1. PS1.14 STUDY OF MARITAL COMMUNICATION IN MARRIAGES WITH INFIDELITY Martín R*, Beunza M*, Cano A*, Tricas S**, Manrique E*, Aubá E* *Diagnosis and Marital and Family Unit (UDITEF). Departament of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology. University Hospital of Navarra ** School of Nursing. University of Navarra. Spain INTRODUCTION Infidelity has a significant psychological impact on marriages and families. Marriages with an infidelity experience show a great number of premarital communication problems such as low rates of positive interaction and high rates of invalidation and negative interaction (1). Communication can be assessed by techniques widely divided into two groups: self-report and direct observation. Self-report methods (structured interviews, report of spouses on their communication patterns, questionnaires, etc.) usually imply retrospective narrative that can bring general impressions on the quantity and quality of certain behaviours (2). However, shuch data are subjective, given that behaviour and behaviour sequences cannot be reffered accurately (3). Observation provides with information about specific behaviour sequences and allows to measure current processes. Furthermore, to understand why people behave in a certain way, we need to observe (3). Among observational methods, one of the most widely used to study communication patterns is the Rapid Marital Interaction Coding System (RMICS) (4), developed by Prof. Richard E. Heyman and Dina Vivian at the State University of New York in Stony Brook. OBJECTIVES To analyse communicative resources of spouses belonging to marriages with at least one unfaithfulness episode. To compare marital communication depending on the gender of the unfaithful spouse. RESULTS -In our sample, couples (n=39) had been married for a mean of 14,7 years (SD:±9.5). In most cases, the husband was the unfaithful spouse (67.1%), while in 32,9% cases the wife was unfaithful. In two cases, both spouses referred having been unfaithful. Mean age of unfaithful women was of 36 years (SD:±4.7), while husbands were 45.5 years old (SD:±7.7). Husbands were unfaithful after 17.2 years of marriage (SD:±9), while wives were unfaithful after 9.1 (SD:±5). -When comparing spouses depending on their gender, we found statistically meaningful differences in the use of the code Humor (HM) (p<0.05) (Graph 1). -When comparing communication in couples with unfaithful husbands, we observed a higher frequence of the codes Problem Discussion (PD) and Hostility (HO), while faithful wives presented the same codes, dominating the code Hostility (HO), and without observing statistically meaningful differences between both groups (Gráfica 2). -When analysing communication in marriages with unfaithful wives, we obtained statistically meaningful differences in the codes Hostility (HO) (p<0,05) and Problem Discussion (PD) (p<0.01) (Graph 3). Unfaithful wives showed, with statistic significance, higher Hostility than their husbands, while husbands presented more Problem Discussion (PD). CONCLUSIONS 1.Marital communication slightly varies depending on the gender of the unfaithful partner, mainly in the way they discuss and cope with problems. 2.Marriages in which the husband has been unfaithful show a better marital communication than couples with unfaithful wives. 3.I our sample, unfaithful women are more hostile in their communication than their husbands. BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) Allen, E.S. The multidimensional and development nature of infidelity: Practical applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2005; 61; 11; 1371-1400. (2) Margolin G., H. Oliver P., B. Gordis E, et al. The nuts and bolts of behavioral observation of marital and family interaction. clinical child and family psychology Review. Vol. 1, No. 4, 1998 (3)Heyman E., R, Weiss L. R. Couples observational research: an impertinent, critical overview. Unpublished manuscript. 2006 (4)Heyman E. R. & Vivian, D. Rapid Marital Interaction Coding System. Manual. Ver. 1.7, July, 2000. State University of New York at Stony Brook. (5) Spanier GB. Measuring dyadid adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage. J Marriage Fam 1976; 38: 15-28. METHODS We analysed a sample of 39 married couples in which at least one of the partners had had an extramarital relationship and who had turned to the Diagnosis and Family Therapy Unit (UDITEF) at our Department during the last five years presenting marital dysfunction related to an extramarital episode. We asked couples to fill in the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (5) and we chose out of it the subject in which they referred more discrepancies. We separatedly gave them the instructions for the observational communication study: to talk about the subject for 15 minutes with the intention to solve it. Spouses signed an informed consent to be video-registered. Marital communication was analysed with the RMIC classifying interactions into eleven codes grouped into three categories: negative (psychological abuse (PA), distress-maintaining attibutions (DA), hostility (HO), dysphoric affect (DY) and withdrawal (WI)), positive (acceptation (AC), relationship enhancing attributions (RA), self- disclosure (SD) and humor (HM)) and neutral (problem discussion (PD) and others (OT)). Data obtained were analysed with the SPSS (v.15) program. rmlanas@unav.es Graph 2: Communication unfaithful husband vs. faithful wife 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% PADAHODYWIACRASDHMPDOT Unfaithful husband Faithful wife 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% PADAHODYWIACRASDHMPDOT Faithful husband Unfaithful wife Graph 3: Communication unfaithful wife vs. faithful husband * p<0,05 ** p<0,01 * ** Gráfica 1: Comunicación cónyuges infieles * p<0,01 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% PADAHODYWIACRASDHMPDOT Unfaithful husband Unfaithful wife * Graph 1: Comunication unfaithful spouses