1992
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00297.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conversational Themes and Marital Relationship Definitions Quantitative and Qualitative Investigations

Abstract: This article examines relationship themes in the conversations of 52 married couples and suggests that implicit aspects of relationship definition are reflected,first, in the content of discussion themes and, second, in the way that different themes are integrated. A s expected, "communal" themes (concerning togetherness, cooperation, and communication) wereexpressed morefrequently and individual themes (concerning personality and individual differences) were expressed less frequently by couples who were more … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This seems to be the case, for example, with couples who repeatedly rehash shared stories, issues, and life events, despite the apparent lack of new information in the conversation. We observed anecdotal evidence of these tendencies in the communication of some traditional and older couples (see Sillars et al, 1992). These couples may have "less need to talk" in the sense that Ellis & Hamilton (1985) mention; however, talking is still a way of sharing experiences and affirming identities (e.g., Berger & Kellner, 1964).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This seems to be the case, for example, with couples who repeatedly rehash shared stories, issues, and life events, despite the apparent lack of new information in the conversation. We observed anecdotal evidence of these tendencies in the communication of some traditional and older couples (see Sillars et al, 1992). These couples may have "less need to talk" in the sense that Ellis & Hamilton (1985) mention; however, talking is still a way of sharing experiences and affirming identities (e.g., Berger & Kellner, 1964).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…For example, Veroff, Sutherland, Chadiha, and Ortega (1993) found that a "we" orientation in the joint narratives of newlywed couples predicted later marital satisfaction and stability. Sillars and colleagues (Sillars, Weisberg, Burggraf, & Wilson, 1987;Sillars, Burggraf, Yost, & Zietlow, 1992) observed more communal themes (i.e., statements about shared relationship characteristics) in the conversations of satisfied couples and more individual themes (i.e., statements about separate identities or roles) in the conversations of dissatisfied couples.…”
mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Sillars and colleagues (1992) found support for this insofar as older couples used more We-words than younger couples during a marital interaction. Consistent with this finding, Pennebaker and Stone (2003) reported that as people get older, they use fewer Me-words.…”
Section: Aging and Marriagementioning
confidence: 87%
“…Specifically, content coding has shown that satisfied couples emphasize communal themes both in couples’ conversations (Sillars, Weisberg, Burggraf, & Wilson, 1987; Sillars, Burggraf, Yost, & Zietlow, 1992) and in couples’ free-response relationship descriptions (Fletcher, Fincham, Cramer, & Heron, 1987). Further, in the Buehlman and Gottman work (Buehlman et al, 1992; Carrere, Buehlman, Gottman, Coan, & Ruckstuhl, 2000), relational schemas were derived from narrative coding of videotaped oral history interviews of married couples.…”
Section: Methods Used To Study We-ness and Separatenessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of studies show that older couples express more we-ness (frequently speak of themselves and their partner in terms of we) and invest more in their relationship than younger couples do (Sillars, Burggraf, Yost & Zietlow, 1992;Seider, Hirschberger, Nelson & Levenson, 2009). Expressing a strong we-ness leads to positive effects, which may be physiological (Rohrbaugh, Mehl, Shoham, Reilly & Ewy, 2008;Badr, Acitelli & Carmack Taylor, 2007;Seider et al, 2009), expressed as satisfaction with marriage (Buehlman, Gottman & Katz, 1992;Simmons, Gordon & Chambless, 2005;Williams-Baucom, Atkins, Sevier, Eldridge & Christensen, 2010), emotional, such as the ability to forgive the partner (Karremans & Van Lange, 2008;Ysseldyk & Wohl, 2012) or linked to solving problems together in a way which satisfies both partners (Simmons et al, 2005).…”
Section: Couplehood and Dementiamentioning
confidence: 99%