Conflict Resolution Styles Among Latino Couples J. Maria Bermúdez Nenetzin A. Reyes Karen S. Wampler
ABSTRACT. Conflict resolution style was examined with 191 married Latino couples residing in Houston and Dallas, representing 21 different nationalities. The purpose of this study was to identify conflict resolution styles most predominant among Latino couples and to examine what demographic characteristics might be related to the couples’ conflict resolution styles. Conflict resolution style (Avoidant, Volatile, and Validator) measured by Gottman’s Marital Conflict Scale (MSC; Gottman, 1994) was significantly related to wives’ and husbands’ religiosity, husbands’ religion, the language in which the husband answered the survey, and wives’ education. Contrary to the common perception of Latinos as as being conflict avoidant, the majority of this sample identified themselves as having a Validating style of conflict resolution. J. Maria Bermúdez, PhD, Nenetzin A. Reyes, MS, and Karen S. Wampler, PhD, are affiliated with the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Texas Tech University. Address correspondence to: J. Maria Bermúdez, Department of Applied and Professional Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1162 (E-mail: maria. bermudez@ttu.edu). Deep gratitude and appreciation is extended to the faculty who served on the dissertation committee at Virginia Tech: Howard Protinsky, PhD, Anne Prouty-Lyness, PhD, Scott Johnson, PhD, Victoria Fu, PhD, and Kusum Singh, PhD. The authors would also like to thank Roy Bean, PhD, and Marianne McInnes Miller, PhD, for reviewing this manuscript. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, Vol. 5(4) 2006 Available online at http://jcrt.haworthpress.com © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J398v05n04_01
1
2
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
Clinical and research implications for couple and family therapists are discussed. doi:10.1300/J398v05n04_01 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Latino couples, conflict resolution styles, research study, couple therapy
In the light of a demographic shift from a dominant Anglo-European society to a multiracial and multicultural society, theoretical and practical issues for studying and working with Latino families in therapy need to be addressed. One of the most common and complicated presenting concerns for people seeking couple and family therapy involves issues related to communication problems. Communication is an essential aspect of being human. The field of family therapy began with social scientists, psychiatrists, and psychologists interested in the communication process, especially among people with schizophrenia and their families. Although there is research in the area of conflict resolution in politics, law, mediation, business, anthropology, and sociology, there is a dearth of studies examining theories of conflict and conflict resolution among intimate relationships from a cross-cultural or intercultural perspective (Ting-Toomey, 1994). Research on communication in couples seems to be based on the assumption that theories about conflict resolution strategies are universal. Nonetheless, conflict is a cultural phenomenon. There are culturally specific ways of perceiving and responding to conflict. A tacit knowledge exists among members of a given culture–assumptions that individuals take for granted and do not articulate (Fry & Fry, 1997). People often follow social scripts to resolve conflict. Their options for dealing with conflict are often outside a person’s cultural repertoire, which is why exploring cross-cultural diversity in how conflicts are handled gives us more options and possibilities for peaceful resolution. Fry and Fry (1997) argue for a both/and stance (instead of an either/or) that helps practitioners and analysts attend to cultural influence while searching for more general or global patterns for models of conflict resolution. Fry and Bjorkqvist (1997), therefore, caution us to tread carefully when applying conflict resolution techniques across cultural settings, especially when attempting to mediate within a culture different from one’s own.
Bermúdez, Reyes, and Wampler
3
Although we know culture is germane to conflict resolution, little attention has been given to empirical studies that address intimate couple communication within ethnic minority populations. No research findings specific to Latinos’ communication and conflict resolution style could be located. Most of the current literature describing ethnically and culturally diverse families is not based on empirical data. Instead, it is largely anecdotal, and based on clinicians’ experiences with a particular ethnic population. For decades, the marriage and family therapy (MFT) literature has produced information intending to help clinicians appreciate and understand the cultural nuances found among Latino couples and families. This literature has been instrumental in helping practitioners think about ways to communicate more effectively with Latino families, and thus be more effective in treatment. Such literature has described Latino couples and families to be conflict avoidant, controlling aggression and violence (Falicov, 1996, 1998; Garcia-Preto, 1996; Ho, 1987). The primary foundation for this logic rests on the notion that in collectivistic cultures, such as of the Latinos, there is a strong desire to preserve family harmony, avoid interpersonal conflict, and to favor indirect, implicit, and covert communications. A character value of such a culture is to value public agreement, to get along, and not to make others feel uncomfortable. Being assertive with each other, having open differences of opinion, and expressing direct demands for clarification are seen as rude or insensitive to others’ feelings (Falicov, 1998). Ideologies about connectedness and hierarchies among Latino/as are reflected in the cultural meaning systems of “familismo” (family-centered values) and “respeto” (respect for self and others). Familismo and respeto significantly shape the Latino family’s style of communication, conflict management, and emotional expression (Falicov, 1998, p. 178). In addition, Latinos are said to espouse interactional styles that include amiability, gentility, and civility in order to contribute to a polite demeanor, deportment, and address. As young children, Latinos learn that much can be achieved interpersonally if you are “simpático/a,” meaning you talk nicely, give a lot of explanations for what you do, and are generous in giving compliments to others. The assumption that Latinos are conflict avoidant is derived from such social characteristics. The risk is that what may be considered a positive cultural characteristic (being “conflict avoidant”) for Latinos in their country of origin may be seen as problematic or pathological among family therapists living in Westernbased societies. Furthermore, observations and experiences of Latinos’ conflict resolution have not been empirically supported because the rel-
4
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
evant research has not been done. This lack of research becomes problematic for therapists working with Latino couples in therapy, thus necessitating a study to examine if these cultural observations and experiences could be empirically supported. In recent years, Gottman’s research has been instrumental in helping therapists understand the relationship between marital processes (communication styles and behaviors) and marital outcomes (happiness, stability, or divorce) (Gottman, 1994b). His typology of marriages (Gottman, 1993b) has been influential in helping couple therapists identify couples’ conflict resolution styles, and to assess how their styles affect their ability to communicate effectively about difficult topics. In his research, Gottman identifies five types of couples, three of which he suggests are stable and non-distressed but have varied levels of emotional expressiveness: the Volatile couple (high), the Validating couple (intermediate), and the Conflict-avoiding couple (low). In his popular book, Why Marriages Succeed or Fail, and How You Can Make Yours Last (1994a), Gottman provides the Marital Conflict Styles Inventory (MCS), a measurement derived from the research published in his scholarly book What Predicts Divorce: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes (1994b). Even though MCS was based on Gottman’s research examining marital styles and conflict resolution, he does not appear to use this instrument for research purposes. The instrument was intended to be a self-test in which couples could identify their preferred style of resolving conflict, and thus identifying their marriage type (Gottman, 1994a, p. 51). At the same time, this is the only measurement available that uses the Volatile, Validating, and Avoidant constructs measuring conflict resolution styles among couples. Nonetheless, Gottman’s research has provided clinicians with a valuable framework for understanding marital styles in Western-based nations such as the United States and Australia, although major questions concerning these traditions still remain to be addressed from a crosscultural perspective (Ting-Toomey, 1994). Additionally, numerous anthropological studies have reviewed the culturally specific nature of conflict resolution. Many of the conflict resolution models and techniques, however, have stemmed from non-anthropological sources in Western societies. Bray and Jouriles (1995) urge researchers to conduct studies to examine if there are any differences in marital relations across ethnic groups, and to assess whether therapeutic interventions need to be adjusted for couples. If adjustments need to be made for ethnically diverse couples, then it will be imperative that these adjustments be based on empirical findings, especially because within-group differ-
BermĂşdez, Reyes, and Wampler
5
ences are rarely noted in a study, and none have been identified for Latino couples nor have the culturally syntonic ways in which conflict is resolved. The following points outline the purpose of this study: (1) Identify the conflict resolution styles (Gottman, 1994a) most predominant among Latino couples; (2) explore the possible relationships between demographic variables (i.e., years married, years in the United states, education, gender, country of origin, religion, religiosity, and/or language preference) and couples conflict resolution style; (3) examine within-group differences that relate to married Latino coupleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conflict resolution styles; and (4) assess if the MCS is sensitive enough to tease apart the communication nuances that are culturally sensitive and highly correlated. In this study, the variables used to examine conflict resolution styles among Latinos are demographic data, clinical vignettes, conflict resolution styles, and statements describing Latino couples communication style from the marriage and family therapy literature. The hypotheses used to analyze the data were based on the MFT literature about Latinosâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; form of communication: 1. Gender differences will be found due to traditional beliefs about gender roles: Women will be Avoidant or Validating, and men will be Avoidant or Volatile 2. Independent variables related to culture will impact conflict resolution styles: (a) Latinos who are foreign born and/or are most comfortable with speaking and writing in Spanish will be more Avoidant, (b) Latinos who are born in the U.S. prefer speaking English, and foreign-born Latinos who have lived many years in the United States will be more Validating. 3. Religious and/or traditional values and strong religious participation will yield greater preference for an Avoidant style. 4. Educational attainment will demonstrate differences; high education will yield greater Validating styles and lower education will yield more Avoidant and Volatile styles. METHOD Participants The participants were 191 married couples residing in Houston and Dallas. Both partners identified themselves as being Hispanic or Latino/a.
6
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
The sample was nonclinical, and the participation was voluntary and anonymous. The sampling criterion was that both partners were legally married, heterosexual, and identified themselves as being Hispanic or Latino/a. For the sake of consistency, we use the word Latino/a to represent the entire sample. Participants were obtained via snowball sampling procedure. Also referred to as network, chain referral, or reputational sampling, snowball sampling is a method for identifying the cases in a specific network and is considered a nonprobability sampling procedure (Neuman, 2003). In addition to the primary researcher, approximately thirty acquaintances, family members, and friends of the first author distributed the surveys to married Latino couples they knew. Upon completion the surveys were either returned directly (in sealed envelopes) to the person who gave the couple those surveys, or handed to the primary researcher directly or mailed to the primary researcher. The people asked to distribute the surveys did so voluntarily, without monetary or other compensation. Couples were asked to respond to the two sets of the same questionnaire, one for the wife and one for the husband, in the language they preferredâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Spanish or English. The instrument booklets were in one envelope per couple, along with the cover letter/consent form. The survey took approximately 25-30 minutes to complete. Clear instructions were given for them to answer the questions independently, and to put both surveys back into the envelope after completing them. Of the 1000 questionnaires distributed to 500 married Latino couples, a total of 207 couples responded to the questionnaire, yielding a 41% response rate. Of those, data from 16 couples were eliminated due to missing data (those having more than 8 items missing from the Validator, Volatile, or Avoidant subscales). Of the 382 participants, 56.5% answered the survey in Spanish, and 43.5% answered in English. The majority (66.2%), were Latino immigrants from another country, and 33.5% were born in the continental United States. Twenty-one countries of origin were represented in the sample, with Mexico (27%) being the most common country of origin, other than the U.S. (34%), followed by South America (17%), Central America (15%) and others (7%). Of those respondents who immigrated to the United States, the number of years living in the U.S. ranged from 1 to 58 years. The mean number of years for the wives was 16.61 (SD = 9.23) years and 19.20 (SD = 11.12) years for the husbands. The age distribution ranged from 18 to 81 years, with a mean age of 38.35 (SD = 11.72) for the wives and 40.70 (SD = 12.12) for the hus-
Bermúdez, Reyes, and Wampler
7
bands. The mean number of years the couples were married was 14.60 (SD = 11.12). Of these marriages, 85.6% were first marriages. There was a wide distribution for education (N = 382), with 21% having a Bachelor or advanced degree, 31% having an Associate degree or some college education, 33% having a high school, trade school, or GED, and 15% having a grade school education. The majority of the sample ( 68.3%), classified themselves as Catholic and 26.2% as Protestant, Christian, or other. Almost 48% of the wives reported going to church once per week and almost 39% of the husbands reported going to church once per week. Instruments The instrument, informed consent, and cover letter were first translated into Spanish by the first author, using the in-back method of translation, in which the materials were first written in English, translated into Spanish, and then back into English again (American Psychological Association, 2001). Six other Latino/as from Honduras, Venezuela, Uruguay, Mexico, and the United States reviewed the instrument, made corrections in grammar and spelling, and assessed for the generalizability of meaning in the words used to decrease the use of colloquial language. Demographic questions. A total of 16 questions were asked to obtain demographic data. The questions pertained to gender, age, years married, number of marriages, other ethnic or racial categories they might identify with, language preference, country of origin, years living in the United States, ancestors country of origin, which generation emigrated to the United States, parent’s nationality, number of siblings, highest educational attainment, employment, religious affiliation, and religiosity (how often they attended religious services). The independent variables assessing cultural features were derived from the participant’s demographic data, such as the language in which the participant answered the survey (Spanish or English), preferred language spoken, country of origin (if they are born in another country besides the United States), how long have they been residing in the United States, religion, religiosity (how often they attend religious services), and educational attainment. These data may help provide a context for the participant’s style of resolving conflict. Conflict resolution styles. The MCS (Gottman, 1994a) was used to measure conflict resolution styles. The MCS is a 59-item questionnaire that assesses which style of conflict management is preferred by the
8
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
couple: Avoidant, Volatile, or Validator. These conflict resolution styles are derived from Gottman’s (1994b) research on the predictors of marital stability and instability. All three types are said to reflect stable marriages because these couples are able to regulate a constant reaction of negative to positive interaction in their marriage. This appeared to be consistent across conversations and coding systems (Gottman, 1994b, p. 191). Conflict Avoidant couples often avoid disagreements and put their arguments behind them. They do not address significant differences and do not let this lack of direct communication decrease their marital satisfaction. They keep their marriage regulated by a small amount of negativity balanced by a small amount of positivity. Couples with a Validating style, handle negative conflicts as the need arose in as positive an environment as possible, managed by a moderate amount of negativity balanced by a moderate amount of negativity. Each partner listens and interchanges positively with her/his spouse. Conflicts are not ignored, nor are they a catalyst for negativity. With the Volatile style of conflict management, the couple engages in behaviors that would include being vocal in their differences, often interrupting each other, and having heated and passionate discussions. Their marriage is managed by a lot of negativity but is offset by a lot of positivity. There were 29 questions in the Avoidant subscale, 15 in the Validator, and 15 in the Volatile subscale. Each subscale was scored by a fourpoint Likert scale indicating strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. There were a total of 79 items (68 from the MCS and 10 direct statements found in the MFT literature about Latinos’ style of conflict resolution). Gottman’s three subscales were scored and reliability measures were obtained using Cronbach Alpha (N = 382). The internal consistency reliability of the MCS was examined by two techniques: An overall reliability was computed through the Spearman-Brown method and an item analysis was computed to determine the correlation of the items using the Pearson Product moment correlation method. The alpha levels were .73 for the Avoidant subscale, .59 for the Validator subscale, and .75 for the Volatile subscale. Vignettes. Because no validity or reliability scores could be found in other studies using the MCS, and it has not been used cross-culturally, a second method, also derived from Gottman (1994a), was used to measure conflict resolution style. Three vignettes, adapted from Gottman (1994a, pp. 33-34)), were also provided so that participants could choose
BermĂşdez, Reyes, and Wampler
9
which vignette she or he thought most reflected her or his style of conflict resolution. The vignettes were slightly modified to shorten their length, and the names of the couples reflected typical Latino names such as Carlos and Claudia. Participants were asked to choose the vignette that most reflected their style of communication. RESULTS Repeated measures multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used for each of the analyses. Gender was included as a repeated measure in each analysis. In each analysis, a between factor for husbands and wives was included to examine certain culturally related variables, such as country of birth, years living in the United States, language used to complete the survey, and language preference, religion and religiosity, as well as educational attainment and other demographic data. The dependent variables in each MANOVA were the three subscales from the MCS (Avoidant, Volatile, and Validating). A frequency table revealed that of the wives who answered the vignette question (N = 138), 44% identified with the vignette depicting the Validating style, 16.2% with the Volatile style, and 12% with the Avoidant style (27.7% did not respond). Similarly, the husbands (N = 139) also mostly identified with the vignette depicting the Validating style (42.9%), while 18.3% identified with the Volatile style, and 11.5% identified with the Avoidant style (27.2% not responding). Consistent with the other analyses, no gender were differences reported. Culture and Conflict Resolution Style In the MFT literature, Latinos are characterized as being conflict avoidant or indirect in their conflict resolution style (Falicov, 1998; Flores, 2000; Garcia-Preto, 1996; Ho, 1987). Overall, there were no statistically significant differences by gender or by husband or wife country of origin (born in the United States or not), husband or wife language preference (English, bilingual, Spanish), or husband or wife length of time in the United States. There were no statistically significant interactions between gender and the other independent variable in each of these analyses. There were also no significant main effects or interaction for language the wife used to complete the survey (English or Spanish). The one MANOVA with significant main effects was for the language husbands used to answer the survey (Table 1). The multivariate interaction
10
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
TABLE 1. Mean Scores for Conflict Resolution Style by the Language Used to Answer the Survey Language Used Husband English (n = 88) MCS
M
SD
Wife Spanish (n = 103)
M
SD
English (n = 78) M
SD
Spanish (n = 113) M
SD
Avoidant Wife
2.53
.27
2.63
.30
2.56
.26
2.60
.30
Husband
2.56
.24
2.65
.28
2.59
.23
2.62
.29
Volatile Wife
2.48
.28
2.41
.34
2.48
.29
2.41
.33
Husband
2.41
.31
2.93
.36
2.44
.33
2.38
.30
Wife
2.93
.36
3.00
.38
2.92
.36
3.01
.37
Husband
2.92
.28
2.96
.42
2.91
.28
2.96
.41
Validator
was not significant, F (3, 187) = .79, p = .50, but there were significant multivariate main effects for gender, F (3, 187) = 3.01, p = .03, and for husbandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s language used to complete the survey, F (3, 187) = 4.04, p = .01. For the within groups main effect for gender, Univariate F tests did not reveal any statistically significant differences by gender for Avoidant, Volatile, or Validator. Univariate F tests revealed a statistically significant difference in Husbandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s language used to complete the survey for only the avoidance subscale, F (1,189) = 7.33, p = .01. As can be seen in Table 1, participants were more Avoidant when the husbands answered the survey in Spanish. Religion and Religiosity and Conflict Resolution Style The predominant religion in Latin America is Roman Catholic and although membership is declining, the majority of Latinos living in the United States still affiliate with the Roman Catholic Church (Falicov, 1998; Flores, 2000; Garcia-Preto, 1996; Ho, 1987, U.S. Census Bureau, 1998). For this reason, comparisons were made between participants who were Roman Catholic and those from other religious affiliations. The MANOVAs for husband and for wife religion indicated no statistically significant interaction or main effects for gender or religion.
Bermúdez, Reyes, and Wampler
11
Religiosity, defined as frequency of church attendance, has been associated with positive couple relationships, regardless of culture. The multivariate main effect for religiosity (attending church once a week, sometimes, or rarely) was statistically significant for both husbands, F (6, 370) = 4.03, p = .001, and wives, F (6, 372) = 4.07, p = .001. The multivariate main effect for gender and the interaction between gender and religiosity were not statistically significant. Univariate F-Tests revealed statistically significant differences in husbands’ religiosity only for the Validator subscale, F (2, 187) = 9.12, p = .001. A Duncan Multiple Range post hoc test indicated that participants were less validating when the husbands attended religious services rarely, as opposed to sometimes or once a week (Table 2). Univariate F-Tests revealed statistically significant differences in wives’ religiosity for both the Avoidance subscale, F (2, 187) = 4.31, p = .02 and for the Validator subscale, F (2, 187) = 4.82, p = .01 (Table 2). The Duncan Multiple Range post hoc test indicated that wives were less validating when they attended church only rarely, a result parallel to that for husbands’ religiosity. Interestingly, the Duncan Multiple Range post hoc test for avoidance indicated that wives were more Avoidant when they attended religious services once a week, as opposed to only sometimes or rarely. Thus, a more complex pattern emerges with rare church attendance associated with lower use of a Validating style, but for wives’ religiosity high church attendance also associated with use of an Avoidant style. Education and Conflict Resolution Style Because of the positive association between education and positive couple relationships, regardless of culture, it was assumed that individuals with more education would use more Validating styles and those with lower education would use more Avoidant or Volatile styles of conflict resolution. The Wilks Lambda did not indicate a significant multivariate F-test result for husband’s education F (12, 479) = 1.29, p = .22, nor statistically significant multivariate effects for gender or the interaction between gender and education. The Wilks Lambda did indicate a significant multivariate F-test result for wife’s education, F (9, 448) = 1.99, p = .04. There were no statistically significant multivariate effects for gender or the interaction between gender and education. Univariate F-tests revealed statistically significant differences in wife’s education only for Avoidance, F (3, 186) = 3.92, p = .01 (Table 3). The Duncan Multiple Range post hoc test indicated that participants
12 2.65
2.36
Husband 3.04 3.03
Wife Husband
Validator
2.40
Wife
Volatile
2.62
Husband
M
Wife
Avoidant
MCS
.37
.35
.34
.31
.28
.29
SD
Once a Week (n = 74)
2.94
3.01
2.42
2.48
2.61
2.58
M
.31
.34
.30
.31
.26
.29
SD
Sometimes (n = 82)
Husband
2.76
2.76
2.46
2.44
2.53
2.52
M
.40
.39
.28
.34
.24
.29
SD
Rarely (n = 34)
2.98
3.01
2.37
2.42
2.66
2.63
M
.36
.36
.34
.31
.28
.29
SD
Once a Week (n = 91)
Religiosity
2.96
3.00
2.43
2.49
2.57
2.54
M
.31
.35
.31
.33
.25
.30
SD
Sometimes (n = 72)
Wife
TABLE 2. Mean Scores for Conflict Resolution Style by Religiosity
2.79
2.78
2.46
2.42
2.54
2.50
M
.44
.40
.24
.28
.23
.20
SD
Rarely (n = 27)
13
2.69
2.44
Husband 2.89 2.93
Wife Husband
Validator
2.43
Wife
Volatile
2.67
Husband
M
Wife
Avoidant
MCS
.37
.36
.29
.29
.27
.25
SD
Grade School (n = 28)
2.92
2.95
2.47
2.48
2.60
2.62
M
.40
.38
.37
.40
.26
.32
SD
High School (n = 62)
2.91
3.00
2.39
2.41
2.62
2.54
M
.33
.39
.29
.24
.25
.27
SD
Some College (n = 61)
Husband
3.06
3.06
2.37
2.47
2.56
2.55
M
.33
.30
.28
.28
.30
.29
SD
College (n = 37)
3.02
2.95
2.43
2.51
2.74
2.71
M
.35
.36
.36
.36
.27
.22
SD
Grade School (n = 29)
Education
2.89
2.94
2.37
2.44
2.61
2.57
M
.40
.37
.31
.33
.23
.31
SD
High School (n = 66)
2.92
2.95
2.45
2.45
2.60
2.56
M
.32
.40
.33
.29
.30
.31
SD
Some College (n = 56)
Wife
TABLE 3. Mean Scores for Conflict Resolution Style by Educational Attainment
3.00
3.07
2.39
2.41
2.53
2.54
M
.34
.32
.27
.29
.26
.26
SD
College (n = 39)
14
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
were more Avoidant when the wife had a grade school education, in comparison to when the wives had a high school, some college, or a college degree or higher level of education. DISCUSSION Contrary to the characterization of Latinos in the MFT literature, almost no differences were found in terms of cultural characteristics and conflict resolution style. In contrast to traditional beliefs about gender roles, which describe Latinas as submissive and Latinos as being dominant in their relationships (Ho, 1987), there were no gender differences in conflict resolution styles among the women and men. These data support Gabrieledis, Stephan, Ybarra, and Villareal (1997) findings that there were few gender differences between Mexican and U.S. participants in their study. Instead of assuming that all Latinos are similar, several variables related to acculturation were used in this research to examine withingroup differences in conflict resolution style. Previous studies suggest that the more acculturated Latino/as are, the more likely they will adopt attitudes, traits, and other characteristics that are increasingly similar to those of Anglo Americans and that acculturation should be considered when conducting research with Hispanic populations (Negy & Snyder, 2000). Although acculturation measures were not used, certain culturally related variables such as country of origin, number of years in the United States, and preferred language were used and did not show to be statistically significant in identifying a conflict resolution style among Latino couples. The only independent variable that demonstrated statistical significance was for the language in which the husband answered the survey. There were no differences for the language in which the wife answered the survey. When husbands answered the survey in Spanish, they and their wives were more likely to use an Avoidant style of communication. These findings bring into question the assumptions about the Latinos having a poor problem solving strategies. Perhaps they might represent a less direct, more gentle style of validating. Such speculation must be examined with measures that are designed to be sensitive to such possible differences in style. The finding of no difference by culturally related variables in this sample is especially strong, given the relatively large sample for this type of couple research.
Bermúdez, Reyes, and Wampler
15
A point of interest is the differences in conflict resolution style based on language preference, as well as language in which the husbands answered the survey. One would assume that both variables would relate to the same style of conflict, but they do not. Other variables need to be explored to examine the differences in regard to the effects written and spoken language may have on conflict resolution and marital communication in general. Religion, Religiosity, and Education It has been asserted that one of the basis for traditional values among Latinos is the influence of the Roman Catholic Church (Falicov, 1998; Flores, 2000; Garcia-Preto, 1996). In this study it was hypothesized that traditionalism and religious values would be related to more use of an Avoidant style of conflict resolution (collective value). This assumption stems from the belief that if Latino/as were religious or traditional in their marital roles, then they would not challenge the gender role hierarchy prescribed by religious beliefs, nor be confrontational in order to keep the peace. Again, in contrast to these assumptions, there were no differences in conflict resolution style between those Latinos in this sample who were Roman Catholic and those who were not. This was surprising given the strong stereotypes about Catholicism and conservativism, with one exception. Of all the independent variables used in the analysis to measure conflict resolution among the couples, the statistically significant finding that related to the Volatile style of conflict resolution was the husband’s religion. Wives’ whose husbands were Catholic, had a higher Volatile style. This finding suggests that the husband’s religious affiliation needs to be examined more closely. Additionally, religiosity (how often one attended church services) was the most important factor relating to conflict resolution. Interestingly, the more the wives attended church services, the greater was both partners’ Avoidance. Similarly, the more the wives and husbands attended church services, the more likely they had a Validating style of resolving conflict. Although it seems confusing that the wives could be both Validating and Avoidant depending on her church attendance, these data show the complexity of religious roles in a couple’s life, especially of the wife. Overall, the statistically significant findings in this study are for husband’s and wife’s religiosity, husband’s religion, the husband’s language in which he answered the survey, and wife’s education. Religiosity was more significant than religion, written language was more signifi-
16
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
cant than verbal language, education was an important indicator for wives, but not husbands (couples in which the wives have only a grade school education are more likely to use an Avoidant style of conflict resolution), and none of the other independent variables, such as country of origin, years living in the United States, years married, or gender were statistically significant in their relationship to conflict resolution style. Clinical and Research Implications The most important clinical implication that family therapists can gain from this study is the awareness that the majority of the women and men in this sample describe themselves as having a Validator style of conflict resolution, not an Avoidant or a Volatile style, as the literature suggests. In light of these data, it is imperative that couple and relational therapists suspend stereotypes about how we think Latino couples are, versus how they define themselves. Additionally, the most significant independent variables in our study were religion and religiosity, therefore we strongly recommend practitioners focus more intently on the role of religion when working with Latino couples. The majority of the couples in our sample classified themselves as Catholic (68.3%) and as Protestant, Christian, or other (26.2%). Furthermore, church attendance was also high, with almost 48% of the wives and 39% of the husbands reported going to church at least once a week. In light of these data, it is recommended that religious interventions be used for religious couples in therapy (BermĂşdez & BermĂşdez, 2002; Butler, Gardner, & Bird, 1998; Butler & Harper, 1994; Butler, Stout, & Gardner, 2002). Additionally, couple therapists should not make any assumptions about religious beliefs and practices and are encouraged to explore the role religion plays in their clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lives and to ask about these roles and beliefs directly. The role of language is also important for practitioners to keep in mind when working with Latino couples. As mentioned earlier, of the 382 participants, 56.5% answered the survey in Spanish. These percentages are important when considering the nuances of language used for an instrument. It is necessary to include the dominant language for that culture in the survey and great care must be taken with the translation of the survey, especially when translating into Spanish because many countries use different words for the same thing. Clinically, language is extremely relevant when considering that most recent Latino immigrants and older adults living in the United States feel more comfortable speaking in their native language, Spanish (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998).
Bermúdez, Reyes, and Wampler
17
Finally, when obtaining a Latino sample, we suggest using translators from different countries in Latin America with varying degrees of education and years living in the United States. Having this diversity is important because Spanish is not a homogeneous language and the same words can have different meanings in different countries. It will be important to ensure that a widest range of people can understand the instrument. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Although the goal of the study was not to generalize the findings of this sample to all Latinos, the main limitation of the study is that a random sample was not used. We cannot generalize these findings to all Latinos, not even all Latinos living in Houston and Dallas. It was decided by the first author that the snowball sampling procedure would be more effective in recruiting Latino couples for this study. This decision was also informed by the MFT literature which states that Latinos have ideologies about connectedness (Falicov, 1998; Flores, 2000; GarciaPreto, 1996; Ho, 1987). This value, “personalismo,” is a characteristic in which a Latino feels a sense of inner dignity and in return has an expectation that others will reciprocate respect for that dignity (Ho, 1987). Additionally, personalismo refers to the establishment of relationships through personal and affective bonds (Inclan, 1990). This approach proved to be invaluable, given that this sample is often described as being difficult to reach. As a result of these data, we strongly encourage others interested in examining the beliefs and experiences of Latino/as to have a personal connection with the participants. Latino/as are less likely to participate in a study if there is no personal contact (Inclan, 1990). The entire data collection process was embedded in the concept of “personalismo.” The snowball sampling procedure was beneficial in that participants were personally asked to participate by someone they knew. They did not have to deal with possible feelings of the intimidation or the mistrust of an institution or unknown person, which is common among Latinos, especially among Latino/a immigrants (Falicov, 1998). The response rate in this study was high, as well as the within-group diversity, which leads to my next limitation of the study. This sample was diverse in that there was a wide distribution of age, number of years married, level of education, and country of origin; however, certain statistical analyses could not be conducted to examine cer-
18
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
tain within-group differences. Although the sample size was large for Latino couple data, a larger sample of couples would be needed to conduct the same type of statistical analyses and tease apart differences based on country of origin and the various types of Protestant Christian denominations. As with any study, results presenting an ethnic group from a monolithic stance should be taken with caution and not be perceived as “the way these people are.” The danger of doing this further perpetuates the essentialism often found in literature about minority groups. In addition, cross-cultural research has consistently focused on investigating what happens to individuals who have developed in one cultural context and reestablish their lives in another (Berry, 1997). Although assessing variables such as acculturation patterns and attitudes, behaviors, and societal attitudes are important, they are beyond the scope of this study. Not using an acculturation measure could be a limitation of the study. Another limitation of the study was the instrument. The Marital Conflict Scale (MCS) had modest reliability scores for this sample, and had not previously been tested for validity with a Latino/a sample. The instrument was used because it was one of the few instruments that had an Avoidant subscale, hence testing the primary research question, are Latino couples conflict avoidant? Although those results are not reported here, using factor analysis and content analysis, higher reliability scores were obtained by redefining the dependent variables using Gottman’s MCS subscales and 10 statements reflecting the Latino style of communicating from the MFT literature. This process was an important reminder that instruments that may have high reliability scores with an Anglo, non-Hispanic sample, will not yield the same results when the sample is more ethnically diverse. The apparent heterosexist bias is another limitation of this study. Due to the research on Latino/a couples being sparse, we purposefully did not include same-sex couple data because of the possibility of confounding the independent variables with sexual identity. Studying the conflict resolution styles of same-sex Latino couples is an important direction for future research. CONCLUSION This study fills an important gap in the research related to Latino couples and conflict resolution. The data presented in this study illustrated how contextual factors such as language, country of origin, years living
Bermúdez, Reyes, and Wampler
19
in the United States, religion, and educational attainment correlates with the conflict resolution style of Latino couples. These issues are important because therapists need to have culturally responsive assessments of Latino couples as well as understand the issues affecting their ability to resolve their conflicts. Above all, these findings begin to debunk the myths and stereotypes related to conflict resolution among Latino couples. Many therapists rely on Gottman’s findings to work with couples, but do not heed his caveats about his sample. He acknowledges the limitations to the White, middle-class bias in his samples (Gottman, 1994b) and yet these assumptions about conflict resolution are still being generalized to all couples, irrespective of cultural differences. Overall, by answering the question, “Are Latino couples conflict Avoidant?”–we have begun to dismantle the misconceptions and stereotypes disseminated in the MFT literature. The answer to this question was, surprisingly, no. The predominant preferred style of conflict resolution in this sample was for a Validating style. REFERENCES American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C. Bermúdez, J. M. & Bermúdez, S. (2002). Altar-making with Latino families: A narrative therapy perspective. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 13(3-4), 329-347. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5-34. Bray, J. H. & Jouriles, E. N. (1995). Treatment of marital conflict and prevention of divorce. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 461-473. Butler, M. H., Gardner, B. C. & Bird, M. H. (1998). Not just a time-out: Change dynamics of prayer for religious couples in conflict situations. Family Process, 37(4), 451-478. Butler, M. H. & Harper, J. M. (1994). The divine triangle: God in the marital system of religious couples. Family Process, 33, 277-286. Butler, M. H., Stout, J. A. & Gardner, B. C. (2002). Prayer as a conflict resolution ritual: Clinical implications of religious couples’ report of relationship softening, healing perspective, and change responsibility. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(1), 19-37. Cate, R. M. & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Christensen, L. L., Russell, C. S., Miller, R. B. & Petterson, C. M. (1998). The process of change in couples therapy: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24(2), 177-188.
20
JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York: The Guilford Press. Flores, M. T. (2000). Demographics: Hispanic populations in the United States. In M. T. Flores & G. Carey (Eds.), Family therapy with Hispanics: Toward appreciating diversity (pp. 297-311). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Fry, D. P. & Bjorkqvist, K. (1997). Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to violence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fry, D. P. & Brooks Fry, C. (1997). Culture and conflict-resolution models: Exploring alternatives to violence. In D. P. Fry & K. Bjorkqvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to violence (pp. 9-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gabrielidis, C., Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Pearson, V. M. & Villareal, L. (1997). Preferred styles of conflict resolution: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 661-677. Garcia-Preto, N. (1996). Latino Families: An overview. In M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce & J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and Family Therapy (pp. 141-154). New York: Guilford. Garcia-Preto, N. (1996). Puerto Rican families. In M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce & J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and Family Therapy (pp. 183-199). New York: Guilford. Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Burnett, C. K. & Rankin, L. A. (1999). The interaction between marital standards and communication patterns: How does it contribute to marital adjustment? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 211-223. Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 57-75. Gottman, J. M. (1994a). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gottman, J. M. (1994b). Why marriages succeed or fail, and how you can make yours last. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ho, M. K. (1987). Family therapy with ethnic minorities. Newbury, CA: Sage. Inclan, J. (1990). Understanding Hispanic families: A curriculum outline. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 9, 64-82. Mock, M. R. (1998). Clinical reflections of refugee families. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Revisioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice. New York: Guilford. Negy, C. & Snyder, D. K. (2000). Relationship satisfaction of Mexican American and non-Hispanic white American interethnic couples: Issues of acculturation and clinical intervention. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26(3), 293-304. Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Noller, P. & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Marital communication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 832-843. Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Donohue, W. & Crouch, J. L. (1996). Marital therapy and gender-linked factors in communication. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 87-101. Ramos-McKay, J. M., Comas-Diaz, L. & Rivera, L. A. (1988). Puerto Ricans. In L. Comas-Diaz & E. E. H. Griffith (Eds.), Clinical guidelines in cross-cultural mental health. (pp. 204-232). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Bermúdez, Reyes, and Wampler
21
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing conflict in intimate intercultural relationships. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.). (1994). Conflict in personal relationships (pp. 47-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. U.S. Census Bureau. (1998). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1998: (118th 3d.). Washington, D.C. Vega, W. A. (1990). Hispanic families in the 1980’s: A decade of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1015-1024.
RECEIVED: 10/11/05 ACCEPTED: 04/15/05 doi:10.1300/J398v05n04_01