Couple Communication and Female Problem Drinking:

A Behavioral Observation Study

Adrian B. Kelly and W. Kim Halford
Griffith University
Ross M. Young
University of Queensland
Couples with alcohol and relationship problems often report poor communication, yet little is known
about the communication of maritally distressed couples in which the woman abuses alcohol (MDWA
couples). Compared with maritally distressed couples without alcohol problems (MDNA) and couples
with neither problem (NDNA), MDWA couples showed a distinctive pattern of negative communication.
Similar to MDNA men, MDWA men spoke negatively to their partners but listened positively to their
partners much like NDNA men. MDWA women listened negatively, much as MDNA women did, but
spoke positively, like NDNA women did. The interactions of MDWA couples can be characterized as a
male-demandfemale-withdraw pattern, which is a gender reversal of the female-demandmale-
withdraw pattern often observed in MDNA couples.
Good communication that allows effective management of con-
flict is central to sustaining a mutually satisfying couple relation-
ship (Weiss & Heyman, 1997). It is well established that couples
in which the man abuses alcohol are characterized by low rela-
tionship satisfaction, poor communication, and destructive conflict
(Halford, Bouma, Kelly, & Young, 1999); however, the commu-
nication of couples in which the woman abuses alcohol has re-
ceived little research attention. The aim of the current study was to
assess the communication of couples in which the woman abuses
alcohol.
There is a high rate of concurrence of alcohol abuse in women,
self-reported couple communication problems, and relationship
distress (e.g., Blankfield & Maritz, 1990; Olenick & Chalmers,
1991). However, self-report is not always a reliable index of
couple communication (Halford, Sanders & Behrens, 2000), and
there is little observational research on communication in maritally
distressed couples in which the woman abuses alcohol (MDWA)
couples. Noel, McCrady, Stout, and Fisher-Nelson (1991) ana-
lyzed the observed communication of MDWA couples and mari-
tally distressed couples in which the man abuses alcohol (MDMA
couples). They found that MDWA couples were less negative and
more positive than MDMA couples. However, the MDWA cou-
ples were less maritally distressed than MDMA couples, and there
was only a small number of MDWA couples (n 12). Because the
gender of the alcohol abuser was confounded with marital distress,
and there was low statistical power, important characteristics of
MDWA couples may have been missed.
Given the association of alcohol problems and relationship
distress in women and frequent negative communication in
MDMA couples (Halford et al., 1999), we predicted that MDWA
couples would show levels of negative communication similar to
maritally distressed couples with no alcohol problems (MDNA
couples) and would be more negative than couples with neither
problem (NDNA couples; Hypothesis 1). However, we also
thought MDWA couples may differ in demand and withdraw
behaviors from MDNA couples. A pattern of one partner demand-
ing change and the other partner withdrawing during discussion of
problem issues is predictive of relationship distress (Gottman,
1994). On average, women tend to demand change more than men,
and men tend to withdraw more than women in MDNA couples
(Gottman, 1994). However, when men seek change from their
female partners, men increase their demands and criticisms, and
their female partners withdraw (Heavey, Layne, & Christensen,
1993). On the basis of the assumption that men in MDWA couples
may be seeking change from their problem-drinking partners, we
predicted that MDWA couples would show frequent male de-
mands in the form of criticism and female withdrawal relative to
both MDNA and NDNA couples (Hypothesis 2).
Method
Participants
Twenty-four MDNA couples, 24 NDNA couples, and 19 MDWA cou-
ples were recruited through media outreach. The MDNA and NDNA
couples were recruited for a study of couple communication and were paid
$40 per couple for their participation. The MDWA couples were recruited
for a study evaluating the effects of brief therapy for alcohol problems in
women who also have relationship difficulties. The results of the interven-
tion were reported by Kelly, Halford, and Young (2000). Relationship
Adrian B. Kelly, School of Applied Psychology, Gold Coast Campus,
Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia; W. Kim Halford,
School of Applied Psychology, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Griffith University,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Ross M. Young, Department of Psychi-
atry, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
This study was supported by a 2000 Griffith University research grant
and by an Australian National Drug Strategy research fellowship to Adrian
B. Kelly. We thank Sue Osgarby, Ruth Bouma, and Carmel Dyer for
assistance in data collection and analysis. An extended version of this
article is available on request.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adrian
B. Kelly, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Gold Coast
Campus, PMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 4217, Australia.
E-mail: a.kelly@mailbox.gu.edu.au
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Copyright 2002 by the Educational Publishing Foundation
2002, Vol. 16, No. 3, 269271 0893-164X/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0893-164X.16.3.269
269
distress was defined as both partners scoring below 100 on the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976; see Measures section), and non-
distress was defined as neither partner meeting this criterion. We opera-
tionalized problem drinking using the National Health and Medical Re-
search Council of Australias (1992) definition of hazardous drinking
assessed by the Khavari Alcohol Test (KAT; Khavari & Farber, 1978; see
Measures section). There were no significant differences across groups in
regard to age, years of marriage, presence of children, education, or
socioeconomic status. The mean age of the women was 40.6 years (SD
8.9) and that of men was 42.6 years (SD 10.5); the mean duration of
marriage of 14.8 years (SD 10.1). MDWA women reported drinking a
mean of 7.3 (SD 3.8) standard drinks per day, they had been concerned
about their drinking for a mean of 11 years (SD 8), and 37% of these
women had received previous alcohol-related treatment.
Measures
All couples completed the DAS (Spanier, 1976) and the KAT (Khavari
& Farber, 1978). We assessed couple communication using the widely
used problem-solving task in which couples discuss for 10 min a current
source of relationship conflict. We asked MDWA couples not to choose the
issue of alcohol consumption, given that we wanted to assess general
communication behavior. We videotaped the interactions and subsequently
coded them using the Rapid-KPI (Halford et al., 2000), a modification of
the Katagoriensystem fur Partnershaftliche Interaktion (KPI; Hahlweg et
al., 1984). The Rapid-KPI has nine behavioral codes that can be combined
to yield four summary codes of: (a) positive speak (problem described,
positive solution), (b) positive listen (accept, agree), (c) negative speak
(criticize, negative solution), or negative listen (disagree, justify, with-
draw). We also examined the rates of criticism, justification, and with-
drawal to test Hypothesis 2. Interrater reliabilities for individual and
summary behavioral codes were high (all s 0.7).
Results
MDWA men were in the distressed range on the DAS but had
significantly higher mean DAS scores than the MDNA men,
MDNA women, or the MDWA women. This raised the possibility
that any behavioral differences observed between the MDNA and
MDWA couples were attributable to the differential male relation-
ship satisfaction. We conducted a series of analyses of covariance
of group by gender using the DAS scores as a covariate, and the
pattern of group differences remained the same as reported in
Table 1 using analyses of variance. Thus, the differences between
the MDNA and MDWA couples are not attributable to differential
male DAS scores.
Hypothesis 1 received mixed support. As is evident from Table
1, the women in MDWA couples showed the expected negativity
in listening, but not in speaking. In contrast, the MDWA men
showed the expected negativity in speaking, but not in listening.
Specifically, MDWA women were similar to MDNA women in
that they showed low rates of positive listening and high rates of
negative listening, and they were similar to NDNA women in
having low rates of negative speaking and high rates of positive
speaking. In contrast, MDWA men were similar to MDNA men in
having low rates of positive speaking and high rates of negative
speaking, and they were similar to NDNA men in low rates of
negative listening. Hypothesis 2 was supported. MDWA men had
a high mean rate of criticism similar to MDNA men, whereas
MDWA women were similar to NDNA women in having low rates
of criticism. MDWA women were similar to MDNA women in
having high rates of withdrawal and justification, whereas MDWA T
a
b
l
e
1
M
e
a
n
s
a
n
d
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
a
n
d
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
W
o
m
e
n
M
e
n
F
(
2
,
6
5
)
M
D
W
A
M
D
N
A
N
D
N
A
M
D
W
A
M
D
N
A
N
D
N
A
G
r
o
u
p
G
e
n
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p

G
e
n
d
e
r
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
D
A
S
8
0
.
0
2
0
.
7
a
7
5
.
3
1
3
.
6
a
1
2
6
.
7
1
2
.
9
b
8
9
.
6
1
5
.
1
c
8
0
.
5
1
1
.
8
a
1
2
4
.
6
1
4
.
3
b
1
0
4
.
9
*
*
5
.
6
0
*
3
.
7
5
*
K
A
T
7
.
3
0
3
.
7
8
a
0
.
6
1
0
.
8
6
b
0
.
8
2
1
.
5
5
b
2
.
6
8
3
.
7
4
c
1
.
4
6
1
.
5
2
c
2
.
0
7
3
.
1
6
c
1
6
.
2
2
*
*
6
.
0
4
*
2
9
.
6
2
*
*
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
1
0
.
6
1
5
.
5
a
4
0
.
8
3
4
.
5
b
7
.
4
1
6
.
0
a
1
6
.
9
2
7
.
2
a
2
3
.
0
2
5
.
5
a
1
.
3
4
.
1
b
1
4
.
9
2
*
*
3
.
2
7
*
4
.
1
9
*
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
2
0
.
0
2
7
.
0
a
2
6
.
6
2
8
.
2
a
3
.
2
7
.
5
b
1
5
.
6
1
7
.
9
a
3
7
.
4
4
1
.
4
a
9
.
1
1
8
.
5
a
,
b
1
0
.
2
0
*
*
2
.
6
7
2
.
7
7
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
7
6
.
6
2
6
.
3
a
5
0
.
6
2
9
.
9
b
8
8
.
0
1
1
.
1
a
6
8
.
8
2
4
.
6
a
,
b
5
8
.
8
2
7
.
4
a
8
6
.
9
1
1
.
6
b
1
6
.
3
0
*
*

1
4
.
2
0
*
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
2
9
.
4
1
9
.
2
a
2
2
.
8
2
2
.
9
a
5
5
.
7
2
5
.
1
b
4
9
.
4
2
9
.
2
b
2
9
.
8
2
3
.
7
a
6
4
.
3
2
2
.
3
b
1
7
.
5
5
*
*
1
6
.
1
9
*
*
1
.
6
6
C
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
e
1
2
.
2
1
5
.
4
a
3
9
.
6
3
3
.
8
b
6
.
5
1
4
.
2
a
1
5
.
6
2
6
.
5
a
2
2
.
0
2
5
.
8
a
1
.
1
3
.
5
c
1
5
.
2
4
*
*
4
.
0
0
*
3
.
3
5
*
W
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
1
8
.
8
2
5
.
3
a
1
5
.
6
1
9
.
1
a
1
.
7
5
.
2
b
6
.
9
1
1
.
4
a
2
6
.
0
2
8
.
0
c
3
.
5
1
2
.
4
a
,
b
1
0
.
6
6
*
*

1
4
.
5
3
*
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
5
.
3
2
5
.
9
a
2
3
.
0
2
7
.
8
a
,
c
1
.
1
4
.
2
b
8
.
4
1
3
.
4
a
3
3
.
6
3
0
.
4
c
7
.
8
1
6
.
8
a
1
0
.
7
6
*
*
1
.
6
3
3
.
2
8
*
N
o
t
e
.
M
e
a
n
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
s
u
b
s
c
r
i
p
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
a
t
p

.
0
5
u
s
i
n
g
p
o
s
t
h
o
c
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
B
o
n
f
e
r
r
o
n
i
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
F
v
a
l
u
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
m
a
i
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
g
r
o
u
p
(
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
d
a
c
r
o
s
s
g
e
n
d
e
r
)
.
M
D
W
A

m
a
r
i
t
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
d
c
o
u
p
l
e
s
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
w
o
m
a
n
a
b
u
s
e
s
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
;
M
D
N
A

m
a
r
i
t
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
d
c
o
u
p
l
e
s
w
i
t
h
n
o
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
a
b
u
s
e
;
N
D
N
A

n
o
n
d
i
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
d
c
o
u
p
l
e
s
w
i
t
h
n
o
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
a
b
u
s
e
;
D
A
S

D
y
a
d
i
c
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
S
c
a
l
e
,
K
A
T

K
h
a
v
a
r
i
A
l
c
o
h
o
l
T
e
s
t
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
t
o
m
e
a
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
r
i
n
k
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
.
*
p

.
0
5
.
*
*
p

.
0
0
1
.
270
BRIEF REPORTS
men were similar to NDNA men in having low rates of justifica-
tion or withdrawal.
Discussion
There were two key findings. First, there was partial support for
the predicted high negativity of MDWA couples. MDWA couples
showed more negative communication than did NDNA couples,
but this negativity varied by gender and was not the same cross-
gender negativity seen in MDNA couples. MDWA men had high
rates of negative speaking but not negative listening, whereas
MDWA women had high rates of negative listening but not speak-
ing. Second, as predicted, MDWA couples showed gender-specific
high rates of male criticism, female justifications, and female
withdrawal.
The observed high rates of male criticism, female justifications,
and female withdrawal in MDWA couples is similar to the female-
demandmale-withdraw pattern often observed in distressed cou-
ples (Heavey et al., 1993), but in MDWA couples there is a gender
reversal to a male-demandfemale-withdraw pattern. As noted in
the beginning of this article, the male-demandfemale withdraw
pattern is unusual, but it does occur when the man is seeking to get
his partner to change (Heavey et al., 1993). This suggests that in
MDWA couples it is the man who is seeking change. It is note-
worthy that we asked MDWA couples to discuss a topic other than
the alcohol abuse, and couples followed this instruction. Thus, the
observed male-demandfemale-withdraw pattern seems to be per-
vasive in MDWA couples and not specific to discussion of alcohol
problems.
There are some important limitations of this study. The sample
of MDWA couples had moderate alcohol problems, and our find-
ings may not generalize to couples with severe alcohol problems,
for whom conflict and aggression may be severe. Also, we were
able to observe the interactions only of couples in which both the
man and woman agreed to participate in the research. There were
variations in recruitment methods across groups, which may have
resulted in groups that differed on measures other than marital
distress. However, in any assessment or intervention study evalu-
ations are limited to consenting couples, and this study informs us
about MDWA couples likely to present to clinicians. This study
was cross-sectional and therefore cannot establish the causes of
communication patterns.
These results have implications for the use of couple therapy as
part of treatment of womens alcohol problems. Behavioral couple
therapy has proved effective in reducing destructive conflict in
both distressed couples without alcohol problems (Epstein & Bau-
com, in press) and in couples in which the man has alcohol
problems (e.g., OFarrell, Cutter, Choquette, Floyd, & Bayog,
1992). Behavioral couple therapy also may prove useful as part of
the treatment of womens alcohol problems if it helps couples
develop patterns of communication to replace the male-demand
female-withdraw pattern and thereby promotes effective conflict
resolution.
References
Blankfield, A., & Maritz, J. S. (1990). Female alcoholics: IV. Admission
problems and patterns. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 82, 445450.
Epstein, N., & Baucom, D. H. (in press). Innovations in cognitive behav-
ioral couple therapy: Treating couples in context. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between
marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hahlweg, K., Reissner, L., Kohli, G., Vollmer, M., Schindler, L., &
Revensdorf, D. (1984). Development and validity of a new system to
analyze interpersonal communication: Katagoriensystem fur Partner-
shaftliche Interaktion. In K. Hahlweg & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Marital
interaction: Analysis and modification (pp. 182198). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Halford, W. K., Bouma, R., Kelly, A. B., & Young, R. M. (1999).
Individual psychopathology and marital distress: Analysing the associ-
ation and implications for therapy. Behavior Modification, 23, 179216.
Halford, W. K., Sanders, M. R., & Behrens, B. C. (2000). Repeating the
errors of out parents? Family-of-origin spouse violence and observed
conflict management in engaged couples. Family Process, 39, 219235.
Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict
structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1627.
Kelly, A. B., Halford, W. K., & Young, R. M. (2000). Maritally distressed
women with alcohol problems: The impact of a brief alcohol-focused
intervention on drinking behavior and marital satisfaction. Addiction, 95,
15371549.
Khavari, K. A., & Farber, P. D. (1978). A profile instrument for the
quantification and assessment of alcohol consumption. Journal of Stud-
ies on Alcohol, 39, 15251539.
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. (1992). Is
there a safe level of daily consumption of alcohol for men and women?
Recommendations regarding responsible drinking behaviour. Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Noel, N. E., McCrady, B. S., Stout, R., & Fisher-Nelson, H. (1991). Gender
differences in marital functioning of male and female alcoholics. Family
Dynamics Addiction Quarterly, 1, 3138.
OFarrell, T., Cutter, H. S. G., Choquette, K. A., Floyd, F. J., & Bayog,
R. D. (1992). Behavioral marital therapy for male alcoholics: Marital
and drinking adjustment during the two years after treatment. Behavior
Therapy, 23, 529549.
Olenick, N. L., & Chalmers, D. K. (1991). Gender-specific drinking styles
in alcoholics and nonalcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52,
324330.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for
assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 38, 1528.
Weiss, R. L., & Heyman, R. E. (1997). A clinicalresearch overview of
couple interactions. In W. K. Halford & H. J. Markman (Eds.), The
clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions (pp. 1341).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Received April 17, 2001
Revision received October 1, 2001
Accepted October 8, 2001
271
BRIEF REPORTS