Who's Got the Power? Gender Differences in Partners’ Perceptions of Influence During Marital Problem-Solving Discussions

Previous research on marital communication indicates that women have more influence in marital problem solving because they raise the issues and shape the discussion. Other studies suggest that men have the power in marital problem solving. This study re-examines power and influence from the partners’ point of view. Twenty-seven couples — 18 with a first child under 2, and 9 undecided about having children — were videotaped while working on a self-selected problem concerning their division of family labor. Data sources included: (a) transcribed audiotaped accounts given by each partner while viewing a videotape of their problem-solving discussion; (b) self-report questionnaires; and (c) ratings by a research team of the concordance between spouses’ accounts. Husbands and wives were perceived as having a primary influence on different aspects of the discussion. Women tended to raise the issues and draw men out in the early phase of the discussion, while men controlled the content and emotional depth of the later discussion phases, and largely determined the outcome. The women's accounts emphasized that their influence in the early phase was often illusory: their behavior was shaped primarily by the effort to choose strategies that would avoid upsetting their husbands. In terms of overall satisfaction with marriage, wives had greater tolerance than their husbands for conflict in the area of division of domestic labor, but less tolerance for their husbands’ domination of the discussion process. Women's marital satisfaction was higher when there was concordance between spouses in their accounts of their problem-solving discussion. This research highlights the importance of eliciting spouses’ own perceptions and definitions in understanding the impact of gender-linked power differences in marital communication.     

How Much Jungian Theory Is There in My Practice?

This non-clinical paper consists of the author's subjective and personal value judgements on theory and practice. He discusses nine topics: I) What is analysis and why do people seek therapy? 2) Dangers of reification and hypostatizing: reinforcement of narcissistic defences and schizoid unrelatedness. 3) The problems of archetypal psychology and amplification. 4) The cultural and political aspects of the unconscious psyche, and the value of studying the philosophical background to the psychodynamic approach. 5) Criticism of the classical Jungian over-emphasis of the intrapsychic at the expense of the interpersonal. 6) Psychosomatic healing through experience and interpretation of psychosomatic identity in the transference/countertrans-ference; idea of the ‘animating body’. 7) Dangers of theoretical hndamentalism and crusading among Jungian schools: envy and intolerance. 8) The need for the analyst to have enough good objects. 9) An acknowledgement of theoretical influences other than Jung on the author's practice; although Jung's ideas facilitate a personal pluralism - the spirit of Jung.