Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 19–23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

Behavioral communication: Individual differences in communication style q

Michael Ivanov, Paul D. Werner *

California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, One Beach Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA 94133, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 26 May 2009Received in revised form 14 February 2010Accepted 20 February 2010Available online 29 March 2010

Keywords:Individual differencesInterpersonal communicationMarital behaviorCommunication behaviorTest construction

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.033

q Portions of this paper were presented at thePersonality Assessment, New Orleans, March 2008, anAssociation, Irvine, CA, April, 2008.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 415 955 2145.E-mail addresses: brainresearch@gmail.com (M. I

(P.D. Werner).

a b s t r a c t

Behavioral communication is defined as an individual differences variable entailing indirect expression offeelings, needs, and thoughts as a substitute for more direct and open communication. A Behavioral Com-munication Questionnaire (BCQ) was developed with an Internet sample (N = 247). High alpha reliabili-ties were obtained in measuring behavioral communication toward three referents: partner, friend, andcoworker. Strong positive intercorrelations among these versions of the BCQ suggested that people reportconsistency in what and how they communicate regardless of with whom they communicate. Scores forbehavioral communication correlated expectably with measures of self-esteem, open communication,life distresses, and alexithymia, and were independent of major demographic variables. Clinical implica-tions and directions for future research are discussed.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

How can differences among people in the tendency to expressthoughts, needs, and feelings by doing rather than by stating themverbally be understood and measured? This report considers theo-retical perspectives on the construct representing this tendency,which we term behavioral communication, introduces a measureof the construct, and tests hypotheses derived from the underlyingtheory.

The notion that behavior beyond direct verbalization serves as amode of communication is an element in many schools of thoughtin psychology and the social sciences, including psychoanalysis(Ogden, 1982), theory of mind (Castelfranchi, 2004), and familysystems theory (Bateson, 1972). Such communications may servepurposes not only of expression but also of persuasion, controland influence in dyadic relations (Stamp, 2004; Wilson & Morgan,2004).

The distinction between manifest and latent content, or be-tween direct and indirect expression, in dyadic communicationalso has received attention in the literature of communication the-ory. For example, the notion that the communicative signals of onemember of a dyad may result in understanding but not necessarilyaction on the part of the other, or in action but not necessarilyunderstanding, has been explored through the distinction between

ll rights reserved.

meetings of the Society ford the Western Psychological

vanov), pwerner@alliant.edu

illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts (e.g., Austin, 1962; Clark,1996). Also of relevance is Clark’s (1996) notion of layering, where-in one’s true meaning is not directly manifest in that which isexpressed.

There is extensive literature on the social construction andmanagement of the self (see Swann, 1983, 1984, for reviews).Self-management is accomplished through use of interactionaland behavioral strategies whereby people signal to others howthey want to be treated. They adopt social roles (e.g., parent), exhi-bit cues of identities (e.g., expressive clothing), and use communi-cation styles that solicit self-confirming feedback. Unsurprisingly,people’s self-perceptions and their perceptions of how others eval-uate them are strongly correlated (Schafer & Keith, 1985; Shrauger& Schoeneman, 1979). When self-perception is threatened, peopleoften use interactional opportunities to restore it (Dariusz, 2000),and when a new characteristic of the self is desired, people seekothers to help them realize it (Sanitioso & Wlodarski, 2004). Thus,through interactions people may manage their self-perception bymanaging the perception of it by others. When they desire to seethemselves in a particular way, they may attempt to influence oth-ers to see them this way. Doing so, however, may render such peo-ple’s expressed messages (e.g., I enjoy reading about cosmology)indirect and at a distance from ones they sought to convey (e.g., Iwant you to think of me as being smart). This literature suggests thatcommunication styles, whether verbal or not, can be tools for man-aging self-concept by impacting others’ reactions. Similarly, just asself-perception may be communicated indirectly, so may bethoughts, needs, and feelings. Thus, these indirect communicationsmay be aspects of emotional interchange within the family (Pla-nalp, 2003).

20 M. Ivanov, P.D. Werner / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 19–23

The construct of behavioral communication additionally derivesfrom theoretical work by Eidemiller and Justitisky (2002) in Russia.These authors suggested that family members engage in mentalexperiments in which they visualize the outcomes of their communi-cations. If an undesired outcome is imagined (e.g., My wife would rid-icule me if I said that), this would contribute to an informational deficitwithin the system (e.g., I cannot say that). The family member, how-ever, is likely to continue trying to communicate. Expecting directcommunication to be ineffective, he or she may attempt to connecta desired outcome (e.g., She expresses approval of me) to an unrelatedbehavior (e.g., If I express distress). Thus, a husband may communi-cate his need for approval to his wife by pretending to be distressed.In Eidemiller and Justitisky’s model, such forms of communicationare predictable interactional phases occurring in family systems.

The current study conceptualizes behavioral communication(BC) as an individual differences variable entailing communicationof needs, feelings, and thoughts by means of indirect or distortedmessages and behavioral impacts.1 The theoretical context guidingthis conceptualization views communications as adaptive capabilitiesshaped by their function (Nolfi, 2005), among individuals who differ intheir adaptation experiences. Just as such experiences influence per-sonality, so might they influence preferences regarding use of indirectcommunication strategies. From this perspective, variation in people’stendency to utilize such strategies to convey their messages withindyadic relationships warrants more research attention.

At one end of the BC continuum are people who primarily com-municate directly via clear, unambiguous messages correspondingto their intent. These people understand the state of mind leadingthem to the communication and express it unequivocally. Furtheralong the continuum are people who communicate indirectly. Theovert content of their messages may misrepresent the purpose ofthe communication. They create conditions under which a desiredresponse may occur, without explicitly acknowledging their actualintent (e.g., I hear there’s a good movie playing. Do you think youwould like it? instead of Would you go to a movie with me?). Still fur-ther along the continuum are the people whose communicationsoften involve messages that are distorted. Their messages’ contentmisrepresents the purpose of communication, pressuring or evenmanipulating the recipient to respond as desired by the communi-cator (e.g., I hear there’s a good movie playing. Do you know anyonewho might want to go?). People at the far end of the continuum rou-tinely accomplish communication through behavioral impacts,that is, by manipulative behaviors that strongly elicit the desiredresponse. These people are much less likely to be aware of the ini-tial purpose of communication than in the previous scenarios, andare more likely to perceive the literal content of their message asthe intended communication. Recipients of these communicationsare both influenced by the behavior and made to respond withinthe options communicated by it (e.g., I hear there’s a good movieplaying. Should I ask someone else to go with me?).

For two reasons, we theorize that the tendency to engage in BC is astable, pervasive, and routinely used interactional pattern. First,individuals’ communication styles are interwoven with their per-sonalities (e.g., McCroskey, Heisel, & Richmond, 2001). Second, weview this tendency as based upon relational schemas at the generallevel of Fletcher’s hierarchical model (Fletcher, 1993; Fletcher & Tho-mas, 1996). Thus, we hypothesize that there is consistency in use ofbehavioral communication across interpersonal domains.

Management of self-concept may contribute to explaining indi-vidual differences in BC, but is unlikely to fully explain them. Peo-ple with similar levels of self-esteem or self-confidence, for

1 Direct verbal communication, like everything that a person does, is behavioral, inthat the communicator is veridically expressing feelings and thoughts verbally. Wedefine the term behavioral communication as encompassing the domain of indirect ordistorted communications that are the focus of this report.

example, vary in how they express themselves. The concept of pro-jective identification, which is ‘‘a mode of communication by whichthe projector makes himself understood by exerting pressure onthe recipient to experience a set of feelings similar to his own” (Og-den, 1982, p. 37), may help explain this variation. One circum-stance in which projective identification is seen is when the‘‘projector” is alienated from a feeling or need and uses others toexperience it for him or her. Although extensively utilized withinpsychoanalytic literature, this construct remains challenging to re-search, and few attempts have been made to empirically validate it(e.g., Newman & Kimberley, 1997).

Individual differences may result from variation in the ability torecognize and experience feelings and needs, and in the tendencyto manipulate others. Some of these abilities are implicit in theconstruct of alexithymia, which translates as ‘‘lacking words forfeelings” and entails ‘‘difficulty identifying one’s feelings, differen-tiating emotions from physiological states, distinguishing amongemotions, and verbally communicating feelings” (Lumley, 2004,p. 1273). Alexithymia is generally regarded as a trait variable thatis associated with deficits in emotional regulation. Alexithymicindividuals have difficulties with emotional disclosure (see Lum-ley, 2004), trouble expressing negative experiences, and a tendencyto ruminate (Luminet, Zech, Rimé, & Wagner, 2000). Not only alexi-thymics, however, have difficulties in direct self-expression. Fac-tors such as chronic stress and anxiety may also impedeacknowledgment of one’s feelings. Because people may act withoutawareness of their relevant emotions, it is of interest to explorewhether difficulties in emotional awareness are associated withbehavioral communication.

The present study developed a measure of BC and testedhypotheses pertaining to the construct’s theoretical framework.The first hypothesis was that people are consistent in their use ofBC across social settings. Because individual differences in BC wereconceptualized as relating to difficulties in identifying and verbal-izing internal states, the second hypothesis was that BC correlatespositively with these aspects of alexithymia. BC is also viewed as ameans by which people manage their desired self-representation.Because people would rely on behavioral communication repara-tively to maintain their self-regard, the third hypothesis was thatBC correlates negatively with self-esteem. Because BC is viewedas a potentially problematic form of communication, especiallywhen a context calls for direct and open communication, thefourth hypothesis was that BC correlates positively with distressesof daily life. The final hypothesis was that BC correlates negativelywith openness of communication.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants (N = 247) were recruited and tested online. Recruit-ment took place via Internet search advertisements (e.g., GoogleAdwords) and notices at varied websites (e.g., psychology andcommunity message boards). These announcements describedthe study as concerning relationship behavior, communication,and personality. Ages ranged from 18 to 68 (M = 30.6; SD = 11.5).Most participants were females (85%), were of white ethnicity(72%), had at least some college education (87%), were currentlyor had been previously married (52.4%), and spoke English as theirprimary language (84.2%).

2.2. Instruments

The Behavioral Communication Questionnaire (BCQ) was devel-oped to assess behavioral communication. It assesses respondents’

Table 1Alphas and descriptive statistics.

Scale Alpha M (SD)

Behavioral communication questionnairePartner .92 3.02 (.66)Friend .93 2.78 (.69)Coworker .93 2.66 (.71)Total .97 2.83 (.62)

Problems in Identifying of Internal States .84 18.97 (7.04)Problems in Verbalizing of Internal States .88 21.22 (8.04)Self-Esteem .90 20.51 (6.51)Life Distress Inventory .88 2.46 (1.12)

Openness/self-disclosurePartner .94 9.99 (3.13)Friend .91 9.29 (2.69)Coworker .90 6.03 (2.81)Total .95 8.48 (2.30)

Note: N = 247.

M. Ivanov, P.D. Werner / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 19–23 21

tendency to express themselves not directly but rather throughindirect verbalizations or actions. The questionnaire consists ofeight brief vignettes, each describing a communication event inwhich one of three aspects of content, a feeling, a need, or athought, is being expressed. Following each vignette, from threeto seven statements are presented describing what the respondentmight do in such a circumstance. Each of the 33 vignette–behaviorpairings is considered an item for the purpose of scoring. Respon-dents indicated their likelihood of engaging in each behavior undereach circumstance (1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely). Behavioralstatements encompassed three modes or types of behavior bywhich people might communicate behaviorally: active (e.g., chang-ing the situation), non-verbal (e.g., changing one’s body posture),and withdrawal (e.g., disengaging emotionally). The modes werenot conceived as representing unique subcategories of BC, butrather were included to facilitate representation of varied behav-iors reflecting BC. Three versions of the BCQ were developed,assessing behavior toward one’s partner, friend, and coworker,which were identical except for the referent. The Appendix givessample items from the partner version. Scores are computed asthe mean of responses across items, consistent with the conceptu-alization of BC as a continuum. Instructions are as follows: ‘‘Thisquestionnaire presents a series of brief vignettes asking you toimagine (or recall) interpersonal situations that occur or may occurbetween you and a partner, coworker, or friend. Some vignettes aresimilar in content except that you would need to think of yourpartner, coworker or friend as you respond. Each vignette will befollowed by a few statements of communication behavior in rela-tion to the vignette. You will be asked to rate the likelihood of yourengaging in each behavior in the situation being described.”Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they would de-scribe a current, past, or hypothetical relationship.

The Bermond–Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (Bermond, Ooster-veld, & Vorst, 1994) measures cognitive and affective dimensionsof alexithymia. Responses (1 = definitely applies to me; 5 = in noway applies to me) are summed, with higher scores indicatinggreater proneness to alexithymia. We analyzed scores on twoscales for which hypotheses were stated: Identifying of InternalStates and Verbalizing of Internal States. These scales have shownsatisfactory internal consistency with both clinical and non-clinicalgroups (Müller, Bühner, & Ellgring, 2004), and also relate expect-ably to scales on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (Bagby, Parker,& Taylor, 1994).

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1979) is an exten-sively used 10-item measure of global self-esteem. For the purposeof scoring, responses are coded 0 = strongly disagree to 3 = stronglyagree. The RSE has excellent psychometric properties and wellestablished validity (e.g., Kernis, Grannemann, & Barclay, 1989).

The Life Distress Inventory (Thomas, Yoshioka, & Ager, 1994;Yoshioka & Shibusawa, 2002) measures general distress in multipleareas of one’s life (e.g., marriage, sex, finance, and health). For scor-ing, responses to its 18 items are coded 0 = no distress to 6 = themost distress I’ve ever felt. Yoshioka and Shibusawa (2002) re-ported an alpha coefficient of .89 for the total score, computed asthe mean response across items, and provided evidence for its con-current and construct validity.

The 14-item Openness/Self-disclosure scale of California Inven-tory for Family Assessment (Werner, Green, Greenberg, Browne,& McKenna, 2001) assesses the reported degree to which onemember of a dyadic relationship is open, self-revealing, honest, di-rect, and forthright with the other member. A four-point scale isused, and scores can range from 0 to 14. Studies of spouse andpartner relationships have suggested the scale’s reliability (asmeta-analyzed by Werner & Green, 2000; see also Werner et al.,2001) and validity (e.g., Desmond, 2000; O’Brien, 2003). This studyadministered three versions of the scale, matching the three

versions of the BCQ in terms of referents; additionally, a total scoreaveraging across versions was computed.

2.3. Procedure

Respondents to recruitment announcements were directed to awebsite containing the study’s materials. On the BCQ partner ver-sion, 58% of participants answered with regard to their currentpartner, 26% with regard to a past partner, and 14% with regardto a hypothetical partner. On the BCQ friend version, 80% of partic-ipants answered with regard to a current friend, 8% with regard toa past friend, and 11% with regard to a hypothetical friend. On theBCQ coworker version, 60% of participants answered with regard toa current coworker, 24% with regard to a past coworker, and 15%with regard to a hypothetical coworker.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary analyses

In preliminary analyses, subscale scores were computed for theBC content areas of feelings, needs, and thoughts. Intercorrelationsamong subscales ranged from .80 to .83 (all p < .001), suggestingthat the BCQ measures a unitary construct across the areas of con-tent of communication that were studied. Consequently, totalscores over the BCQ’s 33 items were analyzed in the remainderof this report.

Table 1 presents alpha coefficients and descriptive statistics forthe BCQ and other variables studied. Scores on the BCQ had alphacoefficients of .92 and above. Total BCQ scores were found to beindependent of respondent gender (t[245] = �1.62, ns) and levelof education (F[5,244] = 1.33, ns). On the partner version of theBCQ, no mean difference was found in relation to marital/relation-ship status (F[5,245] = 1.58, ns). Additionally, an ANOVA for eachBCQ version found no mean difference with regard to relationshipcharacteristics of the referent (e.g., current and hypothetical).

3.2. Test of hypotheses

Results were consistent with all of the study’s hypotheses. Withregard to the hypothesis of consistency of BC across referents, thepartner–friend r was .73, the partner–coworker r was .59, and thefriend–coworker r was .75 (all p < .001). These strong correlationssuggested that reported behavioral communication tendency isconsistent across social settings. Based on these results and to sim-plify presentation of the remaining findings, the total BCQ score,

Table 2Correlations between behavioral communication and other study variables.

Scale r

Problems in Identifying of Internal States .19*

Problems in Verbalizing of Internal States .22**

Self-Esteem �.19*

Life Distress Inventory .30**

Openness/Self-disclosure total �.26**

Note: N = 247.* p < .01.** p < .001.

22 M. Ivanov, P.D. Werner / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 19–23

computed across versions, was employed in subsequent analyses(Table 2).

As predicted, positive correlations were found between the BCQtotal score and the Alexithymia Questionnaire scales for Identify-ing of Internal States and Verbalizing of Internal States. These cor-relations, although weak, suggested that difficulty in identifyingand verbalizing their internal experiences relates to people’s ten-dency to engage in behavioral communication. Also as predicted,BCQ total correlated negatively with Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem scale,positively with the Life Distress Inventory total score, and nega-tively with Openness/Self-disclosure. When these correlationswere computed separately by respondent gender, results for fe-males were similar in magnitude and significance to those in thefull sample. Correlations for males were in the predicted direction,but all were non-significant, perhaps due to low statistical powerassociated with the limited number of male participants. Thus,these analyses do not suggest a moderating role of gender on theresults of the tests of hypotheses.

4. Discussion

The present findings suggest that behavioral communicationcan be measured with good internal consistency regardless of ref-erent (partner, friend, and coworker). They also suggest that peopleare consistent in what they communicate behaviorally, no matterwith whom they do so. That is, substantial correlations were foundamong scores for reported use of behavioral communication across(a) areas of content of communication (feelings, needs, andthoughts), and (b) social settings of communication (partner,friend, and coworker). Moreover, the findings suggest that people’stendency to engage in behavioral communication is unrelated tomajor demographic variables. Overall, the study provides tentativeevidence that behavioral communication may be regarded as apersonality trait entailing the tendency to create and manipulatecircumstances as a means of communication.

Initially, BC was conceived as a problematic disposition relatedto difficulty in direct self-expression and to context-dependentself-image. Obtained correlations with clinically relevant variableswere consistent with this view, and suggest implications for clini-cal work. For example, consistent with their own approach to com-municating, high BC individuals may tend more to infer meaningfrom other people’s actions than from their words. Thus, perhapsa therapeutic emphasis on trust development would be especiallyuseful for clients scoring high on BC. Furthermore, BC was found tocorrelate with difficulties in being in touch with and reportingone’s feelings. These associations may translate into difficulties inunderstanding and relating to others’ feelings, and thus to prob-lems with empathy and role-taking. This interpretation suggeststhat high BC clients might benefit from therapeutic interventionsbearing on these aspects of their relationships.

Beyond the clinical realm, it may be suggested that the tendencyto engage in behavioral communication, although problematic attimes, may be functional for and even reinforced by certain rela-tionships. In this sense, considering the importance of interpersonal

similarity for satisfying relationships (e.g., Burleson & Denton,1992), further research could explore whether people’s match onBC is associated with their relationship satisfaction.

Our results suggest that BC’s theoretical framework requiresfurther refinement to better explain mechanisms by which individ-ual differences in behavioral communication emerge. In the cur-rent study, such differences were hypothesized to relate todeficits in people’s ability to identify and verbalize their internalstates. The magnitude of obtained correlations, however, makesit unlikely that alexithymia provides an adequate etiological modelfor the construct. An expanded perspective might consider the roleof caregiver behaviors in the formation of BC dispositions in chil-dren. Evidence bearing on this perspective might come from anal-ysis of adults’ BC scores in relation to measures of their parents’ orcaregivers’ past behavior toward them.

Because the present study focused on the behavior of the com-municator only, research is needed on the process of interchange inbehavioral communication. That is, the nature of the joint constru-al (Clark, 1996, pp. 212–220) of that which is being expressed bybehavioral communication warrants further exploration. Sillars,Canary, and Tafoya (2004) have discussed ways in which the con-ceptual framework of psychological research on direct and indirectcommunication does not easily comport with communication the-orists’ emphasis on message ambiguity and on meaning making incommunicative interchanges. Availability of measures such as theBCQ may assist future researchers in resolving this disjuncture andin fostering better integration between psychological and commu-nication theory approaches to understanding dyadic processes.

Limitations of this study suggest a number of directions for fu-ture research. First, because the construct of BC was operational-ized only through use of the BCQ, future research couldoperationalize it by other modalities (e.g., observer ratings andspouse ratings). Second, future research could include a broaderrange of variables representing communication processes, suchas demand-withdraw transactions (Eldridge & Christensen, 2002),to more fully situate BC within the domain of communication.Third, future research within clinical samples would help clarifythe clinical implications of BC. Fourth, research conducted overtime is needed to gauge the retest reliability of the BCQ and to ex-plore its predictive validity. Fifth, it would be valuable to exploreBC within the larger personality context (e.g., the Big 5 personalitytraits), and, in a larger sample, to explore its factorial validity. Inconclusion, the present findings provide a foundation for future re-search on the construct of BC as an aspect of communication indyadic relationships, and on use of the BCQ in predicting andunderstanding interpersonal and clinically relevant behaviors.

Appendix. Sample items from the Behavioral CommunicationQuestionnaire

1. Imagine that you want to let your PARTNER know that you areupset. How likely are you to do each of the following?(Content = feeling).(a) I may do something that would show him/her how I feel

(Mode = active).(b) I may act differently (e.g., be more reserved or show

indifference) around him/her for a while (Mode = non-verbal).

(c) I may not talk to him/her for a while and just keep it tomyself (Mode = withdrawal).

2. Imagine that you want your PARTNER to pay attention to you orto something you do. How likely are you to do each of the fol-lowing? (Content = need).

M. Ivanov, P.D. Werner / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 19–23 23

(a) I may do something that will surely get his/her attention(Mode = active).

(b) I may behave emotionally (for example, I may get angryor sad) in order to get his/her attention (Mode = non-verbal).

(c) I may distance myself from my partner in hope that he/she will figure out what is going on (Mode = withdrawal).

3. Imagine that you have a difficult time getting your PARTNER toshare your idea about something or to take your viewpoint. Howlikely are you to do each of the following? (Content = thought).(a) I may present it in a more dramatic fashion (Mode =

active).(b) I may use non-verbal communication, such as facial

expression, bodily posture or silence, to be more persua-sive (Mode = non-verbal).

(c) I may just leave the room and pout (Mode = withdrawal).

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bagby, R., Parker, J., & Taylor, G. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia

Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 38, 23–32.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology,psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bermond, B., Oosterveld, P., & Vorst, H. C. M. (1994). Bermond–Vorst AlexithymiaQuestionnaire: Construction, reliability, validity, and unidimensionality [InternalRep.]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, Faculty ofPsychology, Department of Psychological Methods.

Burleson, B. R., & Denton, W. H. (1992). A new look at similarity and attraction inmarriage: Similarities in social-cognitive and communication skills aspredictors of attraction and satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 59,268–287.

Castelfranchi, C. (2004). ToM and BIC: Intentional behavioral communication as basedon theory of mind. Roma: Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technologies –CNR.

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dariusz, D. (2000). On inferring one’s beliefs from one’s attempt and consequences

for subsequent compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,260–272.

Desmond, D. P. (2000). Relationship quality and the decision to have a second child inlesbian-headed households. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, California Schoolof Professional Psychology, Alameda.

Eidemiller, E., & Justitisky, V. (2002). Psychology and psychotherapy of family (3rded.). Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communication duringcouple conflict: A review and analysis. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.),Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction(pp. 289–322). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fletcher, G. J. O. (1993). Cognition in close relationships. New Zealand Journal ofPsychology, 22, 69–81.

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Thomas, G. (1996). Close relationship lay theories: Theirstructure and function. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledgestructures in close relationships (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1989). Stability and level of self-esteem as a predictor of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 56, 1013–1022.

Luminet, O., Zech, E., Rimé, B., & Wagner, H. (2000). Predicting cognitive and socialconsequences of emotional episodes: The contribution of emotional intensity,the Five Factor Model, and alexithymia. Journal of Research in Personality, 34,471–497.

Lumley, M. (2004). Alexithymia, emotional disclosure, and health: A program ofresearch. Journal of Personality, 72, 1271–1300.

McCroskey, J., Heisel, A., & Richmond, V. (2001). Eysenck’s BIG THREE andcommunication traits: Three correlational studies. CommunicationMonographs, 68, 360–366.

Müller, J., Bühner, M., & Ellgring, H. (2004). The assessment of alexithymia:Psychometric properties and validity of the Bermond–Vorst alexithymiaquestionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 373–391.

Newman, L., & Kimberley, D. (1997). A new look at defensive projection: Thoughtsuppression, accessibility, and biased person perception. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 72, 980–1001.

Nolfi, S. (2005). Emergence of communication in embodied agents: Co-adaptingcommunicative and non-communicative behaviors. Connection Science, 17,231–248.

O’Brien, S. M. (2003). Intrusiveness, closeness-caregiving, and relationship adjustmentin lesbian cohabitating couples. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, AlliantInternational University, California School of Professional Psychology, Fresno.

Ogden, T. (1982). Projective identification and psychotherapeutic technique. Northvale,NJ: Jason Aronson.

Planalp, S. (2003). The unacknowledged role of emotion in theories of closerelationships: How do theories feel? Communication Theory, 13, 78–99.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books Inc.Sanitioso, R., & Wlodarski, R. (2004). In search of information that confirms a

desired self-perception: Motivated processing of social feedback and choice ofsocial interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 412–422.

Schafer, R. B., & Keith, P. M. (1985). A causal model approach to the symbolicinteractionist view of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 48, 963–969.

Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549–573.

Sillars, A., Canary, D. J., & Tafoya, M. (2004). Communication, conflict, and thequality of family relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of familycommunication (pp. 413–446). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stamp, G. H. (2004). Theories of family relationships and a family relationshipstheoretical model. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication(pp. 1–30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swann, W. B. Jr., (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony withthe self. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.). Social psychology perspectives (Vol. 2,pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swann, W. B. Jr., (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter ofpragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457–477.

Thomas, E. J., Yoshioka, M. R., & Ager, R. D. (1994). Life Distress Inventory. In J.Fischer & K. Corcoran (Eds.), Measures of clinical practice: A sourcebook (2nd ed.,pp. 267). New York: Free Press.

Werner, P. D., & Green, R.-J. (2000, August). California Inventory for FamilyAssessment: Integrating reliability results to date. Poster presented at themeeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Werner, P. D., Green, R.-J., Greenberg, J., Browne, T. L., & McKenna, T. E. (2001).Beyond ‘‘enmeshment”: Evidence for the independence of intrusiveness andcloseness-caregiving in married couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,27, 459–471.

Wilson, S. R., & Morgan, W. M. (2004). Persuasion and families. In A. L. Vangelisti(Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 447–471). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Yoshioka, M. R., & Shibusawa, T. (2002). The Life Distress Inventory: A psychometricevaluation. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 752–767.