I prepared most of the following statement for my application for the ABPP in the specialty area of Family Psychology. It provides a comprehensive overview of my professional interests over time--past, present, and future. Links are provided to specific manuscript--published and not--that may be of interest to those wanting know more about my professional pursuits.
Preamble
First, unlike many applying for certification by the ABPP, my main love is teaching--that realm is my life (and I hope my forte). To be an effective teacher in my discipline, I see myself as having developed as a hybrid of clinician and academician. I don’t do as much clinical work as a typical clinician, but I believe I have more clinical experience and expertise than most academicians. I consider clinical involvement as essential to learning and the production of knowledge, not only for students but for myself as well. On the other hand I do more research and publishing than the typical clinician, particularly focusing on theoretical conceptualization and application of theory to practice. However, I’m not sure I would consider myself outstanding in either area, at least if volume of production alone were the main determinant of contribution. Where this combination leaves me vis-a-vis the “ABPP,” which I’ve always viewed as a clinical/practical credential, I don’t know. Perhaps I fit better than I first believed, when the title of the specialty area is considered--Family Psychology not Family Therapy.
Introduction
Rather than recount items from my Curriculum Vitae, I will attempt to provide more detail and depth, showing how my past, present, and future efforts are related and demonstrate a cohesive pattern of involvement in Family Psychology. In particular, I will discuss endeavors in relation to topics such as: Chaos Theory, Gerontology, Psychodrama, Traumatology, and Multiculturalism.
The past is actually not past--that is, not gone and forgotten. These contributions, my history, provide the base of knowledge and experience from which and on which I continue to build. I have not entirely abandoned any of the undertakings in which I invested my energies earlier in my career. Still, these investments have evolved over time into my present efforts. They will continue to influence and direct my future endeavors.
Interpersonal Interaction/Communication
Facility with interpersonal interaction has always been a primary interest of mine from the time of my dissertation study. In particular, interpersonal conflict resolution was one of the first foci in my research and intervention with couples and families. As a behaviorist/social learning theorist (the theoretical perspective in which I was initially trained), I conducted and collaborated on a number of studies looking at components of effective interpersonal confrontation form and confrontation skills training (e.g., Remer, 1982, 1984; Watson & Remer, 1982, 1984). The acme of this line of exploration was the chapter (Remer & deMesquita, 1990) published in Intimates in Conflict. Even though the chapter (Exhibit A) is a significant contribution, the original, unabridged version (Exhibit B) is more complete--including exercises based on behavioral learning principles. I and other colleagues continue to employ it in therapy and training.
Psychodrama
In a parallel but related area, Psychodrama and its applications have been a major passion of mine. Psychodrama (or labeled more appropriately Sociometric Theory), developed by J. L. Moreno, has been a significant influence in Family Psychology, if not the first version of family therapy (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000). As a Certified TEP (Trainer/Educator/Practitioner) of the American Board of Examiners in Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama, and Sociometry and a Fellow of the Association for Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy, and Psychodrama, I have integrated such techniques as living sociograms, dynamic “sculpting,” doubling, and role-reversal into my assessment of family dynamics and family therapy interventions. The influence of Psychodrama on Family Psychology and their similarities are evident in looking at the approaches of many pioneers in Family Therapy (e.g., Satir, Madanes, Minuchin, and Napier). The synergy between Family Psychology and Sociometric Theory, has enhanced my therapeutic effectiveness, research efforts, and teaching/training.
I started exploring the relationshipbetween Family Psychology and Psychodrama more systematically and rigorously by examining their interface. The results are reported in a number of early articles dealing with family systems and systemic interventions (Remer, 1985, 1986). Through my extensive training in Psychodrama and my use of its enactment techniques in both therapy and research (including my dissertation and confrontation research), the uncanny ability for psychodramatic enactments to simulate actual family interactions, whether recapitulating them or engendering similar patterns of interaction, became evident. After encountering difficulties recruiting sufficient numbers of participant families and couples for both dissertation studies and my own research efforts, I put together a research program directed at simulating family interaction for research and training purposes--the training aspect was not especially novel, but the research application was. The efforts produced a number of manuscripts directed to establishing the validity and effectiveness of the Psychodramatic simulation methodology (Betts & Remer, 1993a; Finger, Elliott, & Remer, 1993; Remer, 1990a, 1990b Remer & Betts, 1998) and to its application (Betts, 1992; Betts & Remer, 1993b; Elliott, 1994; Finger, 1994). However, these endeavors met with skepticism. Attempting to address the reservations expressed by critics, I have been led to look at what makes a family a family--examining such topics as shared family recollections (Remer, Gorman, Derrickson-Beake, & Pinto, 1998). I have also been persuaded to adopt a more comprehensive--and perhaps realistic--view of family (and other human interactive) systems--dynamical systems/chaos theory--which I will discuss in more detail when relating my present, continuing contributions to Family Psychology shortly.
Note: These simulations, which were developed and tested using the students in the primary Family Studies department course at the University of Kentucky, are still being employed for their educational and preventive impacts.
Traumatology
Another principal area in which I have invested extensive energies is the effect of trauma (particularly sexual assault and abuse) on families, partners, and other members of the support systems of primary victims. Because my spouse has carved a niche for herself dealing with primary survivors of trauma (primarily sexual assault trauma), my involvement with secondary survivors (predominantly male partners and family members of sexual assault victims) came/comes naturally and fits well with my emphasis on families. (You might call this commitment “a family tradition”[pun intended].)
Besides seeing families whose issues are trauma related--a topic covered more extensively in the sections on present and future contributions--I developed a model for secondary survivor healing and related interventions (Remer, 2000; Remer & Elliott, 1988a, 1988b; Remer & Ferguson, 1995, 1997). In addition to the model and interventions, the student involvement provided training experiences for many students over the years and encouraged dissertation research on the topic (Ferguson, 1993). I continue to run groups for secondary survivors (co-leading with students), consult with and supply crisis counseling through the Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center, and provide professional training both to students in our program and to colleagues (e.g., Remer, 2000, 1997, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991).
I have also worked with families dealing with other types of traumas such as Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. Because of the complexity of these interactions, my investment in the dynamics of secondary survivors too has dovetailed with and spurred my interest in the application of dynamical systems theory.
Until relatively recently (the last five years) I would characterize most of my contributions as consistent with the mainstream paradigm in Psychology--logical positivism. My present ventures have been in areas more peripheral, and consequently, less accepted and more equivocally received and valued. I believe in their worth, but as I alluded to above in my introductory comments, I suffer some uncertainty. What impact these feelings will have on the eventual impact of these efforts, I can’t say.
Gerontology
In 1992 I earned a Certification in Gerontology from the Sanders-Brown Center on Aging at the University of Kentucky. A significant experience was working with an Alzheimer’s patient support group (called Helping Hand). Throughout the certification program my emphasis was on family members and systems dealing with the aging process--their own personal changes, but even more the impact on and challenges to systemic reorganization.
Trying to address what I view as an area of significant and increasing demand, I designed and started to implement a research program focused on how families approach the long term care decisions involving aging family members. My conviction is that proaction, through open family communication, is essential. Although some families have been open to dealing with the issues engendered, they have been those families in crisis/acute circumstances (e.g., those being assisted by the ElderCare Program offered by the university). Generally, families evidence resistance to addressing the potential problems, even if they are aware of them and willing to acknowledge them (a phenomenon I encountered before when trying to establish a support program for cancer victims in remission and their families). Even the Andrus Foundation (the funding vehicle of AARP to which we applied for support) doesn’t seem to deem this area of research significantly important to warrant financial support. Recruiting families willing to be interviewed as a group--at least three generations present--has been vitually impossible. So this effort is, at present, stalled.
The frustrations suffered have led me to reflect on and struggle with some of my assumptions. One conclusion is that some of these patterns, which I have considered avoidance, may serve a purpose worth examining--like certain family or cultural rituals do. Second, similar to the previous difficulties in recruiting families to participate in research that led to the family simulation development, some more productive ways of reaching out to families and engaging them proactively/preventively need to be generated. I will address these ideas further in discussing my Future plans for contributing to Family Psychology.
Another inference derived from the lack of success in implementing the “family aging” program has more far reaching consequences. In approaching families to talk with us, we realized that even asking for participation had an impact on the family system--at least raising awareness. Although not a novel realization, it links this area of interest with the focus of my primary investment of energy for the last five years, reconceptualizing psychology in general and Family Psychology specifically from a dynamical systems perspective as a paradigm shift.
Chaos Theory
Even though Family Psychology has embraced systems perspectives (e.g., general systems theory and cybernetics), the concepts and implications of Dynamical Systems Theory/Chaos Theory are in many ways antithetical to the training we have received and continue to propagate as psychologists--if not just simply difficult to grasp and/or accept. Even Family Psychologist Chaoticians (Therapists/Theoreticians) seem hesitant, at least in my opinion, to adopt dynamical systems tenets and accept the implications of Chaos Theory fully (e.g., Butz, 1999). My major “contributions” recently have been attempts to convince Psychologists and Psychodramatists of the validity and value of accepting Chaos Theory as the basis for a paradigm shift. As I intimated earlier when talking about my passion for Psychodrama, because of the commonalities of family systems and sociometric theories, I view the link between them essential to the development of both theory and praxis.
Notice that I enclosed contributions above in quotation marks. I did so because, although I have succeeded in publishing articles (Remer, 1996, 1998, 2001) and a book chapter (Remer, 2000) and in presenting papers and workshops (Remer, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000a, 2000b) introducing the concepts of Chaos Theory and how to work with dynamical systems from a chaos perspective, some other manuscripts (Remer, 1997, 1998c, 1999b) have been less well received. Some have been characterized as too complicated to follow, others as too outre, and others as too speculative.
This venue doesn’t seem appropriate to recapitulate all the arguments in favor of a paradigm shift. Briefly, however, Chaos Theory (dynamical systems theory, non-linear/non-independent systems theory) seems logically to be a more realistic representation of and a more viable perspective from which to view and influence human interpersonal (and intrapsychic) patterns of interaction. However, demonstrating this contention empirically is difficult. Problems (e.g., convergence of non-linear systems/functions, integration of subjective biases) must be overcome. For example, most of our commonly taught and used research tools are based on suppositions contrary to the Chaos perspective (e.g., linear thinking) and attitudes of the scientific community, if not our society as a whole, are formed by a perspective wed to Occam’s Razor. If I can support the contention--that we need a paradigm shift and Chaos Theory better serves our purposes--sufficiently to convince others, I would consider that achievement my major contribution to Family Psychology.
In the meantime I continue to introduce my clients, students, colleagues, and fellow professionals to those concepts of Chaos Theory that I find most compelling and deem most useful to their adaptation and development (e.g., unpredictability of the results of any particular action). I try to help them reframe life’s continual and inescapable chaos positively, as opportunities and challenges. This approach again also interfaces well with many of the concepts of Psychodrama (e.g., spontaneity). Personally, I have also benefited from the change in perspective offered by Chaos Theory (e.g., accepting that my views are not objective, but rather as subjective/biased as anyone else’s). This “acceptance” has made me a better teacher and therapist--and hopefully a more flexible human being. It is absolutely necessary in a multicultural mileu--a point I will address shortly in my future plans.
Note: Some of my colleagues and other psychologists have argued that I confuse Chaos Theory with Constructivism (especially Social Constructivism). I see them as collateral, mutually enhancing perspectives. I can argue, however, that given its mathematical basis, more general conceptualization, and applicability to other disciplines, Chaos Theory subsumes constructivist thought.
Much as my past endeavors and accomplishments influence my present, they both figure significantly in my plans for the future. In fact, just as in the case of this application process, past and continuing patterns/influences serve as the foundation for what I hope to achieve in the coming years.
Traumatology
During the past year, we (Counseling Psychology Program students and clinical faculty) have initiated a program with the Red Cross in Lexington, KY. The Red Cross is one of the primary agencies working with war refugee families (most from either Africa or Kosovo) and the sponsoring families and other support personnel (e.g., ESL teachers). We have started to institute a two pronged intervention. One is aimed at aiding the refugees to cope with the impact of war trauma and to adapt to the cultural and other relocation transitions. The second is focused on helping the members of refugees’ local support system--those who have secondary trauma with which to deal. My roles, an extension of my previous work with secondary survivors, have been both a provider of direct interventions with the secondary survivors and as a supervisor/consultant for our students who are working with the refugee family systems and subsystems. Since the program is in its nascent stage, we have only worked with one family and a dozen support system members. I plan to continue developing this program not only with our Red Cross contacts but, through them, with the other agencies (e.g., local churches) who are part of the refugee support network.
My interest in sexual assault trauma has not been left behind either. With the increase in awareness of acquaintanceship rape, particularly on college campuses, Date Rape Awareness programs have become a standard part of orientations and the freshman experience. Both because of my spouse’s direct involvement in this area and as part of sudents’ research in it, I have been part of presenting, consulting on, and supervising Date Rape Awareness programs on the University of Kentucky campus for a few years now. Viewing prevention as much preferable to crisis and remedial interventions, we have spent the last year developing two parallel but somewhat different workshops--one (my spouse’s) is a direct, frontal attack on Date Rape; the other (the one whose development I’ve guided) is a relationship enhancement approach that is geared to focus on direct communication and misperceptions. After six months, we are at the stage of field testing and honing these workshops. After “tuning them up,” we plan to conduct a full scale study across a number of colleges and universities in Kentucky. We then hope to adapt them to use with younger populations (High School and Junior High School ages).
To be able to export and generalize these interventions, part of the effort is going to writing treatment manuals for them. Since the presentations are going to be in groups of about 20 participants, standardizing them is, to say the least, a challenge. Chaos Theory and Psychodrama, on one hand, offer the perfect perspectives for guiding this type of interaction; however, on the other hand, neither permits the degree of standardization most manualized treatments aim to attain (nor even conceives that degree of control is possible). Because we are trying to produce an Empirically Substanitated (Validated) Treatment through these efforts, we are following the guidelines promulgated for EVT’s (Nathan & Gorman, 1998). Again, these guidelines are heavily biased by the prevailing paradigm. In any case, we intend to move to the next phase of the plan this year.
Gerontology
Despite the frustrations encountered I still believe Family Psychology has a major role in helping families deal more effectively with problems engendered by the aging of family members. The population is aging and life expectancy is increasing. As a “sandwich” generation member myself, I have experience first hand being squeezed between elderly parents’ needs and those of children. Because of my investment of energies elsewhere with more reinforcing results, I have not worked as diligently in applying my Gerontology background. Still I continue to consult with colleagues, give workshops and presentations both to students and professionals in psychology and other disciplines, direct dissertation research related to Gerontology (e.g., Layman, 2001; Reynolds, 1991), and am available to work with individuals and families struggling with the inevitable attendant issues.
To be proactive family support is key. The question is how to engage families earlier and more actively. To try to address this question I plan to increase my contact in the ElderCare program at the university. Although these families tend to be more in crisis, perhaps learning more about the reasons they delayed and/or continue to resist facing the problems will provide some direction for intervening earlier. Two other entrees come to mind. They are through physicians who treat a large number of aging adults (e.g., Orthopods who do joint replacements or Vascular Specialists) and attorneys who do estate planning (e.g. those who establish living trusts). I have two physician friends who often talk about the time they have to spend working with family members and an attorney acquaintance who offers estate planing seminars who says much the same. I plan to explore both professions as possible links to families in need and open to contact during my sabbatical leave next year and when I return.
If my main intention for my sabbatical leave works out, I also may have the opportunity to look at how another culture--one more sympathetic to and respectful of its elderly members--uses family systems to confront these problems.
Multiculturalism
Our doctoral program demands each student develop a fifteen hour specialty area. Family Psychology and Traumatology are two options. Another major one is Multicultual Psychology. My work with war refugee families merge all three of these emphases (and Chaos Theory fits their interface well). To better understand the impact of culture and transition shock, I would like to experience personally living in another culture for an extended period of time. To this end, last year I applied for a Fulbright award to spend a year in Taiwan. The award, which requires teaching courses in both Family Psychology and Psychodrama, would allow me not only to be in Taiwan, but also to visit Korea, Japan, Mainland China, and other countries along the Pacific Rim. Through contacts in these countries (most former students) I plan to research how family systems in different cultures/societies are treating their elderly members in this expanding global community.
Having been chosen as an alternate for the 2001-2002 award, I would have had to wait indefinitely to see if the primary recipient withdrew. Due to a confluence of factors--faculty losses in our department, the reality that if I took a sabbatical leave and weren’t able go to Taiwan I might never have another opportunity, and, most of all, the now impending marriage of my daughter next May--I decided to withdraw and apply again this year. The Educational and Psychology Department at The National Taiwan Normal University has offered to sponsor me, with the understanding I will teach Family Psychology and Psychodrama, not only for them but for some of the other schools in the area as well. Adapting my Family Psychology course content to a different culture shoud provide an engaging and educational challenge. Some of the faculty also propose to collaborate on the Family Aging research project mentioned above. I believe this offer will increase my chances of securing an award. As a contingency, however, I’m developing other alternatives should the Fulbright not be granted.
Chaos Theory
Chaos Theory is an integral part of my application statement for the Fulbright. Besides the immediate applicability to family systems, Chaos Theory meshes well with Eastern values and philosophical thought. To ensure optimal use of my sabbatical--in the case I do not receive a Fulbright or even if I do--I would like to find other possibilities for exploring Chaos theory links and working on interventions and research methods consistent with it. So far, the options are few. One is the Sante Fe Institute, where they study complex systems. Whether or not I secure a postdoctoral fellowhip there, I plan to increase my contact with them. The drawback of SFI is that all the resident faculty are focused on hard science disciplines (e.g., physics, molecular biology) and, consequently, have little proclivity or time to delve into Family Psychology. Although I am not particularly drawn to mathematical modeling, I may be forced to revert to my undergraduate mathematics training and my doctoral training in statistics and research methodology.
In any event I plan to seek others who have the background, training, and desire with whom I can “talk” Chaos Theory so that I can get feedback on the cogency and validity of my ideas. To date I have never felt I had enough to say on one topic to write a book--at least not one that didn’t show the hybris of thinking I could revisit what others have already said only better. Perhaps, if I can find the type of interactions I am soliciting, and they confirm the validity of my conceptualizations, I can find the confidence and courage to write a book. That would be quite an accomplishment--and I foresee as a significant contribution.
Looking over this statement I believe it evidences my ample involvement in the field of Family Psychology. While these interests evidence diverse emphases they still demonstrate continuity over time and relatedness across areas--unifying patterns. I hope what I have supplied is useful to you for whatever reason(s) you have chosen to spend your time reading all this.
Betts, G. R. (1992). The impact of paradoxical interventions on perceptions of the therapist and ratings of treatment acceptability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Betts, G. R., & Remer, R. (1993a). The impact of paradoxical interventions on perceptions of the therapist and ratings of treatment acceptability. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 164-170.
Betts, G. R., & Remer, R.(1993b). Acceptability of paradoxical interventions: A comparison of simulation and strict analogue methodology. Unpublished Manuscript. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Butz, M. R. (1997). Chaos and complexity: Implications for psychological theory and practice. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Elliott, J. E. (1994). Perceptions of realism in high and low structure simulated families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Ferguson, R. A. (1993).Male partners of female survivors of child sexual abuse: An inquiry into the concept of secondary victimization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Finger, S. C. (1994). Manner of disclosure of homosexuality and short-term acceptance by family members: A simulation using undergraduate research participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Finger, S. C., Elliott, J. E., & Remer, R. (1993). Simulation as a tool in family therapy research.Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 365-381.
Goldenberg, I., & Goldenberg, H. (2000). Family therapy: An overview (5th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Layman, D. E. (2001). Predicting spousal caregiver beliefs about Alzheimer's disclosure to affected partners: To tell or not to tell. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Nathan, P. E., & Gorman, J. M. (Eds.) (1998).A guide to treatments that work. New York: Oxford University Press.
Remer, R. (1982). An empirical examination of confrontation efficacy II. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 219 683)
Remer, R. (1984). The effects of interpersonal confrontation on males. The American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 6, 56-71.
Remer, R. (1985). An approach to difficulties caused by evolving family expectations: Social atom theory. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 38, 96-106.
Remer, R. (1986). Use of psychodramatic intervention with families: Change on multiple levels. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 39, 13-31.
Remer, R. (1990a). Family therapy inside-out. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry, 43, 70-81.
Remer, R. (1990b). Psychodramatic family simulation for teaching and research. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 316813)
Remer, R. (1991, October). Treatment of Secondary Survivors of Sexual Assault: Trauma, PTSD and its Treatment. Paper presented at the Kentucky Psychological Association Annual Meeting. Louisville, KY.
Remer, R. (1992, April). Date Rape on Campus: Helping Victims and Friends. Paper presented to the Conference of Kentucky College Student Personnel Workers and Administrators, Lexington, KY.
Remer, R. (1993, August). Adjustment and Healing of Secondary and Primary Victims/Survivors/Interface. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto Ontario.
Remer, R. (1994, June). Response to Rape: A Secondary Survivor Viewpoint. Paper presented at the Women's Maternal and Child Health Seminar, Chandler Medical Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Remer, R. (1996) Chaos theory and the canon of creativity. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry, 48, 145-155.
Remer, R. (1997a, August). A Support Group for Secondary Survivors of Sexual Assault. In J. Robinson (Chair), Men's Support Groups-Current Issues. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, ILL.
Remer, R. (1997b). Blinded by the light. Unpublished Manuscript. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Remer, R. (1998a). The secondary survivors of sexual assault: A support group for men. SPSMM Bulletin, 3(2), 16-19.
Remer, R. (1998b). Chaos theory and the Hollander psychodrama curve: Trusting the process. The International Journal of Action Methods: Psychodrama, Skill Training and Role-Playing, 50, 51-70.
Remer, R. (1998c, November). Chaos Theory: The Next Developmental Stage for Psychological Clinical Specialties. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Kentucky Psychological Association, Louisville, KY.
Remer, R. (1998d, April). Spontaneity and Chaos: Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself. Workshop presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, San Francisco, CA.
Remer, R. (1998e). Values orientations: Cultural strange attractors. Unpublished Manuscript. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Remer, R. (1999a, February). Values orientations: Cultural strange attractors. In K. Russo (Chair), Kluckhohn Values Symposium III. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Kluckhohn Values Symposium, Seattle, WA.
Remer, R. (1999b). A Counselling Psychologist's Introduction to Chaos. Unpublished Manuscript. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Remer, R. (1999c). Multicultural therapy/psychology and chaos theory. Unpublished Manuscript. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Remer, R. (2000a). Secondary victims of trauma: Producing secondary survivors. In P. F. Kellerman & M. K. Hudgins (Eds.), Psychodrama and trauma: Acting out your pain (pp. 316-341). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Remer, R. (2000b, August). Sociatric Interventions with Secondary Victims of Trauma: Producing Secondary Survivors. Paper presented at the Congress of the International Association of Group Psychotherapy, Jerusalem, Israel.
Remer, R. (2000c, August). The Evolution of Psychodrama from a Chaos Perspective: Change within the Basin of Attraction. Paper presented at the Congress of the International Association of Group Psychotherapy, Jerusalem, Israel.
Remer, R. (2001). The evolution of sociometric theory from a chaos perspective. International Journal of Action Methods: Psychodrama, Skill Training, and Role-Playing, 53, 17-32.
Remer, R., & Betts, G. R. (1998). The difference between strict analogue and interpersonal psychodramatic simulation methodology (IPS) in research on human dynamical systems. International Journal of Action Methods: Psychodrama, Skill Training, and Role-Playing, 51, 3-23.
Remer, R., & de Mesquita, P. J. (1990). Teaching and learning the skills of interpersonal confrontations. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict (pp. 225-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Remer, R., & Elliott, J. E. (1988a). Characteristics of secondary victims of sexual assault. International Journal of Family Psychiatry, 9, 373-387.
Remer, R., & Elliott, J. E. (1988b). Management of secondary victims of sexual assault. International Journal of Family Psychiatry, 9, 389-401.
Remer, R., & Ferguson, R. (1995). Becoming a secondary survivor of sexual assault. Journal of Counseling and Development, 7, 407-414.
Remer, R., & Ferguson, R. (1997). Treating traumatized partners: Producing secondarysur. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Burnout in families: The systemic cost of caring (pp. 139-170). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Remer, R., Gorman, K. S., Derrickson-Beake, D., & Pinto Jr., W. A. (1998). Family members' agreement on memories of shared experiences. Psychological Reports, 82, 1195-1201.
Reynolds, W. A. (1991). Equity, equality, and reward as related to marital satisfaction, depression, affect, and gender in later life marriages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Watson, J., & Remer, R. (1982). An empirical examination of confrontation efficacy I. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 219 682)
Watson, J. J., & Remer, R. (1984). The effects of interpersonal confrontation on females. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, 607-621.