Religious beliefs and practices and Catholic couples' management of anger and conflict

Religious Beliefs and Practices andCatholic Couples' Managementof Anger and Conflict

Robert Marsh1* and Rudi Dallos2

1South Downs Health NHS Trust, Brighton, BN1 4SA, UK2Salomons Centre, Broomhill Road, Southborough, Tunbridge Wells, Kent,TN3 0TG, UK

Grounded theory techniques and Repertory Grids were used in aqualitative study to generate and analyse material from 20 Catholicseach interviewed twice. Religious practices increased the amount ofintrapersonal `space' available by acting physiologically, cognitivelyand affectively to reduce the intensity of anger experienced and tosupport couples in taking responsibility for their own part in a conflict.Couples could also regulate the interpersonal space between them bydetouring their anger to God, and by finding support for both theavoidance and confrontation of conflict through religious beliefs. Therelationship with God had an interactive and compensatory role inrelation to the marital relationship. Changes in religious beliefs ormarital relationship dynamics were not always neatly integrated andambivalence over anger and conflict sometimes resulted and mani-fested in discordance between the spousal and God relationships.Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Our interest in this topic has emerged fromattempts to resolve tensions that have arisen inour personal experience between psychological andreligious approaches to anger. The implicit messagereceived from personal therapy, from clinical psych-ology and counselling training has often been that itis broadly beneficial to express feelings, includinganger, and that it is potentially damaging to`suppress' it. (It has sometimes seemed as if thesewere the only two alternatives). By contrast, theimplicit message received from both Christian andBuddhist teachings has been the opposite, namelythat the expression of anger is likely to be harmfulto others and indicates of a lack of restraint. Bothapproaches seem to be based on shaky foundations.The psychological perspective seems to be informed

by the old `hydraulic' theory of emotion (Freud(1922/1984) and Lorenz (1966), which asserts (withvery little empirical evidence) that unexpressedanger builds up as if under a pressure valve until itexplodes. The religious perspective can assume anautomatic link between anger and damage whichseems to be based on an inability to confrontfeelings of anger based on fear. The narrow versionsof both approaches fail to recognize the infinitediversity of possible situations determining theappropriateness of widely varying approaches tothis emotion.

The books of the Bible taken together offer a widespectrum of attitudes to anger. The Old TestamentGod is often ferociously angry (e.g. RevisedStandard Version (RSV, 1971), Isaiah 31: 27±28, Job16: 9, 2 Samuel 6: 7 and 24: 1). Interestingly, His isoften the jealous anger of a spouse, provoked byIsrael's unfaithfulness. For His chosen people, Hislove co-exists with His anger and some theologianshave portrayed His wrath as injured love

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Clinical Psychology and PsychotherapyClin. Psychol. Psychother. 7, 22±36 (2000)

*Correspondence to: Dr Robert Marsh, South Downs HealthNHS Trust, Department of Clinical and Counselling Psychol-ogy, 4 St. Peters Place, Brighton BN1 4SA, UK.

(Moltmann, 1974, p. 272). According to this model,anger is a sign of involvement and vulnerabilityand indicates the capacity to be hurt in relationship.Jesus has been described as acting angrily, as in theexpulsion of the money changers from the temple(RSV, Matthew 21: 12±17). Elsewhere, Jesus seemedto condemn angry thoughts as equivalent tomurder (RSV, Matthew 5: 21±22) and St. Pauladvised that àll bitterness and wrath and angerand clamour and slander be put away from you'(RSV, Ephesians 4: 31±32). One of the problems indiscussing ànger' in a Christian context is that theterm is used for a range of Biblical Hebrew andGreek words. This confuses the fact that ànger' canrefer to very different emotions ranging fromhostility to indignation at injustice.

In thinking about anger, Christians, and manyothers, are caught in a dilemma created byopposing valuesÐon the one hand, of restraint,self-control, thoughtfulness and consideration ofothers' feelings; on the other hand, of being true tooneself, honesty, openness and clear communi-cation. Some Christians have tried to manage thistension by saying that the emotion of anger ismorally neutral but the behaviour resulting from itis ethically charged (Bagby, 1990, p. 39). However,there is only a very fine line between maintainingthat an emotion is acceptable whilst outcomesderiving from it may not be. Alastair Campbellmakes one of the most satisfactory Christianresponses to this. He suggests that the Christianideal is a middle way in which the heat of angershould be controlled without denying the hurt andoutrage, in which there is clear communicationwithout uncontrollable aggression and in whichanger is used to deepen love or friendship (Camp-bell, 1986, pp. 29, 64±65).

The significant influence of religious concerns onmany couples' management of anger and conflicthas not been reflected in the clinical literature.Empirical studies have shown that certain types ofreligiosity can improve relationship satisfaction andstability (Dudley and Kosinski, 1990; Hood et al.,1996, p. 130), enhance mutual adjustment andintimacy (Ellison, 1983; Filsinger and Wilson, 1984;Hatch et al., 1986) and commitment (Larson andGoltz, 1989) within the marriage. On the otherhand, the rigidity and overemphasis on sin associ-ated with certain religious beliefs have also beenperceived to be harmful and divisive to families(Bergin, 1984; Brigman, 1992).

The outcomes of research into the effects of angeron couples' relationships are mixed. Some studiesshow that after expressing anger, people feel more,

not less, angry, irritable and hostile (Berkowitz,1970; Straus, 1974; Averill, 1982). Intense andchronic anger generally fails to improve the inter-personal situation that has elicited it (Eckhardt andDeffenbacher, 1995, p. 28). Other empirical researchhas shown that anger can enhance communicationand increase insight, and has been associated withlower concurrent marital satisfaction, but increasesin marital satisfaction over time (Gottman andKrokoff, 1989). In a longitudinal study, anger didnot predict divorce, whereas criticism, defensive-ness, contempt and stonewalling (listener with-drawal) did (Gottman, 1994).

This research emerged from an expectation thatreligious beliefs and practices would affect the wayreligious couples managed anger and conflict intheir relationship. We expected a multidimensionaleffect, promoting both the expression and suppres-sion of anger, and both the confronting andavoidance of conflict.

METHOD

Design

A single group design was used within a qualitativeparadigm. Semi-structured interviews made itpossible to access the complexity of people's experi-ence (Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992). By allowingparticipants' own language, perceptions and beliefframeworks to speak in the findings and by seekingthe validation of findings from participants, thequalitative paradigm was relatively sensitive to thepower imbalance that inevitably exists betweenresearcher and researched (Barker et al., 1994,pp. 79±80).

Grounded theory techniques were used togenerate and analyse data from the first set ofinterviews. Grounded theory recommends return-ing to the field to develop and test concepts broughtup in initial interviews (Bryman and Burgess, 1994,p. 4). This model was used, with each participantbeing interviewed a second time, using RepertoryGrids (Kelly, 1955/1991).

Validation in qualitative analysis is less a strategyfor establishing rule-based correspondence betweenthe research findings and the `real world', and morea process of choosing among competing andfalsifiable explanations after repeated checkingand questioning (Kvale, 1989, pp. 73±92). Althoughit is assumed that the subjectivity of the researchercannot be removed from the research (Henwoodand Pidgeon, 1992), there are a number of factors

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 7, 22±36 (2000)

Anger and Conflict 23

that can increase its `trustworthiness' (Miles andHuberman, 1994, pp. 262±277). These include theuse of more than one methodology (Barker et al.,1994, p. 82) (here both interview and Repertory Gridtechniques were used) and the acknowledgement ofthe researchers' constructions (Bannister and Fran-sella, 1986, p. 40), assumptions and expectations(Barker et al., 1994, p. 76). This was done in the textand specifically through the use of a research diary.Validity is enhanced by ensuring that the `fit'between categories/themes and theory is `plausible'and `confirmable' (Miles and Huberman, 1994,p. 11; Henwood and Pidgeon, 1995). Findingsshould be recognizable and comprehensible to theparticipants (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 23). Thiswas tested by sending participants a summary ofthe themes generated from their data and askingthem to comment. The `fit' of categories to data wasmade auditable and inter-coder reliability wasassessed (Sells et al., 1995). A Repertory Grid'svalidity is preserved by ensuring that the elementsand constructs are relevant, easily comprehensibleand coherent with each other (Feixas and Cornejo-Alvarez, 1994, p. 8).

Participants

There were 20 married participants (10 couples). Allparticipants were regularly practising Catholics ofat least 2 years' duration and had all been marriedfor at least 2 years. Participants had been marriedfor a mean time of 20.50 years (SD � 10.81) andhad a mean number of 3.10 children (SD � 1.17).All participants had at least one child. Of theparticipants 75% were employed; the remainderwere retired. The ethnic origin of all of theparticipants was white European, except for onewho was Singaporean Chinese. Three couples wereinvolved with `Marriage Encounter' (a network oflocal groups of Christian couples seeking toimprove communication within their relationship)and three other couples were involved with the`Catholic Charismatic Renewal' (a network of localgroups practising Christianity with a charismaticorientation). Participants were recruited throughpriests, through Marriage Encounter and through alocal research group.

Procedure

In both interviews, couples were questioned separ-ately. Both interviews lasted approximately an hourand a half each. A total of 40 interviews wasconducted. All first interviews were taped.

Development of the Interview FormatThe interview format was modified in response

to ideas and responses that emerged from earlierinterviews. The basic structure included questionsabout participants' anger and conflict managementstyles within the marriage and in their childhoodfamilies, their religious beliefs and practices andtheir relationship with God.

Development of the Repertory GridThe Repertory Grid offered a systematic, mathe-

matical analysis of the interactions between indi-vidual belief systems, relationships and theirpersonal meanings (Bannister and Fransella, 1986,p. 51; Feixas and Cornejo-Alvarez, 1994, p. 1). Agrid consists of a series of elements that map thearea under study, a set of personal constructs thatare used to compare and contrast selected aspects ofthese elements and, a Lickert-type rating systemthat evaluates the elements based on the bipolararrangement of each construct. In this study, theconstructs were supplied by the authors and werethe same for all grids. They were chosen on thebasis of concepts that emerged in the first inter-views which the researcher wanted to developthrough triangulation in the second.

Data Analysis

Data Analysis: Semi-structured InterviewsInterviews were transcribed in full (as recom-

mended by Sells et al., 1995). This was done by theresearcher (RM) as a way of developing awarenessof the nuances of participants' language andmeanings (Charmaz, 1995, p. 36). Transcripts wereanalysed using grounded theory techniques. Thisinvolved designating sentences or groups ofsentences that were considered relevant to theresearch questions with initial codes written in themargin of the text. These initial codes were mainlydescriptive designations at first, which becamemore conceptual and focused as the analysis offurther transcripts yielded more abstract andgeneralized codes which subsumed a number ofpreviously used codes (Charmaz, 1983, p. 28; Milesand Huberman, 1994, pp. 57±58). Through `constantcomparative analysis' (Henwood and Pidgeon,1992), codes were broken down into componentcodes and some initial codes were discarded. Theresulting 283 codes were organized into 50 moregeneral and abstract categories, which in turn, werearranged and re-arranged until they were finallyorganized into nine still more general and abstractthemes. By constantly returning to the transcripts,


24 R. Marsh and R. Dallos

the emerging categories and themes were elabor-ated with a view to specifying similarities anddifferences within them (Strauss and Corbin, 1990,pp. 108±111, 130±131) and verified for closeness offit with the text (Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992). Thecategories and themes provided the basis for theelaboration of the theory (Charmaz, 1995, p. 47).

An example of the technique is given below.

Data Analysis: GridsThe grids were analysed using a computer

package, `Gridcor' (Feixas and Cornejo-Alvarez,1994). This analysed grid data using a multidimen-sional factor analysis technique (correspondenceanalysis) which produced a coherent mathematicalanalysis of constructs and elements. For each grid,Gridcor graphically grouped together constructsand elements that took up the most variance on fiveaxes. The resulting scatter plots made it possible toidentify clusters of the most significant elementsand constructs for each participant. The results ofthe grid analysis were used qualitatively, in thespirit in which they were intended to be used, toprovide an alternative but complementary perspect-ive on ideas emerging from the grounded theoryanalysis.

RESULTS

Two case studies are presented to illustrate some ofthe predominant themes that emerged from theanalysis. They highlight the contrast betweencongruent and discordant styles of conflict manage-ment in two different couples and show how thesecouples' religious beliefs and practices, and theirrelationship with God affect these styles.

Case Study of Two Couples

Brenda (53) and Will (57), Married 31 YearsBrenda believed that their shared religious beliefs

and values allowed them to `push the limitssometimes to really grow as a person and a couple'.That `divorce has never been an option' meant that`we have always had to sort it out in the end'. Theirrelationship with God seemed to create an oppor-tunity for responding to situations with a differentemotional repertoire. What might otherwise havearoused anger evoked a sense of acceptance in therelationship with God: Ì have heard people say,``why could you let him do that?'' or `Ì'm angrybecause this has happened to me.'' I reached a stageabout 10 years ago thinking, ``why not me?''' ThisT

able

1.E

xam

ple

of

aco

mp

lete

dg

rid

(Wil

l's)

wit

hco

nst

ruct

sac

ross

ver

tica

ld

imen

sio

nan

del

emen

tsat

the

top

1M

yp

aren

ts'

rela

tio

nsh

ip

My

rela

tio

nsh

ipw

ith

Go

d

Ou

rre

lati

on

ship

atit

sb

est

Ou

rre

lati

on

ship

atit

sw

ors

t

Ou

rre

lati

on

ship

wh

enw

efi

rst

met

Ou

rre

lati

on

ship

no

w

Rel

igio

us

idea

lin

ou

rm

arri

edre

lati

on

ship

7

Wo

rkin

go

ut

dif

ficu

ltie

sm

yse

lf5

57

24

57

Tal

kin

gth

rou

gh

dif

ficu

ltie

s

See

ing

the

oth

eras

nee

din

gto

chan

ge

55

52

35

6S

eein

gm

yse

lfas

nee

din

gto

chan

ge

Fee

lin

gan

gry

66

53

64

5N

ot

feel

ing

ang

ry

Fee

lin

gfu

llp

erm

issi

on

toex

pre

ssan

ger

61

23

62

1F

eeli

ng

no

per

mis

sio

nto

exp

ress

ang

er

Fo

cuse

do

nef

fect

so

fco

nfl

ict-

rela

ted

acti

on

so

no

ther

57

35

74

4F

ocu

sed

on

effe

cts

of

con

flic

t-re

late

dac

tio

ns

on

self

Fee

lin

gd

epen

dan

to

nth

eo

ther

22

26

53

2N

ot

feel

ing

dep

end

ent

on

oth

er

Fee

lin

gg

uil

tyo

ras

ham

edab

ou

tex

pre

ssin

gan

ger

46

64

36

6N

ot

feel

ing

gu

ilty

or

ash

amed

abo

ut

exp

ress

ing

ang

er

Fee

lin

gaf

raid

of

reje

ctio

naf

ter

exp

ress

ing

ang

er5

76

22

57

Fee

lin

gac

cep

ted

afte

rex

pre

ssin

gan

ger



seemed to encourage them to take personalresponsibility for `limitations' and `frustration' inthe marital relationship and to practise learning notto `blame'. Turning to God in prayer enabled Will tofeel that `the drama goes out of the situation and Ican maybe turn back and not be as defensive'. ForBrenda, failure to relate to God could result in anegative effect on the marriage: ìf I am not prayingor meditating, those will perhaps be the times whenI will turn my back and sleep away from Will atnight instead of giving him a cuddle before I go tosleep'.

Their relationship with God was in turn affectedby the marital dynamics and often seemed to servea compensatory function in the marital relationship.Brenda said of God, that, unlike her husband, Ìdon't think He would be angry with me if I wasangry' and that, unlike with most people, shewould not become angry with God because `Godwould see behind what was causing the anger'.

Both Brenda and Will described a change in theirstyle of managing anger and conflict during thecourse of their marriage. Originally, it was a case ofàvoiding conflict quite a lot'. Will àttached a sinfulthing to it, if you were angry, it was very, veryshameful'. However, work and home pressurestriggered the expression of ùncontrollable' anger inWill. Marriage Encounter also encouraged them tobe `more up front with anger' and `honest withfeelings, accepting that they have no morality'. Thisenabled them to feel they were `more able to beourselves'. Will said he was now recognizing thattheir anger `points to, in some way, unmetunderlying needs'.

Although these changes were linear in the sensethat they were linked to particular events, they werealso spiral in that the couple returned to èarlier'styles repeatedly. Brenda still sometimes chose to

avoid conflict because ìt is upsetting to him'.However, the new developments overlaid the oldhabits since this kind of restriction now angeredBrenda, making her feel she was being preventedfrom `growing as a person'. Conversely, Will saidthat he still felt `quite ashamed and shocked' whenhe became angry, although it was `not quite sostrong now'. He became angry when Brenda'sanger `takes over and I can see the day slippingaway'.

This co-existing of òld' and `new' styles ofrelating resulted in an ambivalence which mani-fested in the discrepancies between dynamics in themarriage and in the relationship with God. ForBrenda, anger in the marriage was clearly accept-able, although she had not `quite worked out yet'whether anger was also acceptable in her relation-ship with God. For Will, anger is `part and parcel ofbeing a spiritual person' and yet he was describedas being a `great stuffer-downer'.

Simon (47) and Diana (37), Married 12 YearsSimon commented that their styles of managing

anger were `completely different'. Diana referred toherself as having à fairly quick temper' which`hurts' Simon and which was a `source of greatregret'. Simon would respond to Diana losing hertemper by `sulking'. Diana's religious beliefsreinforced her wish to behave in a `more calm,rational way' and her religious practices helpedreduce the intensity of her anger. Conversely,Simon believed that by sulking, he was `pushingGod away . . . so it's pulling all the time back awayfrom that sulkiness'. Simon's prayer life encouragedhim to talk `honestly and openly' and to ùnder-stand where the other person is coming from'. Inboth cases, their religious beliefs focused on the

Table 2. An example of interview analysis

Text Initial code Code Category Theme

`The whole thing of slowing down yourbreathing diffuses anger' (Brenda)

Meditation diffusesanger

Meditation diffusesanger

Religiouspractices reduceanger

Transformationof angerthroughreligiouspractices

Ì'm definitely less peaceful when I don'thave that contact with God and then thefamily get the rough end' (Diana)

Not having prayertime means I'm lesspeaceful in thefamily

Prayer has acalming effect

Ìf I ask for help in prayer, then it canbegin to open me up again to Brenda'(Will)

Prayer enables meto open up

Prayer enablesopening up

Religiouspractices allowa change ofapproach to aconflict



need to forgive. Religion seemed to help them bothreach more middle ground.

However, there seemed to be a cost to adaptation.When Diana controlled her anger, she said she felt`quite burdened, seething away, so I feel quiteheavy with that'. In addition, she stated that if shedid not express her anger directly, `someone elsewould get it'. `Someone' seemed often to be thechildren. Simon similarly seemed to find it easier toexpress anger to his children than his wife: Ì sulkwith Diana and I lose my temper with the children'.

Diana's relationship with God served as analternative outlet for her anger: ìf I am feelinganxious or angry, that will come out in that prayertime. There's a definite understanding now of Godas my Father, and someone to whom I can say``Look, I am really fed up about things'' and as inthe Psalms, I can really rant and rave'. Herrelationship with God seemed to compensate forneeds not met in marriage: ìf things aren't good,it's a real lifeline'.

Religion also helped Simon manage the anger hepreferred to deal with on his own. His belief in theexistence of spiritual warfare gave him a frameworkto think about, and manage, marital conflicts andanger: Ì think marriage is under attack . . . and sosometimes, if a blackness descends from nowherefor some minor reason, you can think that maybethere are some non-benign spiritual influenceswhich are attacking me, and that actually helpsme to fight back from it'. Religion could be adamage-insulation device: `with some sort of strongand living faith, then actually we have some sort ofprotection'.

General Results

All of the interviews were analysed to pick outunderlying common themes. Eight themes emerged

each of which could be broken down into morenumerous and specific categories and codes.

Our qualitative analysis below was broadlyconfirmed by the numerical analysis shown inTable 3, which confirmed the pervasive useamong participants of strategies for dealing withanger and conflict and the very high frequency withwhich anger was felt to be transformed throughreligious practices.

Results From the Grounded Theory Analysis

Religious Beliefs and Strategies Supportingthe Non-expression of Anger

Eleven participants referred to the negativeeffects of anger on their relationship. The mostcommonly cited reason for not expressing angerwas that it would either damage the spouse or therelationship:

Ì feel that when I'm angry, expressing angerwould break the relationship; I think that's thefear deep down' (Pierre).

Anger was perceived to be destructive because itwas associated with a loss of control over theactions that resulted from it. Getting angry alsoclashed with Christian values such as not judgingothers, not imposing one's will on others, acceptingGod's will, being loving, kind, peaceful andChrist-like.

Ì usually feel very guilty and ashamed to haveactually, in a way, failed, because I see anger assomething bad that I should keep under control'(Barry).

Consequently, seven participants attemptedto control the expression of anger and in

Table 3. Themes form the grounded theory analysis with total number of participants referring to each theme andoverall frequency of occurrence of each theme throughout the transcripts

Theme Number ofparticipants referringto this theme (N � 20)

Overall frequencyof occurrence of

this theme

Strategies for dealing with anger and conflict 19 58Beliefs about the expression of anger being negative 14 67Beliefs about the expression of anger being positive 13 98Transformation of anger through religious practices 17 134Relationship with God 14 85Childhood issues in current relationships 12 56Effects of gender in current relationships 9 22Ambivalence regarding anger 11 30Religious differences and similarities as a source of conflict and bonding 5 8



particular, to inhibit the desire to retaliate or to`score points'.

Às a Christian, you feel you should be absorbinga little of the hurt and the conflict and not passingit on' (Terry).

Religious Beliefs and Strategies Supporting theExpression of Fear

Thirteen participants referred in some way to theacceptability of anger, usually by citing the exampleof Jesus demonstrating `righteous anger' with themoney-changers in the temple. Three of theseparticipants believed that God created people andtheir emotions in His own image so that anger wastherefore `from God' and acceptable. Participantsalso associated their anger with their humanfallibility and this seemed to normalize the anger.

`Christ wants us to be fully human . . . so thatwould mean (bringing out) the conflict and thegrot and all the things that you would perhapskeep hidden from other people' (Brenda).

Others said that expressing anger was acceptablebut only under certain conditions, such as that itwas expressed for the benefit of others, that it didnot include blame and that it was expressed withlove and thoughtfulness.

Various negative effects were associated with notexpressing anger. One of these was that if anger isnot expressed, it becomes less manageable and isredirected, most commonly onto children. In threecases, participants who disliked expressing angerand who said they rarely expressed anger, also saidthat they became inordinately angry with theirchildren. Four others talked about only gettingangry with inanimate objects, or with themselves.

`Just swallowing back doesn't work, it justmounts and then it actually is expressed inworse ways because it is then directed at wrongpeople, the children' (De Hong).

Six participants also mentioned how discountingdivorce as an option forced them to face difficultieswith honesty and sort out problems. Those favour-ing the expression of anger often thought that itcontributed to the release of tension and thecreation of security in the relationship.

Anger and Religious PracticesTwelve participants said that prayer, meditation,

and participating in the Mass (particularly theEucharist and the sign of peace) allowed them toprevent the escalation of conflict and to feel more

equanimous, content, calm, and less angry. Prayerenabled people to open up, to become lessdefensive, to listen more and to see the otherperson's perspective:

Ìf I am in regular contact with God, if I try andhave this quiet time, 20 or 30 minutes every day,that makes a difference to my day . . . to the way Ireact to things . . . I'm definitely less peacefulwhen I don't have that contact with God, andthen the family get the rough end' (Diana).

Prayer, participation in the Mass and confessiongave participants the opportunity to think abouttheir feelings, to take a meta-position with respectto the conflict and its associated emotions and tosee the situation less personally. Family prayerseemed to have a bonding effect by allowing thefamily to be together, and to attend to each other'sfeelings and needs. For some, the loving or peacefulfeelings that ensued from their religious practiceguided future actions, and in particular, promptedthem to seek forgiveness. Prayer therefore created arealignment of intentions for future behaviour:

`Prayer is like a haven for me to focus, tocome back to how I am, how I can relate'(Patricia).

Prayer particularly helped participants to intro-spect about their own responsibility in the conflict:

Ì guess that is the religious side of itÐmaybeyou will think, ``maybe there is a problem withme'', rather than just assuming I am in the right'(Terry).

However, religious practices did not alwayssucceed in reducing anger. Sometimes, participantsdid not pray as often as they wanted to, and atother times, prayer did not initially result in areduction of anger. In such cases, two participantsdescribed practising àcting in the opposite spirit',i.e. acting a way that is congruent not with how onefeels (angry) but with how one aspires to feel(loving). A minority of couples did not use religiouspractices to help them address conflicts. One coupleasserted that they never felt angry or had conflicts.Some found it more beneficial to withdraw or avoidpotentially minor conflicts.

The Relationship with GodThe relationship with God was seen as a source

of peace and harmony. Rather than being expressedimmediately, anger could be accepted and



contained by God, and this enabled participants totransform it:

`How does God respond to your anger? Like this(opens out arms). What's that? He's just holdingme. The palms are very strong' (De Hong).

Anger that might otherwise be directed to thespouse could be redirected to God or to spirits whowere perceived to be influencing events:

`Rather than looking at the person and wishing toexpiate my anger and frustration upon theperson, I can . . . focus on the enemy behind andexpiate anger on the invisible spirit and say, `Ìcommand you to be gone in Jesus' name; I'll notlet you destroy this relationship''' (Sam).

There seemed to be an interaction betweenparticipants' relationship with God and theirrelationship with their spouse. Many participantsdescribed a similar pattern of anger managementand expression with both. In other cases, the tworelationships were complementary so that Godwould meet needs that the spouse could not meet:

`No human being can be everything anotherhuman being wants because they are human, so Ithink perhaps there has been a change where Iwould turn to my relationship with God and thatwould put me in a better relationship with Will'(Brenda).

Six participants referred to their attempt to let goof their own needs and desires through trusting inthe enfolding of God's will. This led to a greateropenness to the needs of their spouse and to acelebration of mutual interdependence:

Ì'm trying to please God . . . and I know whatpleases Him is when we actually die to what wewant ourselves and try to love other people(Jane).

The experience of God's presence in the relation-ship gave couples a sense that their relationship wasblessed, unshakeable or `meant to be'. From thisfollowed a security and a sense of optimism thatGod would bring them through any conflict in theirrelationship.

Effects of ChildhoodThirteen participants said that their childhood

affected the way they managed anger and conflictin their marriage:

Ìn our kind of upbringing, anger was not good,and in my family, we were not allowed to express

anger; it was something bad. So for a long time, Ihave considered that anger was bad, even inGod's eyes' (Isobelle).

Thirteen participants described the recurrence offamily dynamics, childhood anger and childhoodfears about the effect of anger, in the dynamics oftheir marriage and/or their relationship with God.Seven participants explicitly connected God withtheir father, in three cases by referring to God as`Dad'.

`No matter what my father did, basically herejected the family and we could have been on thestreets, it was as bad as that. And that has affectedyour relationship with God the Father? Yeah, I thinkso. This Father figure is quite distant, I just cannotget close to Him . . . it's a relationship where I amafraid, afraid of being judged and I think I docarry that in many ways in the way I act and a lotof my guilt feelings, my self-worth and so forth, iscarried in how I view my relationship with Godthe Father' (Brian).

During the course of their marriage, eightparticipants had made changes in the way theymanaged anger and conflicts that they felt werehealthier for their relationship. Many of these wereprompted by religion:

`When Patricia was upset about something, Iwould dig the garden or take the dog for a walkuntil she got over it; but then we experiencedsomething within the Catholic church thatactually said to us, ``look, this is irresponsible;you should face into things''' (Barry).

In five cases, participants acknowledged that thechanges brought a sense of struggle or discomfort.Change was not always smooth or complete,resulting in a degree of ambivalence between theòld' and `new' self:

Ì'm in a funny place with God at the moment,but I think to be angry at Him is a waste of time,really. But that doesn't make sense because angeris an OK emotion to have, so if He's like that, Hemust have anger as well, but it's kind of like theanger has gone in relation to Him' (Brenda).

Effects of GenderEight couples talked about one of them expres-

sing more anger in the marriage than the other. Inseven of these cases, the participant who expressedanger less often was the man. Five of these menassociated anger with fear or rejection and threeof them linked those feelings with negative



experiences in childhood. Of the five participantswho talked about expressing anger more outsidethe marriage (to children, work colleagues orinanimate objects) then in it, all were men. Of thenine participants who said they got angry withGod, seven were women.

Inter-coder ReliabilityAn independent coder was asked to code high-

lighted text in one interview transcript using a listof categories and themes. The congruence betweenour coding and the independent coding was 91%for themes and 83% for categories. An inter-coderreliability of 80% is considered a minimumstandard before categories are considered to be atrustworthy basis for drawing inferences (Krippen-dorff, 1980).

Results from the Grids

The Grid results are described with reference toclusters of constructs and elements that took up themost variance on axes 1 and 2. Gridcor mappedthese results diagrammatically in a scatter plot foreach participant. An example is given below.

Data From Axis 1 and Scatter PlotsCertain elements were identified which occurred

most frequently clustered together at one extremityof axis 1, and were therefore most associated witheach other. This `positive' cluster included the`religious ideal' (which occurred at one extremityof 85% of grids), the `marital relationship at its best'(which occurred at the same extremity in 75% ofgrids) and the `relationship with God' (which

Figure 1. Will's grid results in a scatter plot format (variance � 86.77%). Elements: `relnow', how participantsperceived their relationship now; `bestrel', how participants perceived their relationship when it was at its best;`worstrel', how participants perceived their relationship when it was at its worst; `firstrel', how participants perceivedtheir relationship in its first 6 months; `parsrel', how participants perceived their parents' relationship with each other;`Godrel', how participants perceived their relationship with God; ìdealrel', participants' religious ideal as applied totheir married relationship. Constructs: `diffself±diffstalk', the extent to which participants kept difficulties to themselvesor talked them through; òwnchange±othchange', the extent to which, in situations of conflict, participants either lookedto their spouse to change or looked to themselves to change; àngry±not angry', the extent to which participantsexperienced anger; `perm±noperm', the extent to which participants felt, in various relationships, permission to expressanger; `me±partner', the extent to which, in situations of conflict, participants focused on the effects of their actionseither on themselves or on their spouse; `dependent±notdep', the extent to which participants felt dependent on theirspouses or on God; `shame±no shame', the extent to which, after expressing anger, participants felt ashamed or guilty;`secure±reje(ction)', the extent to which, after anger had been expressed, participants felt either secure or afraid ofrejection~"



occurred at the same extremity in 60% of grids).This indicates that couples felt that when theirmarital relationship was at its best, they came closeto meeting their religious ideals and that some ofthe dynamics in participants' relationship with Godapproached how they perceived their marriedrelationship to be when it was at its best. Theabove elements frequently clustered with thefollowing `positive' constructs on axis 1: `talkingthrough difficulties' (in 90% of grids), `seeingmyself as needing to change' (in 75%) and `feelingsecure after anger is expressed' (in 70%).

At the other extremity of axis 1, the followingelements clustered together most frequently in a`negative' cluster: the `marital relationship at itsworst' (in 60% of grids), the `parents' relationship'(in 50%) and the `marital relationship when we firstmet' (in 25%). Most frequently associated with theseelements in the `negative' cluster at the sameextremity of axis 1 were the following constructs:`feeling angry' (in 70%), `feeling rejected after angerhas been expressed' (65%) and `working outdifficulties alone' (65%). The grids implied thatsome participants may have entered marriage witha style of conflict management, partly learned fromparents and partly derived from a still embryonicsense of trust at the beginning stages of therelationship, that was associated with feelingangry and working out difficulties alone, andwhich still characterized their relationship when itwas at its worst. In a mirror reversal of the positivecluster above, this style seemed to be connectedwith a fear of rejection around anger.

Variance in the GridsThe combined variance of axes 1 and 2 was high

(mean 82.80%; standard deviation 6.56), and onlyfell below 74% in one participant's grid. Thissuggests that these two axes represented dominantdimensions in the participants' beliefs.

DISCUSSION

Discussion of Method

Although theoretical sampling did ensure that abroad spectrum of Catholic beliefs were represented( from `Charismatics' to those influenced byMarriage Encounter), there were no couples with-out children, only one non-white non-European andmost participants were middle class professionalsor retired professionals. Couples who were not fromthese groups might have been a profitable source of

`negative' cases (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 265).Given the subject matter, the study was inevitablylikely to attract couples who were sufficiently secureto volunteer information about their marital con-flicts. Those participants who had been involved inMarriage Encounter had practised reflecting on,and discussing, their marriage and so were prob-ably more emotionally fluent about this thanaverage. These participants tended to see anger ashealthy and normal, and although a minority in thesample as a whole, may have slightly weighted theresults in this direction.

Qualitative research is an epistemologically`broad church'. Although grounded theory maymake claims for `transcendental realism' (Miles andHuberman, 1994, p. 4) in which themes have anobjective status and identify `real' phenomena inthe external world, personal construct theoryemphasizes more the range of subjective alterna-tives that may be used to construct phenomena(Bannister and Fransella, 1986, p. 4). The latterposition seems to more accurately represent thevariety of levels during coding at which partici-pants' statements can sometimes be analysed, withthe context often providing a richer range ofpossible meanings of what is literally said. Deci-sions then need to be made as to what participants`really mean' which amounts to making interpreta-tions of the interpretations people made of theirsituations (Noblit (1989) cited in Miles and Huber-man, 1994, p. 299) or as personal construct theorywould have it, `making constructions about con-structions' (Bannister and Fransella, 1986, p. 19).This methodological and ethical problem is part-icularly present in the presentation of theory wherereligious and psychological models of seeing theworld may be irreconcilable. Religious construc-tions suggest that certain practices are ends inthemselves (e.g. praying to communicate with God)whereas psychological constructions suggest thatthey are means to ends (e.g. praying to cope withanxiety).

Discussion of Results

The results suggest that there was no one `Catholic'way of approaching anger and conflict manage-ment. A continuum was represented, includingboth beliefs that anger is damaging and self-controlshould be employed as well as beliefs that it can beconstructive to talk through issues that arouse angerand to express anger. No couples advocatedunharnessed explosions of anger.



Various religious beliefs were associated withcoping with marital conflicts in this study. Theseincluded the belief that God's presence and grace inthe relationship would see the couple through anymarital conflict. This is resonant of the `predictivecontrol', (the sense that people can predict events),and the `vicarious control' (the sense that God willsupport believers through difficulties) which havebeen reported to give religious people a sense ofcontrol over their lives (Hood et al., 1996, p. 382).Participants also reported a sense of optimism andsecurity about the future of their relationship whichderived from the belief that marriage was asacrament, and was therefore unshakeable.

Beliefs relating to the management of conflictvaried. Some couples advocated addressing issuesas they arose while other couples believed thatsome issues were best avoided. Most couples talkedmore about their problems and felt more permis-sion to get angry than they did at the start of theirmarriages. Confrontive coping has been found to beadaptive when the situation calls for getting some-one else to act (Folkman and Lazarus, 1988)although avoidance is not always a negativestrategy and can be associated with couples report-ing happy marriages (Fitzpatrick and Winke, 1979;Rands et al., 1981).

Religious practices were acknowledged to havecognitive, affective or physiological effects whichreduced the intensity of anger experienced. This`cooling off' effect may contribute to the positivelong-term outcome of the relationship as physio-logically calmer couples have been found to havemarriages that improved over time compared tomore physiologically aroused couples who hadmarriages that deteriorated (Gottman, 1991). Thisstudy showed that religious practices provided aspace that enabled people to hold back from theimmediate enactment of instincts and to thinkabout their behaviour and the needs of their spouse,to examine their responsibility in a conflict, to try tounderstand the causes of anger in themselves andto locate the conflict within a broader perspective.This often led to talking through difficulties withthe spouse more lovingly and rationally or todiscussing problems in the family. In other casesin this study, prayer enabled people to manage theirown feelings more effectively on their own.

These findings are consistent with empiricalstudies that have shown that prayer can reduceanger, anxiety and aid relaxation (Carlson et al.,1988) and may function to regulate and controlemotions (Scheff, 1977; Hood et al., 1996, pp. 378±380). Introspection or `private self consciousness'

has been suggested to increase individuals' aware-ness of their partner's perspective and to increaseself-disclosure, leading to greater mutual satisfac-tion and reduced interpersonal friction (Franzoiet al., 1985).

The dynamics with respect to anger were oftensimilar in the marital relationship and in therelationship with God. Previous studies have alsoshown a high concordance between closeness anddistance among intimates and in their relationshipwith God (Worthington, 1990) and between attach-ment patterns in romantic relationships and inrelationships with God (Kirkpatrick and Shaver,1992).

In other cases, the relationship with God seemedto serve a compensatory function in the marriage,meeting some of the needs that the spouse couldnot, such as for the expression of anger without fearof damage or with complete understandingassured. The relationship with God also served aprotective function by diverting from the marriageanger which might have exacerbated maritaltensions.

The results point to the enduring influence ofchildhood family dynamics and beliefs about angeron participants' management of anger and conflict,both in the early marital relationship and in therelationship with God. This is consistent withstudies suggesting that God images correlatepositively with images of preferred parents (Nelsonand Jones, 1957) and self-concepts (Benson andSpilka, 1973).

This study suggests that these inherited patternsare not fixed but can be modified through theimpact of religious groups such as MarriageEncounter and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.Modifications to anger and conflict managementstyles included talking more to the spouse aboutdifficulties, taking more responsibility for makingchanges and feeling more secure after anger isexpressed. However, these changes did not alwaysseem to be completely integrated, and this wassometimes reflected in ambivalent attitudes toanger and in different approaches to conflict inthe relationship with spouse and with God.

Societal and religious attitudes making it lessacceptable for women than men to express angerwere acknowledged. However, differences in angerand conflict behaviour reported by couples tendedto be the opposite of behaviours predicted by thoseattitudes. Men expressed anger less often in themarriage than their wives, often out of a fear thatcould sometimes be traced to childhood of thedamaging effects of anger. Instead, men tended to



direct their anger more often than women tochildren or inanimate objects. When not expressinganger in the marital relationship, women tended totake their anger more than men to God. This couldbe understood in the context of findings suggestingthat men's autonomic nervous systems and endo-crine responses have been reported to respond toemotion-based behaviours more readily and recovermore slowly than women's (Polefrone and Manuck,1987). Therefore, men may be more inclined thanwomen to withdraw from conflict to avoid rela-tively greater physiological punishment (Gottmanet al., 1988). The `female-demand/male-withdrawpattern' has received considerable empiricalsupport (Christensen and Harvey, 1990). On theother hand, these different responses may be theresult of the different socialization processes of menand women. Rausch et al. (1974) have argued thatwomen have learned to use emotional communica-tion better than men because they have historicallybeen a lower power group and more dependent onmen.

Development of Theory

Systems theory proposes that a couple exists notonly as two individual units but also as a `system'with interdependent parts that interact and feed-back to one another, either maintaining homeostasisor bringing about change. The couple system is inturn part of a wider set of systems comprisingfamily, and the social, cultural and religious context(Broderick and Smith, 1979, pp. 112±129). Maritaland religious belief systems have been found toinfluence each other (Hunt and King, 1978; Kirkpa-trick and Shaver, 1992). These changes are mostlikely to happen at times of crisis (Bourguignon,1992).

We suggest that religious practices can increase`space', both intrapersonally and interpersonally.Intrapersonally, they do this in a variety of ways:physiologically, through various slowing down andcooling off mechanisms; cognitively, by providingmental space for the believer to reflect on his or herown responsibility in a conflict, to consider theother person's point of view and to see the conflictform a broader perspective; affectively, by reducingthe intensity of anger experienced, by facilitatingimpulse-control and by putting physical space andtime between the angry impulse and the opport-unity to act on it.

Religious practices also create interpersonal`space'. As the couple learn to adjust to one another,they recognize that certain needs cannot be met by

their spouse. In order that these unmet needs donot destabilize the homeostasis of the dyad, some ofthe needs and resulting tensions are `detoured'(Minuchin, 1974) away from the spouse to a`triangulated' unit (Bowen, 1978) within the system.Traditionally, this is the children (evidence forwhich was also found in this study). However, thetriangulated figure may also be God who, inpossible contrast to spouses, cannot be hurt byany amount of anger and whose love is uncondi-tional. One participant noted that there were `threein this marriage . . . God is there as well' (Jo).

What constricts or expands space will be differentfor each couple and at different points in theirrelationship. The avoidance of conflict may createspace by providing a much needed time forindividual reflection or it may constrict the `space'by closing up crucial channels of communication.Religious frameworks are invoked to support boththe avoidance and the confronting of conflict. Theseprocesses are dynamic and continually evolving inan attempt to bring about changes where they areinterpersonally or intrapersonally necessary. Theseprocesses can be seen systemically in terms ofcircular feedback loops between various units of thesystem (Gorell Barnes, 1987, pp. 104±105).

In some cases, the evolution of these processesdevelops in a spiral manner. For instance, theintegration of new beliefs and practices throughoutthe system is not always smooth and there may be areturn to older ways of functioning to whichindividuals may be more habituated. Changesmay meet with considerable ambivalence beforeindividuals feel comfortable with them and beforesystems adjust to them. This may result in a `delay'effect in which changes may take longer to take rootin one part of the system than the other. Changes inthe relationship with God with respect to angermay sometimes have to `catch up' with `new'approaches in the marital relationship (e.g. withanger becoming more acceptable). Similarly, certainaspects of the conflict management process, likeguilt, shame and fear may be more resistant tochange even when the old beliefs supporting them(e.g. ìt is wrong to get angry') have long beenabandoned.

The model suggests that the religious ideals, therelationship with God, and the marital relationshipin particular, have a dynamic and interactive effecton each other. The early style of anger and conflictmanagement develops and is affected by the indi-vidual's religious experience, which itself maturesby opening to new religious influences suchas Marriage Encounter. Other factors, including



childhood family anger and conflict managementstyles and the perceived attitudes of institutionssuch as the church, contribute to the evolving angerand conflict management style, particularly at thestart of the marriage. However, the evolving maritalinteractions and religious experience also affect theway these factors are perceived.

Clinical Implications

Religious beliefs and practices may reinforce thera-peutic change and help maintain gains: in part-icular, anger may be redirected to God rather thanto children. Asking about religious frameworks atthe assessment conveys to patients the acceptabilityof this material in the therapeutic context.

Clinicians may have to tolerate the ambivalenceof working with religious beliefs that they interpretas having a psychological function but which, for

patients, derive their power and their therapeuticvalue from their reference to an objective reality.Just as therapists should aim to understand, with-out judgement, the internal worlds of people of adifferent race or gender than themselves, the sameshould be true with respect to religious patients.Clinical trainings should do more to support thisposition.

Building up networks with local religioussystems would put clinicians in a better positionto recommend organizations such as MarriageEncounter, whose aims, such as enabling moreopen and effective communication, are likely to beparallel to their own aims. Such groups may helpconsolidate therapeutic changes, and unliketherapy, carry no stigma and provide supportsystems that people can use locally, indefinitelyand without cost. Links with pastors and priestsmay open up opportunities for collaborative workwith couples.

Figure 2. Diagrammatic summary of theory (using Simon and Diana's case)



Future Research

Research with adherents of other religious or otherChristian denominations, with people from otherethnic and social backgrounds and with coupleswithout children could help specify the influence ofthese factors on outcomes related to religion.Research with adherents of non-theistic religions,such as Buddhism, in a context where it is notindigenous (in the West), could throw more light onboth the role of the relationship with God (asdistinct from religious beliefs and practices), and onthe role of culture as transmitted through religion.

REFERENCES

Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and Aggression: An Essay onEmotion. New York: Springer Verlag.

Bagby, D. G. (1990). Anger. In: R. J. Hunter (Ed.),Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counselling. Nashville,TN: Abingdon, pp. 38±41.

Bannister, D. and Fransella, F. (1986). Inquiring Man: thePsychology of Personal Constructs (3rd edn). London:Routledge.

Barker, C., Pistrang, N. and Elliott, R. (1994). ResearchMethods in Clinical and Counselling Psychology. Chiche-ster: John Wiley.

Benson, P. L. and Spilka, B. (1973). God image as afunction of self-esteem and locus of control. Journal forthe Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 297±310.

Bergin, A. E. (1983). Religiosity and mental health: acritical evaluation and meta-analysis. Professional Psych-ology Research and Practice, 14, 170±184.

Berkowitz, L. (1970). Experimental investigations ofhostility catharsis. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 35(1), 1±7.

Bourguignon, E. (1992). Religion as a mediating factor inculture change. In: J. F. Schumaker (Ed.), Religion andMental Health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. NewYork: Aaronson.

Brigman, K. (1992). Religion and family strengths:implications for mental health professionals. Topics inFamily Psychology and Counselling, 1(1), 39±52.

Broderick, C. and Smith, J. (1979). The general systemsapproach to the family. In: W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nyeand I. L. Reiss (Eds), Contemporary Theories about theFamily, Vol. 1. New York: Free Press.

Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. G. (1994). Developmentsin qualitative data analysis: an introduction. In: A.Bryman and R. G. Burgess (Eds), Analysing QualitativeData. London: Routledge, pp. 1±17.

Campbell, A. V. (1986). The Gospel of Anger. London:SPCK.

Carlson, C. R., Bacaseta, P. E. and Simanton, D. A. (1988).A controlled evaluation of devotional mediation andprogressive relaxation. Journal of Psychology andTheology, 16, 362±368.

Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In: J. A. Smith, R.Harre and L. van Langenhove (Eds), Rethinking Methodsin Psychology. London: Sage, pp. 27±49.

Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: anexplication and interpretation. In: R. M. Emerson (Ed.),Contemporary Field Research. Boston, MA: Little andBrown.

Christensen, A. and Harvey, C. L. (1990). Gender andsocial structure in the demand/withdraw pattern ofmarital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psych-ology, 59, 73±82.

Dudley, M. G. and Kosinski, F. A. (1990). Religiosity andmarital satisfaction: a research note. Review of ReligiousResearch, 32, 78±86.

Eckhardt, C. I. and Deffenbacher, J. L. (1995). Diagnosis ofanger disorder. In: H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger Disorders:Definition, Diagnosis and Treatment. Washington, DC:Taylor and Francis, pp. 27±47.

Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: conceptualis-ation and measurement. Journal of Psychology andTheology, 11, 330±340.

Feixas, G. and Cornejo-Alvarez, J. M. (1994). A manual forthe Repertory Grid using the GRIDCOR programme(Version 2.1). Barcelona, Spain: Family therapy centre,University of Barcelona.

Filsinger, E. F. and Wilson, M. R. (1984). Religiosity, socio-economic rewards and family development: predictorsof marital adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family,46, 663±670.

Fitzpatrick, M. A. and Winke, J. (1979). You always hurtthe one you love: strategies and tactics in interpersonalconflict. Communication Quarterly, Winter 1979, 3±11.

Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as amediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 54(3), 466±475.

Franzoi, S. L., Davis, M. H. and Young, R. D. (1985). Theeffects of private self-consciousness and perspectivetaking on satisfaction in close relationships. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1584±1594.

Freud, S. (1922/1984). Beyond the Pleasure Principle Vol. 11.Harmondsworth: Penguin, Pelican Frued Library.

Gorell Barnes, G. (1987). Pattern and intervention:research findings and the development of familytherapy theory. In: A. Bentovim, G Gorell Barnes andA. Cooklin (Eds), Family Therapy: Complementary Frame-works of Theory and Practice. London: Academic Press,pp. 95±119.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gottman, J. M. (1991). Predicting the longitudinal courseof marriages. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17,3±7.

Gottman, J. M. and Krokoff, L. J. (1989). The relationshipbetween marital interaction and marital satisfaction: alongitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 57, 47±52.

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S. and Swanson, C.(1988). Predicting marital happiness and stability fromnewlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 60, 5±22.



Hatch, R. C., James, D. E. and Schumm, W. (1986).Spiritual intimacy and marital satisfaction. FamilyRelations, 35, 539±545.

Henwood, K. L. and Pidgeon, N. F. (1992). Qualitativeresearch and psychological theorising. British Journal ofPsychology, 83, 97±111.

Hood, R. W., Spilka, B., Hunsburger, G. and Gorsuch, R.(1996). The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach(2nd edn). New York: Guildford Press.

Kelly, G. A. (1955/1991). The Psychology of PersonalConstructs Vol. 1. London: Routledge.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. and Shaver, P. R. (1992). An attachment-theoretical approach to romantic love and religiousbelief. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,266±275.

Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction toits Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Kvale, S. (1989). To validate is the question. In: S. Kvale(Ed.), Issues of Validity in Qualitative Research. Lund,Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Larson, L. E. and Goltz, J. W. (1989). Religious participa-tion and marital commitment. Review of ReligiousResearch, 30, 387±400.

Lorenz, K. Z. (1966). On Aggression. London: Methuen.Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data

Analysis (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Moltmann, J. (1974). The Crucified God. London: SCM

Press.Nelson, M. O. and Jones, E. M. (1957). An application of

the Q-technique to the study of religious concepts.Psychological Reports, 3, 293±297.

Noblit, G. W. (1989). Ethnography as literature: theliterary devices of qualitative research. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the Southern SociologicalSociety, Norfolk, VA, USA.

Polefrone, J. M. and Manuck, S. B. (1987). Genderdifferences in cardiovascular and neuroendocrineresponse to stressors. In: R. C. Barnett, L. Biener andG. K. Baruch (Eds), Gender and Stress. New York: FreePress, pp. 13±38.

Rands, M., Levinger, G. and Mellinger, G. D. (1981).Patterns of conflict resolution and marital satisfaction.Journal of Family Issues, 2(3), 297±321.

Rausch, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K. and Swain, M. A.(1974). Communication, Conflict and Marriage. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Revised Standard Version of the Bible (2nd edn). (1971).London: Collins.

Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E. and Sprenkle, D. H. (1995).Integrating qualitative and quantitative researchmethods: a research model. Family Process, 34, 199±218.

Scheff, T. J. (1977). The distancing of emotion in ritual.Current Anthropology, 18(3), 483±505.

Straus, M. (1974). Levelling, civility and violence in thefamily. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 13±29.

Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of QualitativeResearch: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Worthington, E. L. Jr (1990). Marriage counselling: aChristian approach to counselling couples. Counsellingand Values, 34, 3±15.



Documents

Religious beliefs and practices and Catholic couples' management of anger and conflict