Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 1

Running head: POSITIVE/NEGATIVE VERBAL REINFORCEMENT AND A SUBSTANCE

ABUSERS RELATIONAL SATISFACTION IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP

Positive/negative verbal reinforcement and a substance abusers relational

satisfaction in a romantic relationship: Is there a relationship between a partners use of

positive/negative verbal reinforcement and the addicts relational satisfaction with that partner?
Jake Janesch
James Madison University

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 2

Abstract
Relational satisfaction can differ within romantic relationships, especially when
substance abuse is present. Previous information indicates types of verbal reinforcement that can
cause a partner to feel satisfied or dissatisfied within a relationship. Researchers lack
knowledge, however, about the specific types of verbal reinforcement used by a partner in a
romantic relationship with an addict that would impact that addicts level of relational
satisfaction. This study will investigate the relationship between a partners use of
positive/negative verbal reinforcement and the addicts relational satisfaction with that partner. A
link will be posted on two forums where addicts can talk to other addicts, asking participants to
complete an online survey. The participants must be an addict and within a romantic relationship,
as they will reflect upon the relationship they have with their partner. Questions pertaining to the
level of verbal reinforcement their partner exercises and the level of satisfaction they have with
their partner, will also be asked. Results from this survey will reveal specific positive and/or
negative verbal reinforcement tactics that insinuate a level of satisfaction of an addict within a
romantic relationship. What this study will not be able to do is separate the different types of
substance addiction.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 3

Romantic relationships are multidimensional, as the essential components consist of
balance and complete equality between partners. When adding an opposing force to the
relationship, dysfunction can occur that may interrupt previous standards. For instance, the factor
of substance abuse can alter a relationship, as fixation on drugs or alcohol can become vital to
the partners involved. This is important because substance abuse creates an addict that alters
communication within a relationship. Addiction to alcohol or drugs is a prominent topic to
research because addiction is increasing in numbers, with a recorded estimate of 22.2 million
citizens and about 1 in 12 adults abuse substances in the United States (Bertakis & Azari, 2007,
p. 513). Substance abuse can occur in a range of environments or situations, as the
overconsumption of substances in romantic relations can be destructive. Broad research has been
done on addiction and substance abuse within romantic relationships (Zuffery 2009; Rhule-Louie
& McMahon 2007; Newcomb & Earleywine 1996; Duggan, Dailey, & LePoire 2008; FalsStewart, OFarrell, and Birchler 2004). It has also been specifically viewed from each partner in
the relationship with the use of verbal reinforcement (Duggan, Dailey, & LePoire 2008; Le
Poire, Hallett, & Erlandson 2000; Koob 2013), but also how satisfied each partner feels (Voss
2009; Belin, Belin-Rauscent, Murray, & Everitt 2013).
As previous research depicts addiction as an abnormality in society and its role in
romantic relationships, it is important to understand a romantic partners communication tools
such as positive and negative verbal reinforcement towards an addict who may feel unstable in
their relationship (Koob & Le Moal 2005). Most research has been done to understand types of
verbal reinforcement in relationships that contain an addict of substance abuse, but there is a
missing link of how prominently it could cause relational satisfaction or dissatisfaction between
partners. Situations involving a partner providing alternative behaviors versus using verbal

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 4

threats or nagging (Duggan, Dailey, & LePoire 2008; Le Poire, Hallett, & Erlandson 2000), is
now important to be examined to understand levels of satisfaction. Thus positive, negative, and
consistent verbal reinforcements can understand specific categories of relational satisfaction such
as affection, depth, trust, composure, dominance, composure, formality, equality, and task
orientation (Burgoon & Hale 1997; Duggan, Dailey, & LePoire 2008).
First the literature review will discuss previous literature concerning drug addiction and
substance abuse within a romantic relationship. Second, the use of different types of positive and
negative verbal reinforcement by a non-addict partner will be discussed. Then concluding, the
literature review will examine the relational satisfaction of an addict with their partner.
Following the review, the rationale will explain the gap between variables including the
importance of studying the level of satisfaction between romantic partners where addiction is
present and verbal reinforcement is used. The research question will then be restated, before the
methods section concludes with an examination of the participants, procedures, materials, and
limitations of a survey design. All will connect back to the research question.
Literature Review
Substance Abuse Within Romantic Relationships
Substance abuse that occurs within a romantic relationship is evaluated differently
depending on the condition or mentality of each partner, but common patterns arise when
comparing behaviors as a whole. When looking at drug or alcohol addiction in its own context,
an addicts communication with society is looked down upon, which could cause individual
problems with the way they act further in life (Zufferey, 2009, p. 163). This means that addiction
can effect the surrounding environment and those involved, as it can put stress on specific

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 5

relationships. According to a study by Duggan, Dailey, and LePoire (2008), communication
problems from physical abuse to verbal aggressiveness to increased detachment can occur when
substance abuse is present (p. 417). This suggests that problems of addiction can directly affect
an addicts personality and could outwardly affect their role or performance if they are involved
within a romantic relationship. The addict could easily act in these ways towards their partner.
This compares to research by Rhule-Louie and McMahon (2007), as they concluded that
interpersonal communication in a romantic relationship could be altered if problem behaviors are
present. Problem behaviors refer to troublesome, risk taking, and disruptive behaviors such as
substance abuse, which can lead to coercive interactions (p. 53). This makes it evident that
occurrences and behaviors of an addict can alter conditions in other parts of their life.
When evaluating an addict within a relationship, Powers and Douglas (1996) believe that
a stable pattern of deviant behavior (p. 769) can occur that would directly affect the
relationship. These deviant patterns of behavior are influenced by each partners level of drug
use, as one or both can be involved with a substance abuse problem. These patterns of substance
misuse are known to cause antisocial behavior, which are forms of behavior that are
demonstrated over time (Rhule-Louie & McMahon, 2007, p. 53). This makes it understandable
that a romantic relationship could be disturbed due to addiction. Such abuse is also known to
cause extensive relationship problems and Fals-Stewart, OFarrell, and Birchler (2004) conclude
that that a few of these communication troubles include verbal and physical aggression, high
levels of relationship dissatisfaction, and instability (p. 31).
While the addict is mostly viewed as the existing problem within the romantic
relationship, it is noticeable that the communication that occurs between the partners is the major
concern for the relationship. Studies conducted by Newcomb and Earleywine (1996) focus on

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 6

another form of communication within a relationship called intrapersonal communication.
Research focused on specific intrapersonal variables that contribute to drug use, such as (a)
personality, (b) cognitions, (c) affect of substance on emotions, (d) behavior, (e) biogenetics, (f)
demographics, and (g) bonding (p. 825). Each of these areas are focused upon to emphasize that
these variables alter communication throughout a romantic relationship when substance abuse is
present. For instance, the capacity of an addict to bond or connect with their partner may be
altered with their substance consumption. Or the environment where the relationship is held may
be a trigger for the addict. Similarly, behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs existing within the
relationship already, could change with the misuse of substances (Newcomb & Earleywin, 1996,
p. 832).
Another component is the ability to seek help for the addiction and removing oneself
from the environment, hoping that if the substances are taken out of the relationship, then
relational satisfaction could be stable again. As seen before, research suggests that substance
abuse alters communication skills, such as instability, satisfaction, personality, and cognitions
like expectations or motivations when an addict is using, but evidence also suggests changes
need to occur with these fundamentals if an addict seeks treatment. Although after treatment,
recovery becomes a balancing factor if the addict returns to the same environment. In a study by
Weinberg (2000), he concludes that relapse is a surrendering act of self-control in the face of
overwhelming adverse circumstances, rather than a deliberate act of self-control (p. 614). In this
situation, overwhelming circumstances such as returning back to the dysfunctional environment,
can be a trigger event that could cause relapse if the addict sought help previously. Due to an
unstable environment of positive and negative verbal reinforcement from their partner, an addict
could fall back into previous habits of substance abuse.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 7

These studies showcase the different interactions and altercations that can occur due to
substance abuse in a romantic relationship. Substance abuse alters the detachment and emotions
of an addict, causing strain within a relationship. It is important to further research the
communication behaviors within the relationship, to understand what aspects relate most to each
partner. Additionally, it provides evidence that romantic relationships can be easily altered due to
an outside force, such as substance misuse. For this reason, further research must be examined to
figure out the relationship between each partners uses of language and understand their view or
position within the relationship.
A Partners Use of Positive and Negative Reinforcement
The way an addict might behave with their romantic partner could depend on the use of
positive and negative verbal reinforcement used throughout the relationship. Verbal
reinforcement is defined as language used to strengthen the behavior of either oneself or another,
which could be positive or negative. This use of verbal reinforcement in this context would come
from the non-addict partner and be displayed towards the addict. Whether positive or negative
verbal reinforcement is used, this communication is thought to greatly affect the abuse factor of
the addict and how they behave towards their partner.
Positive reinforcement can present itself in two different contexts based on this research,
which could be reinforcing behaviors that encourage the behavior they follow such as substance
abuse, or rewarding the addict when they choose a different action (Le Poire, Hallett, &
Erlandson, 2000, p. 441). Thus, the two conflicting views of positive reinforcement include
positive reinforcement of substance-dependence versus positive reinforcement of alternative
behavior.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 8

Research by Le Poire et al. (2000) on positive verbal reinforcement of substancedependence, shows that nurturing the behaviors that occur may reinforce the addicts substance
dependent behaviors and increase the probability that they will happen again (p. 434). Nurturing
the behavior does not mean supporting the consumption of substances, but rather protecting the
addict in a way because the partner does not see or believe that the addicts substance abuse is
problematic. This will cause them to not verbalize an alternative behavior. If they are not
suggesting other behaviors and continue to act romantically towards the addict, such as
interpersonal distance, touching, and conversations, then the addict will continue their behaviors.
The continuing of behaviors and the reinforcement of substance abuse can also be present in
conversation between the partner and the addict. Examples such as you can handle your drug
use or I like you better when you are using, are verbal messages that are validating and
confirming to the addict and may reinforce substance abuse (Duggan, Dailey, & LePoire, 2008,
p. 419). Duggan et al. (2008), whom focus their studies on how relapse could occur after the
addict is no longer abusing substances, concludes that these types of messages can also predict
and cause a higher chance for relapse (p. 417). Findings reveal that telling an addict that they
are more fun when they drink is not a good approach. This tends to be hypocritical for the one
trying to help because they are forbidding the use of substances but saying the addict was more
enjoyable before treatment.
Although positive verbal reinforcement can be in favor of substance-dependence, an
addict could also be rewarded though positive reinforcement if they choose an alternative
behavior. Once the partner of an addict believes the substance abuse is problematic, the partner
will tend to suggest alternative behaviors, directing the addict away from the abuse. Le Poire et
al. (2000) believe that reinforcing alternative behaviors should have the opposite effect of

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 9

reinforcing substance abuse, as it is more effective at preventing the tendency and enhancing
perceptions of persuasive effectiveness (p. 297). Thus this research agrees that using verbal
reinforcement positively to help the addict and not encourage use will be most effective in the
end. In reality there is no specific reward that will be granted towards the addict with their
alternative behavior, except for relational satisfaction with no substance abuse. There is an
encouragement of Alcohol Anonymous (AA) attendance and inviting friends or relatives over
who do not use, as alternative behavior options (Le Poire et al., 2000, p. 312). Research also
concludes that past abusers were perceived as the most persuasively effective and could promote
positive verbal reinforcement of alternative behavior. Le Poire et al. (2000) explains that
substance abusers feel similar and understood by their persuading partner when they can relate to
what they are going through (p. 312). This can be seen as a positive, as positive verbal
reinforcement can occur within the romantic relationship.
On the other hand, negative verbal reinforcement of substance dependence is defined as
the practice in which the removal of an aversive stimulus, a stimulus with undesirable
consequences, increases the likelihood of a response (Koob, 2013, p. 559). This means that the
removal of substances from the addict will cause a response within the addict. So therefore, such
negative verbal reinforcement tactics like yelling or discouraging the act of abuse, will cause
more a response within the addict. Additionally, Duggan et al. (2008) discovered that similar
strategies like threats or nagging of substance abuse as negative verbal reinforcement, predicted
to cause a lower chance for relapse (p. 417). This negative verbal reinforcement is not to be seen
as a punishment though, as Le Poire et al. (2000) indicates that punishment ultimately
extinguishes the behaviors the stimulus follows, while negative reinforcement focuses on the
removal of the harmful stimuli following the presentation of a behavior that one is trying to

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 10

maintain (p. 454). The partner is not trying to punish the addict, but rather remove the harmful
substances so the addict can maintain a better behavior.
It is often common that substance abusers do not see themselves as addicts or accept
the term of addiction, so getting them to understand this point could cause even more tension,
but using negative reinforcement behaviors could redirect the addict (Saaristo, 2009, p. 177). In
analysis of verbal behaviors, Duggan et al. (2008) concludes that using strategies seen as
consistently punishing substance abuse and accompanying them with reinforcing alternative non
substance-abusing behaviors, decreased tendencies overall (p. 430). For example leaving or
threatening to leave or calling the police and then encouraging AA attendance or encouraging
participation in activities other than substance abuse, is effective. Using these strategies is
thought to redirect the addict and alert them of possible outcomes if they were to continue their
habits, so negative reinforcement strategies are seen as useful.
It is concluded that consistent use negative reinforcement by the non-addict partner may
reduce the level of relapse by verbally discouraging substance use and promote relapse by
verbally encouraging substance use. Thus, by punishing the use of drugs or alcohol and
introducing alternative behaviors, romantic partners can facilitate the reduction of abuse.
An Addicts Relational Satisfaction With Their Partner
Relational satisfaction can be defined as an interpersonal evaluation of the positivity of
feeling for ones partner and attraction to the relationship (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993, p. 11). Also
according to Belin, Belin-Rauscent, Murray, and Everitt (2013), relational satisfaction includes
the degree to which a partners expectation for the relationship are met by their experiences due
to the fact that relationships are most satisfying for individuals who have their expectations met,

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 11

while in contrast, people whose relationships are unequal with their expectations will feel
dissatisfied (p. 565). In order for a romantic relationship to be stable, each partner must be fully
committed to the relationship. Research believes that if there is a couple in which one partner
misuses drugs or alcohol, there tends to be extensive relationship problems due to high levels
of relationship dissatisfaction (Fals-Stewart et al., 2004, p. 31).
Previous research by Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi (201l) indicates that a majority of
behaviors used to maintain relationships are voluntary behaviors, which help increase relational
variables such as closeness or trust within the relationship. Relational satisfaction also focuses on
categories of relationship maintenance strategies or behaviors exhibited by partners to maintain
the relationship. Strategies range from positivity to openness to assurance to task sharing, which
are similar to categories studied in the research survey (Appendix C) (p. 22). If these
maintenance strategies are stable and consistent within the relationship, then partners appear to
be more satisfied within their relationship. For example, commitment is a valuable aspect of
relationships, as the amount of time the partners have dedicated to each other and the relationship
can affect relational satisfaction. Thus when individuals invest important resources into the
relationship, such as commitment, relational satisfaction will be enhanced (Guerrero et al., 201l,
p. 22).
When focusing on the substance abuse happening within the relationship, relational
satisfaction can suffer due problems such as poor communication, problem solving, and habitual
arguing, generating a destructive cycle. The continuation of this destructive cycle can involve
relational and family problems, causing the addict to be dissatisfied and indulge in excessive
drinking or drug use (Fals-Stewart et al., 2004, p. 33). In these instances, for example, substance

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 12

abuse serves relationship needs for the addict in the short term, as it facilitates the relational
satisfaction and expression of emotion after a problem arises.
When examining couples with only one drug-abusing partner, Fals-Stewart and Birchler
(1999) concluded through different research experiments that drug use becomes less frequent
when there is a reduction of conflict. In turn, there is an increase in relationship satisfaction,
which shows that relationship satisfaction would be directly related to how often the addict is not
abusing substances (p. 12). This seems to work both ways, as both the addict and their partner
will have higher relational satisfaction if substance use is removed from the relationship.
Another condition that could relate to relational satisfaction is if both partners within a
relationship were substance abusers. With similar research done before, partners reported that
they had taken fewer steps toward relationship divorce, wanted less behavioral change from
their partner, and used maladaptive responses to conflict less frequently (Fals-Stewart &
Birchler, 1999, p. 13). These finding lead researchers to believe and support the notion that when
there are two drug-abusing partners in a relationship, drug use can become positively associated
with relationship satisfaction. This means that less conflict arises and substance use becomes an
important shared recreational activity supporting the relationship.
When contrasting these two ideals, one addict versus dual-addicts, relational satisfaction
comes down to the substance at use. Addicts tend not to be satisfied when their partner argues
with them pertaining to their addiction, but an addict will be satisfied when they can share the
addiction with their partner. Satisfaction can also occur when the substances are removed from
the environment and the addict becomes abstinent or seeks treatment.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 13

Research makes it evident that an addicts relational satisfaction with their partner is
important to keep them stable and deal with their addiction, possibly seeking treatment in the
future. Increasing factors within the relationship that are advantageous to being abstinent, such as
sustaining relational satisfaction or increasing positive behaviors, need to be incorporated so no
relapse triggers are met (Witkiewitz & Marlatt, 2011, p. 315). When examining the
communication variables that impact satisfaction, it has been concluded that the more positive
experiences that involve commitment towards the relationship, quality of communication,
conflict resolution, emotion self-disclosure or the sharing of personal information, affection or
communicating feelings of fondness, relational certainty/security or being comfortable with their
partner, and role within the relationship, the higher the relationship satisfaction levels will be. In
contrast, negative experiences and the larger amounts of discrepancy between expectations and
reality, lower levels of relationship satisfaction will occur (Guerrero et al., 201l, p. 25).
Communication is the substance of relationships, so therefore the quality of communication is
important in defining the outcome of a relationship. When there is poor communication or
conflicts arises, the way in which a couple handles the conflict is key (Guerrero et al., 201l, p.
25).
Rationale
Substance abuse can occur in a range of environments or situations, but the
overconsumption of substances in romantic relations can be destructive. Addicts can feel like an
abnormal part of society and when they are in a relationship in which their partner portrays
positive acts of reinforcement, compulsive substance taking can take place (Koob & Le Moal,
2005, p. 1442).

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 14

When bringing light to the studies observing addiction, it is evident that not only health
issues are involved, but social factors can be affected. Social factors in this context can be linked
to relationships and how an addict behaves with their romantic partner (Hirschman and McGriff,
1995, p. 100). This connects with the idea that substance abuse does not only affect the
individual, but can directly cause stress on relationships. According to Duggan et al. (2008),
substance abuse can be directly linked to communication problems within a relationship that
include increased detachment, physical abuse, and verbal aggressiveness (p. 417). This means
that addiction itself can cause strain on a romantic relationship, but also the romantic partners
involved can influence behaviors that can leave them satisfied or dissatisfied within the
relationship. The use of verbal communication is also important between the couple and how
they reinforce the addiction.
Reinforcement of the addiction can either be positive or negative, while involving verbal
communication. Le Poire et al. (2000) conducts research that states positive verbal reinforcement
can present itself in two different contexts: reinforcing behaviors that encourage the behavior
they follow, such as substance abuse, or rewarding the addict when they choose a different action
than substance misuse (p. 441). Instead, negative verbal reinforcement is the process of removing
an aversive incentive, such as drugs or alcohol, which might elicit a response (Koob, 2013, p.
559). Negative reinforcement is not seen as a punishment though, as the removal of substances
or threats towards the addict is meant to cause alternative behavior. It was discovered that
negative reinforcement, such as threats or nagging of substance abuse, is predicted to cause a
lower chance for relapse. On the other hand, verbal reinforcement is predicted to cause a higher
chance for relapse (Duggan et al., 2008, p. 417). Verbal reinforcement is usually viewed in a
good way, but findings reveal that recounting old positive memories involving the addicts past

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 15

behavior while using drugs or alcohol use is not a good approach. This evidence then begs the
question of how satisfied is the addict with their partner.
Relational satisfaction puts each partner in opposite corners and evaluates their
commitment or content within the relationship. It tries to understand if the degree of expectations
is met for the relationship because people whose relationships are inconsistent will not feel the
satisfaction. Due to the substance use happening within the relationship, relational problems
such as poor communication or habitual arguing will generate a destructive cycle of abuse and
relational dysfunction. Thus relational satisfaction is important because it will increase positive
behaviors and decrease relationship dissatisfaction, instability, and/or verbal and physical
aggression that could occur (Fals-Stewart et al., 2004, p. 31).
Evidently, positive and negative verbal reinforcement has been researched previously to
conclude that language can be used to validate a message or suggest alternative behaviors and
relational satisfaction involves understanding the level of expectation or voluntary behaviors that
leave a partner satisfied or dissatisfied within a relationship. Although, adding an outside force,
such as substance abuse, can cause these previous mentioned variables to change the way they
are presented in a relationship. This means that the type of positive and negative verbal
reinforcement used will be distinctive and the level of relational satisfaction will be altered.
Therefore there is a research gap, as it is unknown if positive and negative verbal reinforcement
and the types portrayed by one partner will cause the addict to feel satisfied in their romantic
relationship. This is worthy to research because it is important to understand if substance
addiction actually causes different verbal reinforcements to be used and if substance addiction
causes a change in relational satisfaction, compared to a romantic relationship where addiction is
not present.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 16

Research Question: Is there a relationship between a partners use of positive/negative verbal
reinforcement and the addicts relational satisfaction with that partner?
Methods
Participants
For this study, recovering addicts will be targeted as participants and will be the ones
contacted. In order to reach these participants, a non-random purposive sample will be conducted
in which there will be a focus on addicts with the exclusion of other groups. This is described
through the sample frame within the population, as only addicts can participate and they must be
in a romantic relationship. The age of participants is not important in this study, as long as they
qualify within the criteria. The participants will be recruited through two online forums and
discussion boards (http://www.medhelp.org/forums/Addiction-Substance-Abuse/show/77 and
http://www.recovery.org/forums/) that addicts can go on to get advice about recovery or talk to
other addicts. A survey will be posted on multiple websites in order to get a larger range of
people and will describe the purpose of the study. The number of people reached depends on the
popularity of the website, but it is expected that about 150 people will respond to create a sample
size. This means that about 5% of the people who see the link to the survey will fill it out.
Procedures
In order to understand the variables of this research, a survey design must be conducted.
A survey will work best because it will represent the personal thoughts and emotions of each
participant in their unique environment. By evaluating the responses of an addict, we will be able
to understand their relational satisfaction.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 17

The survey would have a research design of cross-sectional as all of the data collected
would be from one point in time and used to draw influences about the research question. It is
focused research on a specific point in their relationship and how the past/present influenced
them until this point. Additionally with this cross-sectional survey, the source for data collection
will be through self-reports in which participants have time to think and respond about their
attitudes, feelings, and beliefs.
The setting for data collection and this survey will be conducted online with a
questionnaire. The survey will be associated with basic research, as theoretical relationships
among variables will be investigated. Once online, participants will see the link, click the link,
sign the informed consent, and fill out the survey. In order to fill out the survey, participants must
read and sign the page that discusses the research and consent form. The consent form will note
their rights and responsibilities as participants, discussing their choice to participate, their
privacy, and how they will be treated with honesty. This also includes that participants will be
assured fair, just, and respectful treatment with anonymity and confidentiality. Once they sign
this form, the questionnaire can be accessed and will take about fifteen minutes to complete.
The structure of this questionnaire will include an appropriate length where all the
questions that need to be asked will be included, but is not too long that it drags on. It will also
be clear and easy to read, so no question or vocabulary is confusing. Order effects are also
important, which relate to the order that questions are presented. The questionnaire will start with
demographics, then ask about the independent variable of positive/negative verbal reinforcement,
and end with a scale on the dependent variable of relational satisfaction. Thus, due to these
components of structure, the format for the survey questions will be closed-format.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 18

Materials
For this survey, several materials will be necessary to understand the independent
variable and examine the effects on the dependent variable. First the survey will measure basic
demographics and determine if the participant is an addict within a romantic relationship (see
Appendix A). After this criterion is fulfilled, the dependent and independent variables can be
evaluated.
The independent variable is positive and negative verbal reinforcement. Verbal
reinforcement is defined as language used to strengthen the behavior of either oneself or another,
which could be positive or negative. Specifically, positive reinforcement can could be reinforcing
behaviors that encourage the behavior they follow such as substance abuse, or rewarding the
addict when they choose a different action (Le Poire, Hallett, & Erlandson, 2000, p. 441). In
contrast, negative verbal reinforcement is the removal of substances from the addict that will
cause a response within the addict. So therefore the purpose of the survey used is to focus on
verbal reinforcement that includes positive reinforcement of substance-dependence, positive
reinforcement of alternative behavior, or negative reinforcement of substances.
The main material for the independent variable is a scale of positive and negative
reinforcement. Researchers Duggan, Dailey, and Le Poire (2008) created a scale that evaluates
verbal reinforcement and punishment on separate continuums, as behaviors may be both
reinforcing and punishing (p. 422). Substance abusers assessed the degree to which the nonabusive partners communication behaviors reinforced and punished their behaviors and
alternative behaviors. Then separate ratings were conducted for kinesic and vocalic behaviors.
Kinesic behaviors such as smiling, eye contact, open body positions, and gentle touching were

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 19

categorized as reinforcing, whereas harsh facial expressions, closed body positions, avoiding eye
contact, and a lack of expressiveness were described as punishing. Vocalic behaviors such as soft
intonations and volumes, fluent speech, and a variety of intonations were categorized as
reinforcing, whereas yelling, harsh tones, and sharp enunciation were coded as punishing. So the
measure of this independent variable and all of these characteristics were completed through a
Likert-style scale ranging from 0 (no reinforcement = punishment present) to 9 (high
reinforcement = punishment) (Appendix B). The scale also let participants rate the consistency of
their partners reinforcement and punishment over time. Consistency was rated by comparing the
behaviors of the functional partners from one time period to the next, also on a 9-point scale
(Duggan et al., 2008, p. 422).
When the scale was previously used, Duggan et al. (2008) discovered that consistency
was not highly reliable, so it was harder to predict the outcome of measures. On the other hand,
the scale was reliable to gather a variety of information, but there may have been an increase in
reliability and validity if multiple items measured consistency (p. 431). Also it was found that
since the scale was a new type of coding, it was deemed acceptable for analysis and therefore
valid. Although some features were seen as unreliable, due to the minimal number of alternative
behaviors that was recorded. So overall, the scale for positive and negative verbal reinforcement
will be reliable if there is consistency and will be valid due to the evaluation of verbal influence
strategies (Duggan et al., 2008, p. 431).
The other side of the research question includes the dependent variable of relational
satisfaction, which in this context relates to the degree that expectations are met and how much
the addict feels satisfied. Another scale must be addressed with this variable to measure an
addicts relational satisfaction with their partner. Researchers Burgoon and Hale (1997)

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 20

developed a relational satisfaction scale that defines interpersonal relationships (p. 40). The scale
lists a series of statements that relate to potential views that an addict could have towards their
partner. For each statement, the participants must circle a number from 1 to 7, depending on the
degree to which they agree or disagree with the statement. A seven means they strongly agree, a
six means they agree, a five means they agree somewhat, a four means you are neutral or unsure,
a three means they disagree somewhat, a two means they disagree, and a one means they
strongly disagree. Questions are also categorized under headings that include eight factors that
are: Immediacy/Affection ("Person A was highly involved in the conversation"),
Similarity/Depth ("A didn't care what B thinks"), Receptivity/Trust ("A wanted B to trust
him/her"), Composure ("A was calm and poised with B"), Formality ("A made the interaction
very formal"), Dominance ("A was dominating the conversation"), Equality ("A didn't treat B as
an equal"), and Task Orientation ("A wanted to stick to the main purpose of the interaction")
(Burgoon & Hale, 1997, p. 40). This scale allows an addict to evaluate their relational
satisfaction while the underlying context is substance abuse in a romantic relationship. The scale
(Appendix C) relates to relational satisfaction in general, but can be applied to this survey that
evaluates addicts within a romantic relationship.
Since this scale has been around for a while, it was has been used by many researchers
and has been deemed both reliable and valid. Researchers like Buller & Aune; Buller &
Burgoon; and Burgoon, Coker, & Coker have used different versions of the scale. This means
that researchers have adopted the scale to their research and have all reported similar results
(Burgoon & Hale, 1997, p. 35). Thus Burgoon and Hale (1997) described this relational
satisfaction scale as a valid measure as evidenced by the vast amount of validity through the
research conducted. Also this shows that the scale is reliable for different types of research. At

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 21

first the scale had a lower level of reliability due its vast dimensions, but it was been improved
over time (p. 35). The results indicate that the scale is capable of perceiving many measurements
and captured the relational meaning imbedded in all the communication, therefore proving to be
valid and reliable (Burgoon & Hale, 1997, p. 34).
Limitations
Mostly all research surveys have limitations due to the fact that there are restrictions that
studies will possess. The goal of any research study is to decrease limitations, such as external
and internal validity, so that the research can be both valid and reliable. Thus, a survey design
was used.
There are also some limitations due to the fact that this survey is a self-report study,
which could cause validity problems. Patients may exaggerate symptoms in order to make their
situation seem worse or they may under-report the severity of symptoms in order to minimize
their problems. This can relate to relational satisfaction, as addicts may not want to admit
problems within their romantic relationship. Additionally, participants might also be misguided
or incorrectly remember the material covered by the questions on the survey. This is the problem
with having the survey online with no interaction with the participants, so anyone could respond
in any way or with access to the website. Additionally, the relational satisfaction portion of the
survey may not have dealt with the relational aspects that addicts consider important
The study also poses threats to internal validity and the sample size could also cause
limited results. Since the survey will be posted on websites, it is not possible to calculate a
response rate and therefore form a sample size. Making the survey online increases the risk of
participants deciding not to participate in the study, as there is a high likelihood that addicts will

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 22

choose to discard the survey or will overlook it. It is possible though to estimate that sample size
will be low, which is why it is expected that approximately 150 people will respond. Although if
the targeted number of 150 participants is not reached, there will be an overall decrease in
responses and the validity of the study. Sample size is important to note because this study was
designed to minimize threats to external validity through the use of non-random purposive
sampling. This sampling technique was used to focus just on addicts and exclude other groups,
so this method will cause a lack of representativeness. So overall, an online survey may cause a
lack of participation that can lead to a decreased sample size and representativeness would not be
fulfilled.
Also, the Hawthorne Effect is less of a threat because participants are allowed to take the
survey in any environment they choose that makes them feel comfortable. With no researcher
present, researcher personal attributes cannot affect the participants. On the other hand, no
researcher present can cause limitations because the researcher has no control of the
environment, so there is a possibility that other people could be present when the survey is taken.
Limitations are bound to be present in this research design, as it is to be expected with all
survey research. These limitations will be difficult to change, as they mainly relate to the number
of participants that respond and how they respond. Although I think these limitations will
minimally affect the survey because even if a small amount of people respond, it should be valid
and reliable information. Since each scale was deemed both reliable and valid and used multiple
times, as previously discussed in the materials section, this research should be able to find
similar consistencies. Hence verbal influence strategies will be valid in the positive/negative
verbal reinforcement scale and relational meaning will be measured in the relational satisfaction
scale. Also unless the results are skewed in the complete opposite way as predicted, then the

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 23

responses will not greatly affect the research. Or unless a majority of the participants are being
dishonest, then the results should be fine. Overall, there have been measures taken to minimize
both external and internal validity, but the said limitations need to be taken into account when
discussing the findings of this survey.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 24

References
Bertakis, K. D., & Azari, R. (2007). Determinants of physician discussion regarding tobacco and
alcohol abuse. Journal Of Health Communication, 12(6), 513-525. doi:
10.1080/10810730701508187
Belin, D., Belin-Rauscent, A., Murray, J. E., & Everitt, B. J. (2013). Addiction: Failure of
control over maladaptive incentive habits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 564572. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.025
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. 1. (1997). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational
communication. Communication Monographs, 54(1), 19-41. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Duggan, A. P., Dailey, R. M., & Le Poire, B. A. (2008). Reinforcement and punishment of
substance abuse during ongoing interactions: A conversational test of inconsistent
nurturing as control theory. Journal Of Health Communication, 13(5), 417-433. doi:
10.1080/10810730802198722
Fals-Stewart, W., & Birchler, G. R. (1999). Drug-abusing patients and their intimate partners:
dyadic adjustment, relationship stability, and substance use. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 108(1), 13-23. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Fals-Stewart, W., OFarrell, T., & Birchler, G. R. (2004). Behavioral couples therapy for
substance abuse: rationale, methods, and findings. Science & Practice Perspectives,
70(2), 30-41. Retrieved from ProQuest.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 25

Guerrero, L. K., Anderson, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2011). Close Encounters: Communication in
Relationships. Sage Publications, 3, 1-12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hirschman, E. C., & McGriff, J. A. (1995). Recovering addicts responses to the cinematic
portrayal of drug and alcohol addiction. Journal Of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(1),
95-107. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Koob, G. F. (2013). Negative reinforcement in drug addiction: The darkness within. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 559-563. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Koob, G. F., Le Moal, M. (2005). Plasticity of reward neurocircuitry and the dark side of drug
addiction. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1420-1444. Retrieved from ProQuest.
Newcomb, M. & Earleywine, M. (1996). Intrapersonal contributors to drug use: The willing
host. The American Behavioral Scientist, 39(7), 823-837. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Le Poire, B. A., Hallett, J. S., & Erlandson, K. T. (2000). An initial test of inconsistent nurturing
as control theory: How partners of drug abusers assist their partners' sobriety. Human
Communication Research, 26(3), 432. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Powers, K. I., & Anglin, M. (1996). Couples reciprocal patterns in narcotics addiction: A
recommendation on treatment strategy. Psychology & Marketing, 13(8), 95-107.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Rhule-Louie, D. M., & McMahon, R. J. (2007). Problem behavior and romantic relationships:
assortative mating, behavior contagion, and desistance. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 10(1), 52-100. doi: 10.1007/s10567-006-0016-y

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 26

Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An
interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204.
Saaristo, K. (2009). Abnormal normality: Addiction, identity and the problem of normal. At The
Interface / Probing The Boundaries, 55, 177-191. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Voss, J. P. (2009). Relapse after long-term sobriety. GPSolo, 26(7), 18-23. Retrieved from
ProQuest.
Weinberg, D. (2000). Out there: The ecology of addiction in drug abuse treatment discourse.
Social Problems, 47(4), 606-621. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3097137
Witkiewitz, K., & Marlatt, A. G. (2011). Behavioral therapy across the spectrum. Alcohol
Research & Health, 33(4), 313 -319. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Zufferey, M. (2009). I use drugs, but I am not a drug addict: How heroin and cocaine users
make sense of their practice as a healthy behaviour. At The Interface / Probing The
Boundaries, 55, 163-783. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 27

Appendices
Appendix A- Demographic Questions
1) Are you male or female?
Male
Female
2) How old are you?
18 - 23
24 -29

30 - 35

36 - 41

42 +

3) How many years have you been an addict?

<2
2<x<5
5<x<7
7 < x < 10

10 +

4) How long have you been in a romantic relationship?

1

69

10+

Appendix B Positive and Negative Reinforcement Scale

Positive Verbal Reinforcement
0123456789

1. Rate the level of smiling that was positively reinforcing

0123456789

2. Rate the level of eye contact that was positively reinforcing

0123456789

3. Rate the level of open body positions that was positively reinforcing

0123456789

4. Rate the level of gentle touching that was positively reinforcing

0123456789

5. Rate the level of soft intonations and volumes that was positively
reinforcing

0123456789

6. Rate the level of fluent speech that was positively reinforcing

0123456789

7. Rate the level of variety of intonations that was positively reinforcing

0123456789

8. Rate the overall level of verbal reinforcement of alternative behavior

Negative Verbal Reinforcement

0123456789

1. Rate the level of harsh facial expressions that were negatively reinforcing

0123456789

2. Rate the level of closed body positions that was negatively reinforcing

0123456789

3. Rate the level of avoidance of eye contact that was negatively reinforcing

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 28

0123456789

4. Rate the level of lack of expressiveness that were negatively reinforcing

0123456789

5. Rate the level yelling that were negatively reinforcing

0123456789

6. Rate the level harsh tones that were negatively reinforcing

0123456789

7. Rate the level sharp enunciations that were negatively reinforcing

0123456789

8. Rate the overall level of verbal punishment of alternative behavior

Consistent Verbal Reinforcement

0123456789

1. Rate the level of consistent positive verbal reinforcements based no

behaviors of your partner

0123456789

2. Rate the level of consistent negative verbal reinforcements based no

behaviors of your partner

Appendix C Relational Satisfaction Scale

Immediacy/Affection (Intimacy I)
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

He/she was intensely involved in our conversation.

He/she did not want a deeper relationship between us.
He/she was not attracted to me.
He/she found the conversation stimulating.
He/she communicated coldness rather than warmth.
He/she created a sense of distance between us.
He/she acted bored by our conversation.
He/she was interested in talking to me.
He/she showed enthusiasm while talking to me.

Similarity/Depth (Intimacy II)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. He/she made me feel he/she was similar to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. He/she tried to move the conversation to a deeper level.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. He/she acted like we were good friends.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. He/she seemed to desire further communication with me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. He/she seemed to care if I liked him/her.
Receptivity/Trust (Intimacy III)
1234567
1234567
1234567

15. He/she was sincere.

16. He/she was interested in talking with me.
17. He/she wanted me to trust him/her.

Verbal Reinforcement and Relational Satisfaction in a Romantic Relationship 29

1234567
1234567
1234567
Composure
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
Formality

18. He/she was willing to listen to me.

19. He/she was open to my ideas.
20. He/she was honest in communicating with me.
21. He/she felt very tense talking to me.
22. He/she was calm and poised with me.
23. He/she felt very relaxed talking with me.
24. He/she seemed nervous in my presence.
25. He/she was comfortable interacting with me.

1234567
1234567
1234567
Dominance

26. He/she made the interaction very formal.

27. He/she wanted the discussion to be casual.
28. He/she wanted the discussion to be informal.

1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
Equality

29. He/she attempted to persuade me.

30. He/she didn't attempt to influence me.
31. He/she tried to control the interaction.
32. He/she tried to gain my approval.
33. He/she didn't try to win my favor.
34. He/she had the upper hand in the conversation.

1234567
1234567
1234567

35. He/she considered us equals.

36. He/she did not treat me as an equal.
37. He/she wanted to cooperate with me.

Task Orientation
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567

38. He/she wanted to stick to the main purpose of the interaction.

39. He/she was more interested in social conversation than the task at hand.
40. He/she was very work-oriented.
41. He/she was more interested in working on the task at hand than having social
conversation.