Sex Roles, Vol. 41, No. 3/4, 1999

Dating Relationships and the Demand/WithdrawPattern of Communication

David L. Vogel,' Stephen R. Wester, and Martin HeesackerUniversity of Florida

This Study examines whether a female-demand/male-withdraw pattern occursin dating relationships and whether this response increases during discussionsof difficult topics. One hundred and eight individuals (women = 60,men = 48) currently in a dating relationship completed the CommunicationPatterns Questionnaire, Short Form (CFQSF) regarding either a difficult ornondifficult discussion. The racial composition of the undergraduate studentpopulation at the time the study was conducted was 68.8% Caucasian, 8.9%Hispanic, 8.9% International, 6.0% African American, 5.6% Asian American,and 1.8% Native American (data on socioeconomic status were unavailable).Results show that dating couples do employ a predominantly female-demand/male-withdraw pattern, which increases in response to difficult discussions.However, this study also found that many dating couples employed male-demand/female-withdraw or equal demand/withdraw patterns. Fost hoc testsalso showed that couples exhibiting either female-demand/male-withdrawor male-demand/female-withdraw patterns were more ingrained in specificnegative behavior patterns, employed more demand/withdraw behaviors,and exhibited less positive behaviors than couples with an equal demand/withdraw pattern.

There is growing support for the existence of a gender-linked pattern ofcommunication present in marriage. This pattern, referred to as demand/withdraw (Christensen, 1987, 1988), is one where women are more likelyexpress negative affect and complaints during a discussion, whereas menare more likely to withdraw or avoid the discussion (e.g., Christensen &Heavey, 1990; Gottman & Levenson, 1988; Heavey, Layne, & Chris-tensen, 1993).

'To whom correspondence should be addressed at 114 Psychology Building, University ofFlorida, Gainesville, FL 32611 (e-mail: vogel@psych.ufl.edu).

297

0360-0025/99/0800-0297$ 16.00/0 ® 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

298 Vogel et al.

The enactment of this female-demand/male-withdraw pattern is moreconsistently found in distressed marriages (e.g., Notarius & Markman, 1993;Weiss & Heyman, 1990) and is detrimental to long-term relationship satis-faction (e.g., Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995). This type of commu-nication style is also related to greater miscommunication between partners(Henley & Kramarae, 1991; Maltz & Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1990) and theoverall deterioration of the marriage (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; Leven-son & Gottman, 1985).

With so many negative consequences of this demand/withdraw pattern,it is important to understand the reasons behind its enactment. Some re-searchers have suggested that these communication styles have their rootsin the biological differences between men and women (e.g., Gottman &Levenson, 1988). Other researchers have suggested that early socializationexperiences of men and women lead to the observed differences in commu-nication styles (e.g., Christensen, 1987,1988; Jacobson, 1989). For example,women tend to be socialized to be more expressive and relationship focused(e.g., Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkranz. 1972; Mar-golin, Talovic, & Weinstein, 1983). This socialization may lead to moredemanding behaviors when the tendency to be expressive is thwarted(Markman, Silvern, Clements, & Kraft-Hanak, 1993). Conversely, gendersocialization for men tends to lead them to be more instrumental andproblem-solving focused, which may lead to withdrawal behaviors whenthey are unable to directly solve a problem (Markman et al., 1993). Thesesocialization differences can also be seen in studies that have shown thatwomen tend to desire more closeness and men more autonomy, and thatthe level of closeness or autonomy desired is related to the amount ofdemanding or withdrawing behavior (Christensen, 1987, 1988; Chris-tensen & Shenk, 1991).

Yet another explanation of this demand/withdraw behavior patternis the specific goals that women and men have when engaging in adiscussion about their relationship. This explanation is referred as theconflict-structure hypothesis (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Heavey et al.,1993). It refers to the idea that the observed behavioral patterns arethe result of what the discussion is going to accomplish for the individualsinvolved. For example, women are believed to have less power in arelationship, and thus they are more likely to try to press for a changein the relationship (Christensen, 1987, 1988). However, men are believedto have more power in a relationship and therefore have an incentiveto keep the relationship the same, thus they withdraw from discussionsabout the relationship (Christensen, 1987, 1988). Consistent with thisconflict-structure hypothesis Christensen and Heavey (1990) and Heaveyet al. (1993) found that demand/withdraw differences between women

Dating Relationships 299

and men were only significant during discussions in which the women,as opposed to men, desired the most change.

Taken together these views suggest that, although undesirable demand/withdraw behaviors may have their roots in biological predispositions andsocialization experiences, they will be increasingly present in discussionswhere an individual believes that he or she will have difficulty achievingtheir goals. This idea is consistent with Markman et fl/.'s (1993) suggestionthat when women's and men's behavioral tendencies are thwarted, theywill engage in more demand/withdraw behaviors. This is also consistentwith the work of Christensen and colleagues (Christensen & Heavey, 1990;Heavey etal., 1993) who demonstrated that in situations where one partnerhas a desire to achieve a specific relationship goal, but has less power toachieve it, they will demand more. Accordingly, it may be important toassess the perceived difficulty of a situation and its effect on a couples' be-havior.

Another important issue in understanding this demand/withdraw pat-tern is whether this destructive way of dealing with relationship issues ispresent before marriage or whether it is learned during the course ofmarriage (Noller, Feeney, Bonnell, & Callan, 1994). Kelley, Huston, andCate (1985) suggested that, in general, communication behaviors appearto be relatively stable over time. Specifically, Kelley et al. (1985) reportedthat married couples in conflict acknowledged that they were often inconflict before marriage. In addition, Noller et al. (1994) found that couples'communication patterns just before marriage remained stable for a 2-yearperiod after marriage. These findings suggest that perhaps the blueprint formarital communication is established well before the marriage. Therefore,understanding of marital communication must include a focus on the com-munication patterns of dating couples.

However, few studies have directly assessed the occurrence of thispattern of communication prior to marriage in general, or during the datingprocess specifically. One exception is Markman et al. (1993), who foundthat dating relationships often involved men complaining more about theirpartners' demand behaviors. Interestingly, Markman et al. (1993) foundthat women did not express more complaints about their partners' withdrawbehaviors. Thus, only partial support for the demand/withdraw pattern indating couples was found. Yet, a limiting factor in the study by Markmanand his colleagues (1993) is that they focused only on complaints aboutproblem areas in the relationship as opposed to all areas of interaction.Therefore, the precipitating factor behind the observed differences is notknown or understood.

This study directly addresses whether such gender-linked differencesare present in dating relationships. Furthermore, to assess possible precipi-

300 Vogel et al.

tating factors behind the enactment of the demand/withdraw pattern, parti-cipants were either asked to report how they and their partner acted withina difficult discussion or within a nondifficult discussion. Therefore, Hypothe-sis 1 predicts that dating couples will engage in predominately female-demand/male-withdraw communication patterns. Hypothesis 2 predictsthat dating couples in difficult discussions will use more female-demand/male-withdraw communication behaviors than those dating couples in non-difficult discussions.

METHOD

Participants

One hundred and eight individuals (women = 60, men = 48) partici-pated in this study. Participants ranged in age from 18 years to 45 years(M = 22.2, SD = 4.1). The average length of the dating relationships was24.8 months {SD = 26.6). Although, racial data were not collected fromparticipants, the racial composition of the undergraduate student popula-tion at the time the study was conducted was 68.8% Caucasian, 8.9% His-panic, 8.9% International, 6.0% African American, 5.6% Asian American,and 1.8% Native American (data on socioeconomic status were un-available).

Measures

Communication Fatterns Questionnaire, Short Form

The Communication Patterns Questionnaire, Short Form (CPQSF)(Christensen, 1987, 1988; Christensen & Sullaway, 1984) is designed toassess an individual's perception of the way that discussions with theirpartner are generally conducted. The participant indicates on a 9-pointscale (1, very unlikely to 9, very likely) the likelihood that the coupleinteracts in a specific manner (e.g., mutual negotiation or mutual blame)when discussing a specific issue. All behaviors are assessed at the level ofthe dyad (e.g., mutual avoidance) rather than at the level of the individual(e.g., man avoids).

The measure's four sub-scales assess four dyadic communication pat-terns. These communication subscales address (a) the likelihood that thehusband is demanding, while the wife withdraws (e.g., man pressures, nags,or demands, while woman withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss

Dating Relationships 301

the matter further); (b) the likelihood that the wife is demanding, whilethe husband withdraws (e.g., woman pressures, nags, or demands, whileman withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss the matter further);(c) the total demand/withdraw communication behaviors of the couple,which is the sum of the first two subscales; and (d) the positive communica-tion behaviors of the couples (e.g., both members suggest possible solutionsand compromises). Higher scores on a subscale mean that the person isreporting that the couple participates in more of those type of communica-tion behaviors during discussion of a specific issue.

The internal consistency reliability of the CPQSF has been demon-strated previously (Christensen, 1987, 1988; Christensen & Sullaway, 1984)on three of the subscales: positive communication (a = .87); husbandwithdraw/wife demand (a = .66), and wife-demand/husband-withdraw(a = .71).

Difficulty of Relationship Issues Questionnaire

The Difficulty of Relationship Issues Questionnaire (DRIQ) was devel-oped as part of this study to determine the extent to which an individualsaw various issues present in the relationship as difficult for him or her totalk about with his or her partner. Seventeen issues relevant to couple'sinteractions (e.g., ''needs in the relationship" or "your feelings about yourpartner") are listed, and the respondents indicate on a 9-point Likert-typescale (1, very easy to talk about to 9, very hard to talk about) how difficultit is for them to talk with their partner about the issues. The issues weredetermined by asking a group of undergraduate and graduate students tolist the common issues they have faced in dating relationships.

Procedure

Students in upper-level psychology classes at a large southeastern stateuniversity who were presently involved in a dating relationship were re-cruited to participate for extra course credit. Participants were informedthat the study would look at communication patterns in their relationships.Participants completed the DRIQ, and then half were randomly assignedto fill out the CPQSF based on the most difficult issue they rated on theDRIQ. The other participants filled out the CPQSF based on the leastdifficult issue they rated on the DRIQ.

302 Vogel et al.

RESULTS

To examine the possibility that any differences between couples' com-munication behaviors found in this study would be the result of differencesin the length of the couples' relationships correlations between the lengthof the relationship and the dependent variables were conducted. None ofthese correlations were statistically significant (all ps > .34).

Hypothesis 1 predicts that dating couples will engage in predominatelyfemale-demand/male-withdraw communication patterns. A / test of themean differences between the female-demand/male-withdraw (M = 11.6,SD = 5.92) and the male-demand/female-withdraw patterns (M = 10.1,SD = 5.6) revealed clear support for the hypotheses, /(107) = 2.4, p < .02.This difference was also supported by data assessing a couple's predominantcommunication pattern. Following the procedure used by Heavey et al.(1993), a difference score between the female-demand/male-withdraw andmale-demand/female-withdraw ratings on the CPQSF was developed. Thisallowed for the predominant type of communication pattern to be deter-mined. Across the conditions 51% (n = 55) of the dating individuals hada female-demand/male-withdraw type pattern, 28% {n = 29) showed amale-demand/female-withdraw pattern, and 21% {n = 23) showed no pro-nounced pattern. This pattern of frequency was statistically significant, A^(2) = 16.21,/? < .001.

Hypothesis 2 predicts that dating couples in difficult discussions willemploy the female-demand/male-withdraw patterns more than those datingcouples in nondifficult discussions. An analyses of variance (ANOVA)revealed clear support for the hypotheses. Female-demand/male-withdrawsignificantly increased during discussions of difficult issues (M = 13.6,SD = 5.9), as compared with discussions of nondifficult issues (A/ = 9.8,SD = 5.3), F(l,107) = 12.2, p < .001.

Although these results support existing research regarding the patternsof communication seen in married couples (e.g., Heavey etai, 1993), severalof our dating individuals (21%) employed no predominant demand/with-draw pattern. To understand the individuals who employed equal levels ofdemanding and withdrawing behaviors, we conducted ancillary ANOVAs,hypothesizing that those individuals exhibiting this equal demand/withdrawpattern would be less ingrained in specific negative behavior patterns. Thus,they would employ less overall demand/withdraw behaviors and more over-all positive behaviors.

The first ANOVA, using the three demand/withdraw patterns foundin this study as the independent variable and the total level of demandwithdraw used by the couple as the dependent variable, revealed a signifi-cant difference between the equal demand/withdraw, the female-demand/

Dating Relationships 303

male-withdraw, and male-demand/female-withdraw groups on the overalllevel of total demand/withdraw, F( 1,107) = 6.S5,p < .002. Post hocTukey'sshowed that those dating couples exhibiting equal demand/withdraw pat-terns (M = 15.7, SD = 9.63) exhibited far lower levels of overall demand/withdraw than those with a male-demand/female-withdraw pattern (M =23.8, SD = 9.39) or a female-demand/male-withdraw pattern (M = 23,SD = 8.43), both p < .004.

In addition, a second ANOVA, using the three demand/withdrawpatterns as the independent variables and the overall level of positivebehaviors employed by the couple, as measured by the CPQSF, as thedependent variable, revealed a significant difference between the equaldemand/withdraw, the female-demand/male-withdraw, and male-demandfemale-withdraw groups on the overall level of positive communicationbehaviors, F( 1,107) = 6.36, p < .002. Post hoc Tukey's revealed that thosedating couples exhibiting an equal demand/withdraw patterns had higherlevels of positive behaviors (M = 22, SD = 4.03) than either those with amale-demand/female-withdraw pattern (M = 17, SD = 7.02) or a female-demand/male-withdraw pattern (M = 17.3, SD = 5.78), both p < .02.

Next, to examine whether the differences seen on the positive measurewere driven by the overall level of demand employed or by the imbalanceof the demand/withdraw pattern, we ran an ancillary analysis of covariance(ANCOVA). The overall level of demand/withdraw behaviors the couplewas employing served as the covariate, the three levels of demand/withdrawserved as the independent variables, and the number of positive communica-tion behaviors served as the dependent variable. If the ANCOVA continuedto show a significant difference between the groups, then support for theimbalance perspective would be gained. Conversely, if the ANCOVA nolonger demonstrated differences between the groups, then it would seemas if it is the total level of demand/withdraw the couple engages in that isdetrimental to the relationship, as opposed to the engagement in one orthe other ingrained patterns.

The ANCOVA demonstrated that, when the overall level of demand/withdraw is controlled for, the differences between the groups was nolonger statistically significant, F(3,107) = 2.51, p < .09. Therefore, perhapsit is the overall level of demand/withdraw, as opposed to the engagementof either the female-demand/male-withdraw or the less common male-demand/female-withdraw, that is problematic to a relationship.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study build on previous research examining thepresence of demand/withdraw patterns in relationships (e.g., Christensen &

304 Vogel et al.

Heavey, 1990; Heavey et al., 1993; Markman et al., 1993). A similar patternof predominantly female-demand/male-withdraw communication wasfound in dating relationships, and this pattern was particularly salient duringdifficult discussions. As a result, this study adds to the previous studies byKelley et al. (1985) and Noller et al. (1994) in suggesting that the blueprintsfor demand/withdraw communication behaviors seem to be present be-fore marriage.

Another interesting finding of this study is that it may be the entrench-ment in any type of demand/withdraw pattern (female-demand/male-with-draw or male-demand/female-withdraw) that leads to an increase in theoverall level of demand/withdraw, which is then problematic for a relation-ship. Although previous studies have mostly pointed toward the negativityof the female-demand/male-withdraw pattern (e.g., Heavey et al., 1993;Noller et al., 1994; Roberts & Krokoff, 1990; Weiss & Heyman, 1990), onlya few studies have suggested the negative impact of the male-demand/female-withdraw pattern (see Babcock, Waltz, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993;Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Stuart, 1998, for exceptions). In fact,several studies have shown a positive impact of this pattern, at least on thewife's level of satisfaction (Heavey et al., 1993; Noller et al., 1994), suggestingthat wives generally respond positively to their husband's willingness todiscuss the relationship (Acitelli, 1992).

We suggest that both types of demand/withdraw may be problematicfor relationship satisfaction and cohesion because the dating couples inthis study who exhibited either female-demand/male-withdraw or male-demand/female-withdraw patterns were more ingrained in specific negativebehavior patterns, employed more demand/withdraw behaviors, and ex-hibited less positive behaviors than couples exhibiting an equal demand/withdraw pattern. Male demand may have an initial positive impact on arelationship because it breaks the normal cycle of female-demand/male-withdraw; however, it may only be useful if the couple can then beginto employ a more adaptive communication pattern. If the roles just reverseor go back to they way they were, as system theories would suggest (Mark-man & Kraft, 1989), then the couple may be none the better. Therefore,at least for dating relationships, it may be the reduction in the overall levelof demand/withdraw behaviors that is important for relationship en-hancement.

Overall, these findings may help to explain the belief that womenand men communicate and behave very differently in relationships (e.g.,Thompson & Walker, 1989), despite the overwhelming evidence thatwomen and men are more similar than different (e.g.. Lips, 1997). Smalldifferences between women and men may become exaggerated in the faceof specific situational pressures, such as during discussions of difficult topics.

Dating Relationships 305

Furthermore, these results suggest that differences found between womenand men are not reflective of inadequate abilities on the part of women ormen but are reflective of the difficulty that both men and women have inabandoning specific gender roles.

REFERENCES

Acitelli. L. K. (1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfactionamong young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(2). 102-110.

Babcock. J. C, Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: Therelation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 40-50.

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkranz, P. S.(1972). Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.

Christensen, A. (1987). Detection of conflict patterns in couples. In K. Hahlweg & M. J.Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorders: The contribution of family inter-action research (pp. 250-265). New York: Family Process Press.

Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller & M. A.Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31-52). Clevedon. England:Multilingual Matters.

Christensen, A., & Heavey. C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdrawpattern of marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59, 73-81.

Christensen, A.. & Shenk. J. L. (1991). Communication, conflict, and psychological distancein nondistressed, chnic, and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy, 59, 458-463.

Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Unpublishedquestionnaire. University of California, Los Angeles.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson. R. W. (1988). The social psychophysiology of marriage. In P.Noller & M. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 182-200). Cleve-don, England: Multilingual Matters.

Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in mamage: A review and critique.Psychological Bulletin, 93, 513-538.

Heavey, C. L., Christensen, A., & Malamuth, N. M. (1995). The longitudinal impact of demandand withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,63, 797-801.

Heavey, C. L., Layne, C, & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in maritalinteraction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,61, 16-27.

Henley, N. M., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In N. Coup-land. H. Giles, & J. M. Wieman (Eds.), "Miscommunication" and problematic talk (pp.18-43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Stuart, G. L. (1998). Demand and withdraw communi-cation among couples experiencing husband violence. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 66(5), 731-743.

Jacobson, N. S. (1989). The politics of intimacy. Behavior Therapist, 12, 29-32.Kelley, C, Huston, T., & Cate, R. (1985). Premarital relationship correlates of the erosion

of satisfaction in marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2, 167-178.Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change

in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 85-94.Lips, H. M. (1997). Sex and gender: An introduction (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

306 Vogel et al.

Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication.In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Margolin, G., Talovic, S., & Weinstein, C. D. (1983). Areas of change questionnaire: Apractical approach to marital assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,51, 944-955.

Markman, H. J., & Kraft, S. (1989). Men and women in marriage: Dealing with genderdifferences in marital therapy. The Behavior Therapist, 12, 51-56.

Markman, H. J., Silvern, L., Clements, M., & Kraft-Hanak, S. (1993). Men and women dealingwith conflict in heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 107-125.

Noller, P., Feeney, J. A., Bonnell, D., & Callan, V. J. (1994). A longitudinal study of conflictin early marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 11, 233-252.

Notarius, C. I., & Markman, H. J. (1993). We can work it out: Making sense of marital conflict.New York: Putnam.

Roberts, L. J., & Krokoff, L. J. (1990). A time-series analysis of withdrawal, hostility, anddispleasure in satisfied and dissatisfied maniages. Journal of Marriage and Eamily Therapy,52, 95-105.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:Ballantine Books.

Thompson, L., & Walker, A. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work,and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, 845-871.

Weiss, R. L., & Heyman, R. E. (1990). Observation of marital interaction. In F. Fincham &T. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage (pp. 87-117). New York: Guilford Press.