Mindmap-Book Summary-GottmanResearchMaritalInteraction

Mindmap-Book Summary-GottmanResearchMaritalInteraction

• About Gottman Research
  • Date Read: April 15,2016
  • Author: John Gottman
  • ISBN:
  • 85 pages
  • MyRating: 5 Stars
• A-Gottman-Dysfunctional Marital Conflict
  • Notes

    Two sets of hypotheses were tested.

    • One hypothesis was derived from a traditional personality theory model that would predict consistency in behavioracross the two settings.

      The other hypothesis was derived from Wile’ssuggestion that conflict is the result of unspoken interactions

    two points of maximum divorce potential

    • one in approximately 5 years after the wedding
    • one approximately years after the wedding

    Two different modes or patterns of time

    • marital interaction during aconflict discussion predicted early versus later divorcing

      A high conflict“attack-defend” mode (with affects like criticism anger contempt belligerence and defensiveness) predicted early divorcing whereas a “withdrawing” mode (with withdrawal negative affectssuch as sadness disgust and listener withdrawal or “stonewalling”) perhaps indicative of emotional disengagement predicted later divorcing.

      Higher levels of time positive affect during the conflict discussionpredicted marital stability

    moments of reciprocal self-disclosure would be the mostimportant units of intimacy

    9 bids for “emotional connection”

    • “turning toward ”
      • reacting in an appropriate connectedfashion as examples or “turning toward” (with various levels of enthusiasm
    • “turning away”
      • The “turning” responses could involve ignoring the partner as oneexample of “turning away ”
      • three types ofTurning Away
        • Preoccupied
        • Interrupt
        • Disregard
    • “turningagainst”
      • varying from a grunt of acknowledgment to an excited eager wholehearted response) or from an irritable to a hostile response (example:“Please I am trying to read.”) we called “turning against.”
    • 1. bid fortheir partner’s attention
      • (example: “There’s a pretty boat”); next on ourhierarchy was bidding for their partner’s interest (requiring a more energeticresponse; example: “Didn’t your dad sail on a boat just likethat?”);
    • 2. bid for their partner’s interest
      • (requiring a more energeticresponse; example: “Didn’t your dad sail on a boat just likethat?”)
    • 3. bid for enthusiastic engagement
      • (example: “Hey witha boat like that we could sail around the world”);
    • 4. bid for extended conversation
      • (example: “Have you called your brother lately? He seemed real down to me last time we talked.”)
    • 5. bid for play
      • (example:rolls up newspaper and bops partner lightly on the head saying “There. I’ve been meaning to do that all day.”);
    • 6. bid for humor –
      • (example: “A guy goes into a psychiatrist with a chicken on his head.”); –
    • 7. bid for affection –
      • (example: most examples were nonverbal butsome were verbal as in “I need a hug.”); –
    • 8. bid for emotional support –
      • (example: “I still can’t understand why I got fired from that job.”); –
    • 9. bid for self disclosure –
      • (example: “What kind of bread did you enjoyeating at home growing up?”) –

    Hypotheses-Two Perpectives

    • 1. one set of hypotheses consistentwith a traditional personality theory approach

      2. one set of hypothesisconsistent with Wile’s (1 3) suggestions that a great deal of maritalconflict may be a result of the conversation the couple never had butneeded to have

    A traditional personality theory approach

    A traditional personality theory approach would predict consistencyacross context to similar marital interactions within each spouse. In particularit would predict that

    • (1) each partner’s turning away codes willbe related to that partner’s withdrawal mode during conflict interaction

      (2) each partner’s turning against codes will be related to that partner’sattack-defend mode during conflict interaction.

    Wile’s (1 3) approach

    • Wile’s (1 3) approach argues for a more complexrelationship between everyday interaction and conflict interaction

      Wile suggested that in everyday interaction people try to have intimateinteractions in various ways and then when these attempts at intimacyfail they generate various forms of marital conflict.

      He suggested thatthe form the conflict takes can either be a collaborative mode (characterizedby self-disclosure and positive affect) or an attack-defend mode(characterized by anger blaming criticism and subsequent defensive-ness) or an avoiding-withdrawal mode (characterized by avoiding conflict in various ways like stonewalling).

      The turning away pattern ineveryday interaction communicates to the bidder “Go away. I am notavailable to respond to your needs ” and this pattern should generate angerand resentment in the bidder thus leading to the attack-defendmode. 4 –

    5 positive codes

    • interest
    • validation
    • affection
    • humor
    • joy
    • 10 negative affect codes
      • disgust
      • contempt
      • belligerence
      • domineering
      • anger
      • fear tension
      • defensiveness
      • whining
      • sadness
      • stonewalling

    Domineering and belligerenceemerged from our previous research on spouse abuse as codeshaving an opposite function

    belligerence was a provocativecode that tended to result in negative affect from the partner (example:“What are you gonna do about it if I go drinking with Dave? Nothingyou can do?” resulted in “That is the typical irresponsible behavior I’vecome to expect from you”)

    domineering (a more controlled persistent form of persuasion perhaps with some potential threat behind it) tended to result in a “squelch the partner” pattern in which the partner backed down and decreased confrontation and negative affect. 6

    in a purelyspeculative manner we might suggest that turning away from bids mayhave serious consequences particularly the husband’s turning away. Itmay be related to his wife’s using the attack-defend mode during conflictdiscussions; this in turn may be related to the husband’s attack-defendmode during conflict

    Turning against bids for connection which suggests an irritable response once again particularly the husband’s turning against his wife’sbids for connection may be related to his own withdrawal from interactionduring conflict discussions; this in turn in our data was related tohis wife’s withdrawal during conflict discussions.

    The data suggest that husbands significantly exceed wives inboth turning away and turning against. We have suggested elsewhere(Gottman & Levenson ) that some forms of physiological arousalmay be more difficult for men than for women to regulate. And recentlyGottman Coan Swanson and Carrère (1 8) reported evidence that thephysiological soothing of the husband (but not of the wife) predicted maritalstability 28

    Perhaps husbands inadvertently regulate the amount andtype of intimacy in everyday marital interaction as an indirect means ofregulating conflict. We would expect different levels of physiological reactivityfor husbands who typically turn toward away or against 28

    Husbandswho turn toward should be the least physiologically reactive; thosewho turn away should be next in reactivity and those who turn againstshould be the most reactive physiologically. 28

    Wile’s ideas

    • First in Wile’s work a clinician derives the conversationthe couple needed to have but did not have solely from the content of theirconflict interaction.

      the couple needed to talk about thestresses of their days and each receive emotional support. The wifeneeded to do this immediately upon reunion after the husband returnedfrom work but the husband wanted a brief cooling down period. Insteadof metacommunicating about this they had a fight. The content of thefight provided leads as to what they needed to do to avoid the fight

      data suggest that the place to look for the conversation theyneeded to have but did not have is in their everyday failed bids for emotionalconnection. This means that clinically we are suggesting that thetherapist specifically look with the couple at failed bids for emotional connectionthat happened during the week as well as conflicts that are upsettingto the couple. This suggests a therapeutic focus beyond the conflict context 4

      Second these results suggest that the two dysfunctional modes of maritalconflict attack-defend and withdraw which are predictive of earlierand later divorcing respectively may have a basis in specific forms offailed bids everyday interactions in which couple’s are seeking emotionalconnection with one another. 4

      Third and this follows from our previous point these data suggest thatperhaps some marital conflict may be changed merely by changing theway couples make bids and or the way they respond to them 2

      Of course an experiment is required to test these hypotheses. However in our clinicalwork these results have become helpful in working on the friendship acouple has and in knowing how to help people build that friendship. Thebids and turning unit can help people become more attentive and mindfulto this mundane part their everyday relationship to the everyday timeswhen they are just “hanging out ” when nothing important seems to behappening but when actually very important things are happening. 29

      It isour clinical experience that failed bids for connection and subsequentloneliness are amajor source of marital conflict. Just helping a couple becomemindful of these moments and investigating the “anatomies” ofbidding and turning can provide insight that is capable of changing thenature of marital intimacy and the nature of conflict interactions as well. 29

• B-Gottman-Marital Interaction-Paper
• C Types of Marriage
  • Five Types of Marriage
    • 1. “Vitalized” couples ( %)reported high relationship quality on all dimensions.

      2.“Harmonious” Couples( %) had relatively high relationship quality.

      3. “Traditional” couples ( %)had scores that were slightly above average with markedly higher scores onparenting and religious scales.

      4. “Conflicted” couples (25%) werecharacterized by moderately low scores on all but the roles scale.

      5 “Devitalized” group ( %) had the lowest scores on every ENRICHdimension.

  • Descriptions of 5 Types of Marriage 5
    • 1. Devitalized Couples 5
      • These couples had the lowest scores on all of the ENRICHscales. 5

        These couples seemed to be pervasively dissatisfied with their marriages 5

        This was also the largest group most likely due to the fact that many of the couples in thesample completed the inventory as part of marital therapy or enrichment. 5

        The individualsin these couples tended to be younger less educated have lower status occupations andincomes and husbands had two jobs more frequently. 5

        The couples were also married fora shorter period of time they had a shorter acquaintance prior to marriage and had ahigher incidence of racial and religious heterogamy. 5

        These characteristics are commonlyassociated with lower marital satisfaction. The external validity of this couple type wasconfirmed in that both partners in a majority of the couples had considered divorce andwere dissatisfied overall. 5

        they were twice as likely to be separated as the conflicted group and times more likely to be separated than the other couple types 6

        one in five of the partners had been previously divorced 6

    • 2. Conflicted Couples 6 –
      • This group had moderately low scores overall with relativelygreater consensus on having egalitarian roles and making religion an important part oftheir relationship 6 –

        Their lowest scores were on marital relationship scales reflectingdifficulties in communication and resolving conflict 6 –

        These couples weredemographically similar to the devitalized couples with less education lower income andjob status and more religious heterogamy than expected by chance. 6 –

        They also tended tobe younger and to be married more recently 6 –

        The external validity of this moderatelydissatisfied cluster was supported in that in a plurality of the couples both partners hadconsidered divorce and were dissatisfied with their marriages overall but they were nomore likely to be separated or previously divorced than the overall sample. 6 –

    • 3. Traditional Couples 6 3
      • The profile for traditional couples is characterized byscores slightly above average on scales assessing satisfaction with marital interaction 6 3

        They were the most satisfied of all groups in how they are handling their children andparenting duties. 6 3

        These couples also had a relative high on their agreement about theplace of religion in their marriages 6 3

        Examination of the individual scores indicates thatthey see religion as an important aspect of their marriage 6 3

        This group tended to beyounger but married longer and have more children than the other types 6 3

        They tended tohave more education and higher incomes than the less satisfied couple types. 6 3

        The wiveswere less frequently employed full-time. 6 3

        These couples appeared to be traditional in theirapproach to marriage as seen by their relatively greater frequency of being in their firstmarriage and less than 1% of them were separated. 6 3

        They married younger had morechildren and the wives tended to work less than in other couples 6 3

        In addition neitherpartner had considered divorce in the majority of couples and both reported beingsatisfied in the vast majority of cases. 6 3

    • 4. Harmonious Couples 7 –
      • These couples had moderately high scores on the scalesassessing marital interaction second only to vitalized couples 7 –

        This group had adrastically lower level of consensus on issues involving parenting. 7 –

        The couples in thisgroup tended to be older married for a shorter period of time and have the fewestchildren of any group 7 –

        They tended to be more educated and have higher status jobs 7 –

        The men have lower incomes more frequently than expected and women earned moremoney with greater than expected frequencies 7 –

        The wives in this group worked full-timemore than in other groups and were less often unemployed. 7 –

        The indicators of externalvalidity show that neither partner in three fourths of the couples in this group hadconsidered divorce and % considered themselves satisfied overall. In addition lessthan 1% were separated. 7 –

        It is worth noting that these couples had significant dissatisfaction with theirparenting yet very often had only one child 7 –

    • 5. Vitalized Couples 7 9
      • The highest levels of satisfaction across all of the domains ofmarriage were found among the vitalized couples 7 9

        They had particularly high scores onmarital interaction scales. 7 9

        This means that these couples were particularly comfortablewith their spouse’s habits and personality felt comfortable with their ability tocommunicate and were able to resolve conflict successfully. 7 9

        The couples in this grouptended to be older married longer were more educated and had higher incomes and jobstatus. 7 9

        Husbands tended to have two jobs less frequently and to be working part-timemore often. 7 9

        All of these indicators are typically associated with higher maritalsatisfaction and less stress on the relationship 7 9

        The validation criteria were striking inthis group with neither partner having considered divorce in 86% of the couples virtually all of them reporting satisfaction overall and none being separated 7 9

• D. Intimate Relationship Satisfaction
  • 3 Variables-Intimate Relationship
    • 1. Interpersonal communication
      • The communication processes within a couple have been strongly emphasized in relationshipcounseling and it has been proposed that “the study of marriage and marital therapy can best be advancedat this time through a better understanding of marital communication processes” 2

        Communication skills have even been claimed to be the “key” and “lifeblood ” ofa successful relationship 2

        Research has backed up this claim and hasfound that good communication skills can differentiate satisfied from unsatisfied couples 2

    • 2. sexual communication
    • 3. communication affect
• E-Gottman-What Does Research Tell Us About Healthy Relationships
  • Two Types of Couples
    • Healthy Regulated 6
      • Have increased couplesatisfaction 6
      • Less likely to experienceflooding which refersgenerally to feelingoverwhelmed emotionally 6
    • Unhealthy Unregulated or Hostile 6
      • Have decreased couple satisfaction 6
      • Increased use of the Four Horsemen 6
      • More likely to experience flooding 6
      • Less able to calm own emotionalreactions or to soothe partner 6

    Five to One Ratio:

    Healthy couples have a 5 to 1 ratio of positive to negative behaviors. Unregulated couples have a much lower ratio ofpositive to negative behaviors. 6

    Positive Behaviors 6

    • Expressions of Humor 6
    • Affection 6
    • Interest 6
    • Joy 6

    Negative Behaviors 6

    • Expressions of Anger 6
    • Contempt or Disgust 6
    • Whining 6
    • Sadness 6
    • Fear and Tension 6

    Three Types of Healthy Regulated Couples 4

    1. Validating 4

    • These couples handle conflict in an and cooperative manner; they exhibit increased positive emotionsand a respect for each other’s opinions 4

      They believe in emotional expressiveness but in moderation at the right times and only on central issues 4

      There is an emphasis on “we-ness” and companionship 4

      They peak in their attempts to influence their partner in the middle third of the interaction which is theagenda building or negotiation phase 4

    2. Volatile 4

    • Like the validating couples this type of couple handles their differences in an manner but in acompetitive manner 4

      They exhibit a high frequency of negative emotions and an attempt to persuade their partner’s opinion.During conflict these couples begin their persuasions attempts right away which remains high throughoutthe interaction 4

      They are the most emotionally expressive of the three types. Positive and negative feelings are freelyexpressed 4

      These couples show high levels of affection and humor in the midst of an argument; they use a “we againstthem” stance. 4

      Men who prefer volatile relationships are just as likely as women to bring up issues. 4

      They value ness and honesty and like to see strength in one another and are very supportive of mutualindependence

    3. Conflict-Avoiding – 3

    • These couples confront their differences covertly downplay negative emotions and focus on theirsimilarities. – 3

      They minimize the importance of the problem at hand; they gossip; they focus on the strength of therelationship; they reiterate their shared beliefs; the reaffirm their commitment to one another; and theyend conversations with a note of optimism – 3

      These couples will at times explore their emotions because their goal is acceptance but any emotionalexpression is usually low-key. – 3

    Mismatched Unregulated Couples 27

    • It is ideal for the relationship when partners have the same kind of conflict resolution pattern. Although toothers the relationship will look dysfunctional it generally works out for them 27

      When people have different conflict resolution patterns several problems can arise. These couples findthemselves stuck in problems they cannot resolve which causes both of them emotional pain and leads tonegative ways of interacting. 27

      Both individuals exhibit personal attacks 27

      Both have a decrease in positive emotions 27

      There is an increased intensity in conflicts 27

    The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

    • All couples exhibit negative behaviors that are damaging to the relationship. However couples that areunregulated exhibit an increased amount of damaging behaviors

      The most damaging of these behaviors are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. They show the relationship isin crisis and are shown to be predictors of divorce

      The Four Horsemen are also found in healthy couples but are much more frequent in unregulated couples andwithout the repair attempts found in stable relationships

      The behaviors that make up the Four Horsemen are

      • Criticism
        • Attacking someone’s personality or character rather than a specific behavior and is usually accompanied withblame

          Any statement that implies there is something globally wrong with one’s partner something that is probably alasting aspect of the partner’s character.

          Any statement that begins with “you always” or “you never” is a criticism rather than a complaint

          Example: “You talked about yourself all through dinner and didn’t ask me anything about my day. How can youtreat me this way? What kind of a self-centered person are you?

      • Defensiveness
        • Any attempt to defend oneself from a perceived attack. A general stance of warding off a perceived attack. 5

          A common defensive mechanism is where someone rarely admits they are wrong and instead blames the otherpartner for not somehow preventing the mistake which makes it their fault. 5

          Usually this includes denying responsibility for the problem by diverting deflecting attacking or defending which fuels the conflict. 5

          Example: “How about when you explode into a tantrum?” 5

      • Contempt
        • Any statement or nonverbal behavior that puts oneself on a higher plane than one’s partner 5

          The facial expression of contempt such as eye rolling is particularly corrosive to relationships 5

          Contempt is the single best predictor of divorce; it is found heavily in unregulated couples and essentially zero inhappy relationships – 1

          Example: “It’s not ‘I could care less ’ it’s ‘I couldn’t care less.’ At least get that right!” – 1

      • Withdrawal (alsoreferred to as Stonewalling
        • Occurs when the listener withdraws (through physically leaving or emotionally shutting down) from theinteraction – 2

          Non-verbal behavior expresses the withdrawal such as few glances looking away or down stiff neck sayinglittle concealing or lack of facial expression – 2

          85% of Stonewallers are men; when women stonewall it is very predictive of divorce – 2

          Men usually stonewall as an attempt to decrease their state of being flooded and to self-soothe – 2

• F-Gottman-Empirical Basis
• G Signs Of Relationahip Failures
  • The First Sign: A Harsh Startup
  • The Second Sign: The Four Horsemen
  • The Third Sign: Flooding
  • The Fourth Sign: Body Language
  • The Fifth Sign: Failed Repair Attempts
  • The Sixth Sign: Bad Memories
• H Principles-Making Marriage Works
  • Inside the Seattle Love Lab: the truth about happy marriages
    • Stats: 9
    • Myths
      • 1. neurosis or personality problems ruin marriage 3
      • 2. common interests keep people together 3
      • 3. reciprocity keeps a good relationship 3
      • 4. Avoiding conflict will ruin your marriage 3
      • 5. Affairs are the root causes of divorce 3
      • 6. Men are not biologically built for marriage 1 – 6
      • 7. Men and women are from different planets: 1 – 6
    • What does make marriages work? 1
  • How I predict divorce
    • Final 4 stages that signal divorce
      • 1. you see your marital problems as severe 2
      • 2. talking things over seems useless – you solve problems on your own 2
      • 3. you start leading parallel lives 2
      • 4. loneliness sets in. 3
    • couple therapy
      • Gottman: couple therapy is not about negotiating skills or conflict resolution. Such approaches do notwork!!!!! It is also about what people do right when they do not argue: i.e. therefore work onincreasing the friendship!!!! And that is where Gottman 7 Principles enter!!!!! 3
    • 1. Harsh startup
    • 2. Four horsemen of the apocalypse
      • a. Criticism 1 6
      • b. Contempt 1 6
      • c. Defensiveness 2 4
      • d. Stonewalling 2 4
    • 3. Flooding
    • 4. Body language
    • 5. Failed repair attempts
    • 6. Bad memories
  • 7 Principles
    • Principle 1: enhance your love maps
    • Principle 2: nurture your fondness and admiration
    • Principle 3: turn towards each other and not away
    • Principle 4: let your partner influence you
    • Principle 5: solve your solvable problems
    • Principle 6: Overcoming Gridlock
    • Principle 7: Creating shared meaning
• Compiled By:
  • blindcaveman.wordpress.com
  • Rigel Arcayan