Fam Proc 18:293-302, 1979

Toward a Metacommunicational Framework of Couple InteractionsGUILLERMO BERNAL, Ph.D.a

JEFFREY BAKER, Ph.D.b

aDepartment of Psychiatry, University of CaliforniaSan Francisco.bCharles River Hospital, Wellesley, Massachusetts.

A multi-level, metacommunicational framework to understand couple interactions is presented. Five interactionallevels are defined following a mode of abstraction that parallels the theory of logical types; case examples are offered ofcouples interacting at each of the levels. The clinical implications of the framework, as a metaphor for understandingtransactional processes, are discussed with an emphasis on the pragmatics of working with punctuational differences,developing therapeutic strategies, measuring progress, and setting goals for therapy with couples.

This article describing a framework for understanding couple interactions was written in response to a call for reports on"work in progress." The conceptual framework is in the formative stages and much of the qualitative and quantitativeresearch is ongoing (1, 4). Nonetheless, we hope to present a framework that may be useful to researchers, clinicians, andtrainees in understanding both transactional processes as well as stages in couple psychotherapy.

A number of communication-system theorists and family therapists have indicated that various levels of communicationexist between pairs (2, 3, 8, 9, 16, 17). Only two levels, however, have been clearly specified.

Originally, Gregory Bateson applied the theory of logical types to family transactions, defining two levels of interactionthat differed in their orders of logic. One level was defined as the "content," another as the "command" or "relationship"component of a message. As Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (15) pointed out:

The report aspect of a message conveys information and is therefore synonymous in human communication withthe content of a message.... The command aspect, on the other hand, refers to what sort of a message it is to be takenas, and, therefore, ultimately to the relationship between the communicants. [p. 52]

Because the content of a message is subsumed under its relationship component, the relational definition or "command"aspect constitutes a higher logical type. The relational components of a message may represent any of the following: (a)relational rules (8); (b) attempts at defining the relationship (3, 16); or (c) certain modes of relatedness (7, 10, 11). Thecommand or relationship components of a message may be verbal or nonverbal. They may also be verbalized explicitly,thus becoming content. When this happens we may speak of insight, although even when couples make relationship thecontent of their discussion the concept of metalevels will of course still obtain.

A Metacommunicational FrameworkThe framework presented below developed from an attempt to investigate empirically with couples (4) transactional

congruence and incongruence or punctuational differences (15). The couple or pair was defined as the unit of study.Five interactional levels were defined following a mode of abstraction that paralleled the theory of logical types. The five

levels increase progressively in abstraction, subsuming the lower levels. Although empirically these levels often occursimultaneously, and although metalevels always apply to each, the partitioning of interactions into levels by content and theassigning of specific criteria to each appear to offer clarification theoretically and clinically.

Following are the five levels using Venn diagrams (see Figure 1); the interactional content (shaded at each level) is theprimary criterion defining that level.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1

Figure 1.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2

Levels of interactions: Object, individual, transactional, relational, and contextual.Level 1Object: Transactions at this level are focused on the issue. A couple's discussion, for example, may be about

finances, in-laws, a stomach or back pain, recreation, division of labor (i.e., who cleans the house) etc. If a member of apair discussing housework were asked to draw their transaction, the resulting picture would be one of the houseworkfinished or undone.

Level 2Individual: At this level the content of interaction shifts from object to individual, often including mutualaccusation and blaming that may be represented as punctuational differences (15), i.e., each person views the other as thereason for his or her behavior. Members of the couple view their own actions as reactions. The individuals now are thecontent of the transactions, illustrated in Figure 1 as a figure superimposed on a ground of object content. Interactions maytake the following form: "I am/you are a nag," or "It's your fault the house is a mess," etc.

Level 3Transactional: The next shift in content is from a focus on individuals (i.e., each person's perception of selfor other, "It's you" or "It's I") to transactions focused on discussion of patterns of relating ("It is you and I"). At this level,patterns of interaction are acknowledged explicitly and discussed, e.g., "You keep nagging me about the housework, and Ikeep forgetting to do it." As Figure 1 shows, transactions are now the content focus with both individuals as figure for aground of people discussing issues.

Level 4Relational: Here, content changes from recognition of a "you and me" pattern to discussion of "us," that is, therelationship itself. At this level, assumptions, definitions, questions, and rules about the relationship are discussed andexplicitly negotiated, e.g., "Neither housework nor who is right or wrong is really the issue. Let's talk about what this saysabout our relationship," or "I'm unhappy with this rule whereby I'm the teacher and you're the student," etc. In Figure 1, therelationship, as content focus, is figure against the ground of specific transactions, the individuals involved, and concreteobject or issue.

Level 5Contextual: The shift in communicational content is toward discussion of growth in its context and life goals.Interactions may focus on psychohistorical material. This level may entail exploration of intergenerational relationshipprocesses (e.g., loyalty conflicts) and often occurs during individual psychotherapeutic work in the presence of a spouse.Figure 1 shows that content at this level subsumes relationship, transactions, individuals, and the object perhaps at issue.Members of a couple may discuss introspectively "where they are coming from" in terms of the relationship, their familiesof origin, or perhaps specific incidents or experiences that set the context for the current relationship.

At each level, the subject of the communications defines the specific interactional level for purposes of analysis. Withineach level, there may be analogic and digital components that may or may not be in congruence. Nevertheless, couplesacknowledge "process" when they interact at any one of the three process levels3, 4, or 5. At levels 1 and 2, in contrast,couples tend to make use of causal linear thinking.

Application of the Metacommunicational FrameTherapy, research, and training making use of the framework are ongoing. Owing to space considerations, however, only

summaries of research findings and examples of interactions found to occur naturally at the various levels are presented togive the framework pragmatic significance.

Bernal (4) studied the nature of "punctuational" discrepancies with couples, leading to the development of theframework. Watzlawick et al. (15) have suggested that how individuals "punctuate" a communicational sequence is ofprimary importance in understanding interpersonal conflicts. Simply stated, to "punctuate" a communicational sequence isto group a series of events in a way that introduces cause and effect labels. Because participants in transactions punctuatethe sequence of events from each of their unique perspectives, punctuational differences comprise a fundamental aspect ofrelatedness (3, 8, 14). "Unresolved discrepancies in the punctuation of communicational sequences can lead directly intointeractional impasses in which the eventual charges of madness and badness are proffered" (15, p. 93). In order toillustrate the pragmatics of the metacommunicational framework, some of the qualitative findings from Bernal's (4) studyon couples' punctuation of their interactions will be given. In the study, transcripts of interactions and written reports bymembers of couples about their interactional exchanges were analyzed using the levels frame.

First, a brief review of the results concerning degree of distress and punctuational differences. Couples initially definedas distressed and nondistressed1 were found to differ in handling conflictual situations in two major ways: (a) distressedcouples more often attributed responsibility to partner or to self, but nondistressed couples shared the responsibility for theway they interacted on issues in which there were differences, and (b) distressed couples tended to explain their own andtheir partners' behavior in characterological or dispositional terms, but the nondistressed couples varied in the causalexplanations for their interactions. In other words, nondistressed couples were equally likely to explain interactions bysituational, dispositional, or transactional causes, but the distressed couples tended to explain interactions almostexclusively with dispositional causes.

Nevertheless, punctuational differences (i.e., unitizing interactions in such a way that communicants view the other as a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3

stimulus for their actions) as described by Watzlawick et al. (15) were found with most distressed but also with somenondistressed couples; these qualitative differences were examined. Often, when both members of a couple interacted at theindividual level (Level 2), each felt the other was responsible for his or her own behavior. In general, the sequence ofmessages could be reduced to statements of the following form: "I am ___ because you ___ " or I ___ you because you___."

Interactions at the Individual level are illustrated by a woman in a distressed relationship who discussed with her spouseher lack of openness toward him. She expressed the feeling that if she did not do as he wished, he would hurt her. Herhusband felt she was scared because she feared rejection by him. In the interactions, husband was appealing to wife in anattempt to assuage her feelings.

H: Haven't I shown you how nice I am? That I don't want to hurt you.W: As long as things go your way, then it's OK. If they are not going your way, you hurt me. That's why I'm

dishonestbecause I'm scared of you.H: I'll do anything to make you happy.W: If you don't get your way, you'll hurt me like last night. The day you become a forgiving person, I'll know

it.Various interpretations may be derived from the above transactions. Wife, however, seemed to be saying, "I'm dishonest

because you hurt me." Although husband was now appealing, the couple had revealed earlier that husband had beenrejecting, withdrawing, and at times abusive. His side of the communication became, "I hurt you because you aredishonest." Both punctuated their interaction so as to perceive the other as the stimulus for their reactions. Thecommunications occur at the individual level, where self and other are the primary content.

Another couple in a distressed relationship discussed the possibility of having children. This had been a long-standingdesire of husband but was something for which wife did not feel ready. During the discussions, she indicated feeling "nastyand as if I were blaming (him) for the problem, which I have done all along ... but he created one crisis after another whilewe were separated." Husband admitted feeling hurt, irrational, and emotional. He said that during the discussions he felt "asif I can't discuss the event without going into peripheral issues. ..."Husband felt deprived of fatherhood, and for that heblamed wife. She blamed him for creating crisis situations and for putting undue burdens on her, including wanting her totake the responsibility for bearing, raising, and supporting a child. The communications took the form of "I am ungivingbecause you create crises," and, "I create crises because you are ungiving."

The following interactional segment illustrates the qualitative difference between distressed and nondistressed couples.This was a nondistressed couple who discussed husband's reluctance to argue with wife. The content of the interactionsbegins at the level of individuals (Level 2) but shifts to interactions (Level 3). Consider the following:

W: I can't believe there is nothing I've done that hasn't pissed you off.H: Oh ... you are just getting hyper.W: You mean my recent or general hyper?H: Just, ah ... in general, I don't know ... I get sort of pissed off when you get more psyched up about

something than the situation warrants.W: What do you mean by psyched up?H: ... any kind of display of what I would consider the inappropriate response....W: Well, to some extent, I think your response is inappropriate and I think you think my response is

inappropriate. But it takes an awful lot to get you pacing around.H: Yes, I know. Usually some outright provoking by you.The interactions continued in the above manner until the couple specified a number of examples of her "getting hyper" to

mobilize husband and "provoke" his pacing around. Husband was more comfortable "slogging along" or remaining distantbehind his newspaper. She would attempt to engage him, and he would resist. This was an instance of the "I withdrawbecause you nag" and "I nag because you withdraw" example cited by Watzlawick et al. (15). At one point, husbandindicated:

Well, I think you are worried about bugging me because you are afraid that I will just withdraw further orsomething like that, whereas I think I can respond to something like that (referring to wife's request for him to stopreading the paper).

The latter example from a nondistressed couple illustrates a process similar to that found with the distressed couples,except that in the nondistressed couple the content of interactions shifted from linear (Individual level) to nonlinear(Transactional level). This shift appeared to facilitate a resolution of the issue. At least one member of the couplecommented on their interactions. A shift from lower to higher levels when things got too stuck was a phenomenon thatdifferentiated most distressed from the nondistressed couples. Nondistressed couples examined punctuational differences.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4

Other nondistressed couples interacted in a quid pro quo manner that kept the focus on the issue (Level 1). In theexample that follows, wife viewed the situation from an Individual level and husband viewed the same situation from anObject level; this was an instance of implicit agreement on a linear-causal view despite punctuational differences acrosslevels.

A nondistressed couple discussed disclosures by wife about information she had agreed to keep private. Husband wasfocused on the issue, and wife was focused on self or other. She indicated feeling bad that she could not keep things toherself and that she frequently said things she felt bad about later. This represented an acknowledgment of the husband'scomplaint, as well as a view of herself as responsible (Individual level). The husband pointed out that "this is somethingthat we've discussed and resolved in principle, but it needs maintenance." His concern represented a separation of the issuefrom the wife in almost mechanical terms, thus moving away from an emotional confrontation with potential to movetoward a relational redefinition.

Other nondistressed couples, in contrast, viewed their communications interaction-ally. Punctuational differencesachieved some resolution to the extent that partners viewed themselves as acting as well as reacting. These couples directedtheir communications to the concrete ways in which they related (Transactional level).

A communicational segment of a couple discussing what issues they were to select for the interactional task, illustrates amutual perspective of interaction. The topic they chose was that husband tended to interpret wife's quietness as withdrawal.

W: That's not what I'm saying, no, no. I'm saying that when I'm quiet you don't always say, "Are you quietbecause you want to be quiet or because you are withdrawing from me?" You don't always ask me that.And you sometimes act needful.

H: (Interrupts) As if you were ...W: As if I were withdrawing from you, when in fact, I'm just being quiet.H: Right. Yeah. That's right. Sometimes I act as if you were withdrawing. Although if you ask me, I'll say, "I

don't think you were withdrawing from me." You see what I mean?W: (Sighs)H: In other words, I do act as if you were withdrawing from me ....The husband went on to acknowledge their differences, such as her quietness and his openness. He pointed out their

complementary styles, by which sometimes they act as teachers to one another (still Level 3).The following vignette illustrated interactional movement from Transactional to Relational levels. Initially wife discussed

her feelings about husband not sharing more with her, which led to a recognition of patterns and subsequently to adiscussion focused on the nature of their relationship.

W: Well, it's part of what we are talking about as far as getting in a rutit's like an emotional rut, gettingstuck in a pattern. And it is hard to see when you get stuck in patterns. And it is hard to change them.

H: What's an emotional rut?W: That I get too upset too easily and that you hold back your emotions too much and therefore they feed into

each other. You hold back your emotions more because I get too upset too easily.H: Hmm.W: And when our patterns feed into each other it is really hard to change them. It's, putting an effort on both

of our parts. Like if you express something that is bothering you, then I have to make a greater effort notto get upset. And if I don't get upset, you would be more willing to express your emotions.

H: (Laughs) It's a circle.W: It's a circle and it is trying to block us. That's the thing that scares me about the relationshiphow many

circles we are getting into that we are not seeing.Contextual levels of interaction were observed with nondistressed couples when one member or both reached into their

marital past, family backgrounds, or other past experiences in order to explain aspects of themselves and their relationship.When contextual material was brought up by one spouse, the other tended to be supportive. For one couple, the issue wassexuality and husband's frustration with wife at her not being sufficiently sexual.

W: Well, I went through a thing when I was 17. I was drinking with a gang. I was really bummed out, and Icalled a friend of mine, who I thought was a friend of mine. A guy I had gone out with three or four yearsbefore. And he ended up not taking me home but to his mother's trailer out in the yard and ended upraping me. I call it rape because I was in such a daze that I didn't know what was going on. And then Ilook back on it and ask, "What did I let him do?" I felt so terribly guilty about the whole thingthat itmust have been my fault because I didn't stop it. Even though I, I didn't want ... anything to do with it.And a lot of that plays back on my feelings, in general, about sex. Whether I am being used or ... youknow ... I should have the right to say no. I never felt that I had the right to say no, all through my, well ...before I met you [husband].

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5

Yeah.In the following sequence, the context was the couple's diverse backgrounds. Husband discussed his behavior and

aspects of the couple's relationship in connection with what he learned while he was growing up.H: But you know, our backgrounds are so dissimilar. We have a tendency to look at things very differently. I

am a midwesterner and you're an easterner and I have a Protestant background and you have a Jewishbackground. And I don't know exactly what parts of it had to do with what, but I... oh... some things thatwe sometimes disagree on are ah ... there's an attitude that midwesterners have ... the way it looks to us isthat you should be friendly with people, you should be open to people. However, from your point of view,you think, we are never deep with people. And so we have a problem that way, cause you think ...

W: (Interrupts) Not honest.H: Not honest, right. You think that my relationships are superficial and dishonest. And ah, I have trouble

having those kinds of relationships because I'm very uncomfortable being at odds with people, becausewhere I was brought up you just didn't do that.

Overall, application of the multi-level interactional frame to the transactions of twenty couples in the study suggested thatdistressed couples were often locked into a particular level, demonstrating limited movement among levels. Even morespecifically, the results showed that conflict in couples expressed as punctuational differences was connected to thepartners' inability to consider explanations or causes other than dispositional ones to explain their interaction. Agreementon a dispositional, causal view of each other's and mutual ascriptions of responsibility occurred with couples that werelocked into an interactional impasse involving mutual blaming and accusations; this was characteristic of Level 2interactions, more frequently occuring with the distressed than with the nondistressed couples. Tolerance of differences,sharing responsibility, and employing various causal explanations to explain their interactions characterized manynon-distressed couples. Movement and fluidity across the communicational levels were associated with either a clearresolution or with a better understanding of interpersonal differences.

Clinical ImplicationsBy working with the metacommunicational levels frame to identify the particular interactional levels established and

often maintained by couples, clinicians may be better able to develop intervention strategies to facilitate an accommodationto or a resolution of punctuational differences. For example, a therapist may attempt to synchronize couples at one level ormay chose to work at moving couples from one level to another. Clinical experience suggests that transition from level tolevel is a phenomenon that presupposes an appreciation for the engagement process in couple and family therapy (17), andin some situations this movement may require weeks of work in therapy to accomplish. However, when taken out of thetherapeutic relational context, such movement might appear as spontaneous change. Transitional movement from level tolevel may be a way of determining the impact of strategic interventions, which usually require a reframing of the problem(9). For example, to move a couple from Level 2 to Level 3,2 a therapist may comment on their process or intervene inother ways that facilitate members' taking responsibility for their actions.3

In shifting from Level 2 to Level 3, a couple moves from accusing and blaming to acknowledging "process." Interactionat Level 3 implies having moved from linear causal to nonlinear thinking. The shift from Level 2 to Level 3 may befacilitated by helping partners accept responsibility for their behavior in relation to each other. Once at Level 3, the couplemay function with less disconfirmation and more acceptance of differences.

Interactional movement may be facilitated by a therapist's offering comments, challenges, tasks, paradoxes, or exercises.Punctuational differences at Level 2 may be reframed, for example, by slowing down the couple's blaming process withquestions that become highly specific about the issue. In this manner, the interaction may be moved to the Object level.Once at this level, it may be possible for the couple to negotiate an acceptable outcome with the mediation of the therapist.The Object level is where quid pro quo negotiations occur; tangible outcomes provide distressed couples with neededsuccess experiences.

Shifts to Level 4 or Level 5 may also be invited or directly demonstrated by the therapist in order to facilitate movement.At the Relational level, the content changes to aspects of the relationship that may involve disagreements over existingdefinitions and/or rules for relatedness. Couples may be helped by a therapist to acknowledge and understand theseprocesses. In therapy, shifts to relational and contextual levels may signify deeper degrees of engagement in a therapeuticprocess. The interactions of couples in the nondistressed group of the study were at times at these levels and demonstratedmutual helpfulness, validation, and understanding.

Interactions at the contextual level in therapy may be characterized by examination of unsettled emotional accounts overseveral generations. Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark (7) indicate that they often work at a contextual level:

We do not propose the study of mere "tit for tat," ... we include ... all past, present, and future interactions. A wife

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6

nagging or a husband forcing her to change are dynamically connected with unfinished, past retributive effortswhich the spouses carry over from their families of origin. For instance, a wife's unsettled emotional account withher deceased father may survive in her attitude toward her husband. [p. 64]

Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark's view of the interactional sequence represents a contextual punctuation of interaction.It should be noted that interactions at higher levels do not imply a higher value of health. A couple may persevere at the

Relational or Contextual level, forever processing (e.g., what one or another's taking out the garbage means about thenature of their relationship or histories) with little or no resolution of issues and with both members perpetuating relationalpain. Similarly, a couple may symmetrically misuse inter-generational material to gain power in the relationship, foreverone-upping the other partner. If a health value is implicit in the framework, it is that of fluidity across the levels versusrigidity at any one level. In the therapy situation, synchronizing couple interactions and facilitating transitions from onelevel to another may allow movement for couples in the direction of growth.

The metacommunicational frame may be viewed as a metaphor with pragmatic value for understanding homeostasis andgrowth in couple interactions. In individual therapy, the vehicle for understanding the patient intrapsychically is anappreciation for what happens interactionally between patient and therapist (12, p. 111). In treating couples, to trulyappreciate the nature of relationships (Level 4), we must have as well an understanding of what is happening between thepartners transactionally (Level 3), which may depend in part on understanding the two individuals and each of their pointsof view (Level 2); the nature of the issue (Level 1); and the context (Level 5), which may condition whole patterns oftransactions within the couple and between one couple and the therapist. The framework presented here may assisttherapists in identifying and following punctuational differences, determining specific interventions, measuring the progressof therapy, and setting goals for treatment with different couples, as well as serve as a research tool still in its early stages ofdevelopment.

REFERENCES

1. Baker, J., (1977) "Family at Dinner," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 2. Bandler, R. and Grinder, J., (1976) The Structure of Magic, vol 1., Palo Alto, California. 3. Bateson, G., (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York, Ballantine. 4. Bernal, G., (1978) "Couple Interactions: A Study of the Punctuation Process," Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst. 5. Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L. and Vincent, J. P., "Multimethod Analysis of Social Reinforcement Exchange

Between Maritally Distressed and Nondistressed Spouse and Stranger Dyads," J. Personal. Soc. Psychol., 31,349-360, 1975.

6. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., (1965) "A Theory of Relationships Experience and Transaction," in I. Boszormenyi-Nagyand J. L. Framo (Eds.), Intensive family therapy: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. New York, Harper and Row.

7. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. and Spark, G. M., (1973) Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Inter-generational FamilyTherapy, New York, Harper and Row.

8. Haley, J., (1963) Strategies of Psychotherapy, New York, Grune and Stratton. 9. Haley, J., (1976) Problem-Solving Therapy. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. 10. Harper, J. M., Scoresby, A. L. and Boyce, W. D., "The Logical Levels of Complementarity, Symmetrical, and

Parallel Interaction Classes in Family Dyads," Fam. Proc., 16, 199-210, 1977. 11. Karpel, M., Individuation: From Fusion to Dialogue, Fam. Proc., 15, 65-82, 1976. 12. Langs, R., (1976) The Bipersonal Field. New York, Jason Aronson. 13. Locke, H. J. and Wallace, K. M., "Short Marital Adjustment Tests: Their Reliability and Validity, Marr. Fam.

Liv., 21, 251-255, 1959. 14. Montalvo, B., "Observations on Two Natural Amnesias," Fam. Proc., 15, 333-342, 197. 15. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H. and Jackson, D. D., (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of

Interaction Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes, New York, Norton. 16. Zuk, G. H., (1972) Family Therapy: A Triadic-Based Approach, New York, Behavioral Publications. 17. Zuk, G. H., (1975) Process and Practice in Family Therapy, Haveford, Pa., Psychiatry and Behavioral Science.

Reprint requests should be addressed to Guillermo Bernal, Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry, University ofCalifornia-San Francisco, San Francisco General Hospital, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, California 94110.

1Distressed and nondistressed couples were determined by using a self-definition criterion (i.e., seeking treatment versus not) and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7

by formal scores on relationship adjustment indicators (5, 13). The two groups (ten couples per group) were selected from aresearch pool of 38 couples and matched on the basis of age, level of income, and length of relationship.

2In addition to a molecular view of specific transactions, movement from level to level may be understood from a molarperspective. That is, the levels frame may be used as a descriptive metaphor to understand whole sets of transactions that maycharacterize certain phases of therapy, as well as different types of therapies with couples.

3Bandler and Grinder (2) take a similar position with respect to the so called "fussy functions," which are defined as sentences"in which the client assigns responsibility for his emotions to people or forces outside of his control" (p. 99). Bandler and Grinderrecommend that therapists challenge their clients to assist the latter in taking responsibility for their actions. If effective therapeuticoutcome is viewed as providing clients with freedom of choice, then it seems that challenges to clients to acknowledge their owncontribution to the interaction, i.e., to take responsibility for their own actions and feelings, is a desirable therapeutic strategy.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8