.93) justified averaging all seven dimensions into one CPT score for husbands and wives, respectively. Participants' psychological symptoms were measured using Derogatis and Melisaratos's () Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The scale consists of 53 items measuring husbands' and wives' physical and mental symptoms, such as “Feeling inferior to others” and “Feeling keyed up or tense.” Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert-type scale in which participants rate the extent to which they have been bothered (0 = not at all to 4 = extremely) by various symptoms in recent weeks. Researchers have provided evidence of construct validity and excellent alpha reliability for the original scale of.95 (Derogatis & Melisaratos,), and in this study, the scale produced an alpha coefficient of.92 (husbands) and.95 (wives). Items were summed to create a composite score (M = 15.78, SD = 2.91 [husbands]; M = 16.38, SD = 2.56 [wives]). Participants' marital satisfaction was measured using Norton's () six-item Quality of Marriage Index (QMI). The QMI has several advantages over other similar measures designed to evaluate marital quality. Specifically, the QMI uses a relatively small number of statements that evaluate the “goodness” of marriage holistically rather than relying on agreement or affection to predict marital quality (Norton,). In the current study, participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements such as “We have a good marriage” and “My relationship with my partner makes me happy” using a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (very strong disagreement) to 7 (very strong agreement). Consistent with previous usage of the measure, the QMI measure produced excellent internal reliability with an overall alpha coefficient of.96 (husbands) and.95 (wives) in the current study. Items were summed to create a composite score of marital satisfaction (M = 28.62, SD = 5.91 [husbands]; M = 28.15, SD = 3.84 [wives]). The hypotheses in the current study examined the extent to which the CPT behavior of one spouse predicted marital satisfaction (H1) and mental well-being (H2) of the other spouse and oneself. Both hypotheses were tested using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM; Cook & Kenny, Kenny, Kashy, & Cook,), which estimates both actor effects and partner effects. In this study, actor effects summarize the association between a marital partner's score on a predictor variable with their own score on an outcome variable, whereas partner effects reference marital partners' score on a predictor variable with their partner's score on an outcome variable. Muthén and Muthén's Mplus 6.11 was used to estimate the APIM parameters using structural equation modeling. Each APIM was estimated using manifest indicators given the relatively modest sample size used in the current study, and all estimates were generated while controlling for all other effects in the model (Cook & Kenny,). One-tailed tests of statistical significance were set at p <.05. Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2017 IARR

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Research highlights the importance of perspective taking as a cognitive ability. A growing body of research also suggests that communicated perspective taking (CPT)—or how interactional partners acknowledge, attend to, and confirm each others' perspectives during interactions—enables collaborative sense-making of shared difficulties with significant links to individual and relational health. The purpose of the current study was to further operationalize the construct and to test the relation between CPT and well-being in married couples' (n = 80) conversations about conflict. The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System (CPTRS) was developed and tested as a reliable observational system. Findings indicate that husbands' CPT predicted wives' relational satisfaction, and wives' CPT predicted husbands' relational satisfaction. Implications and future applications of the CPTRS are discussed.

AB - Research highlights the importance of perspective taking as a cognitive ability. A growing body of research also suggests that communicated perspective taking (CPT)—or how interactional partners acknowledge, attend to, and confirm each others' perspectives during interactions—enables collaborative sense-making of shared difficulties with significant links to individual and relational health. The purpose of the current study was to further operationalize the construct and to test the relation between CPT and well-being in married couples' (n = 80) conversations about conflict. The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System (CPTRS) was developed and tested as a reliable observational system. Findings indicate that husbands' CPT predicted wives' relational satisfaction, and wives' CPT predicted husbands' relational satisfaction. Implications and future applications of the CPTRS are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013459711&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013459711&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/pere.12177

DO - 10.1111/pere.12177

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85013459711

SN - 1350-4126

VL - 24

SP - 185

EP - 202

JO - Personal Relationships

JF - Personal Relationships

IS - 1

ER -

The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System and links to well-being in marital conflict

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this