Behavior analysis and the scientific study of couples.

Abstract

Behavior analysis has recently contributed a great deal to the study of couples. The current paper reviews several of those contributions. First, the contributions of behavior analysis to the development of Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (ICT) are discussed. It is concluded that behavior analysis has guided ICT to be more flexible, more thoroughly contextual, and more attentive to naturally occurring contingencies for change. Second, a behavior analytic exploration of acceptance is discussed, highlighting the what, when, and how of acceptance in therapy. Third, a behavioral conceptualization of intimacy is reviewed, highlighting the contributions that behavior analytic principals make to our understanding of the intimacy process. Finally, the contributions of behavior analysis to the study and treatment of depression are briefly reviewed, with an emphasis on conceptualizing depression in context. ********** Behavior analysis has recently contributed a great deal to the study of couples. Although the study of couples has a long history of using behavioral observation as a key method, a great deal of the work has been either consciously pre-theoretical (in an inductive sense; e.g., Gottman, 1994) or inspired by common-sense theory. Recently, however, those in the field are rediscovering the theoretical and practical utility of behavior analysis. A Behavior Analytic Approach to Couple Therapy An excellent example of this process of rediscovery can be found in the evolution of traditional behavioral marital therapy (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979) into its current manifestation as integrative couple therapy (Christensen & Jacobson, 1991; Jacobson & Christensen, 1998). Traditionally, behavioral marital therapy was rooted in social learning and behavior exchange theories. As such it was primarily focused on identifying relationship skill as the etiology of relationship distress and addressing those skill through systematic skills training. In addition to being focused on observable interpersonal skills, traditional behavioral marital therapy was inspired by the results of nomothetic research that highlighted the differences between groups of distressed couples versus groups of non-distressed couples. In other words, the targets of intervention were those things that had been found through nomothetic research to distinguish distressed from non-distressed couples. For example, distressed couples appeared to communicate more poorly, to have more difficulty solving even small problems, and to engage in fewer exchanges of positive behaviors than non-distressed couples. From a social learning theory perspective, these group differences were interpreted as skill and interventions were formulated to teach partners the skills that would allow them to communicate and solve problems more effectively, and exchange positive behaviors more frequently. Unfortunately, these topographical group differences in many instances may have been simple reflections of other problems having little to do with literal skill deficits. For example, what appeared to be poor problem-solving skills may have been in fact the end result of partners being too emotionally upset with each other to cooperate effectively. In their daily lives, the partners in these couples tend to have no difficulty communicating and problem solving with others. It is only in the context of an emotionally strained marriage that these deficits materialize. In addition to seeing skill where no such actually existed, outcome studies of traditional behavioral marital therapy were finding that only approximately half of those couples presenting for therapy eventually improved their marital satisfaction and remained improved over time (Jacobson & Follette, 1985; Jacobson, Schmaling, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1987). Although a 50% success rate is admirable, it remained the case that a great many couples were not benefiting as much as would be ultimately desirable. …