A NEW MODEL FOR MARITAL THERAPY?
Gary Cooper in the May/June Family Therapy Networker
It's not often that
a longitudinal study on marital interactions
gets the kind of national media
attention that University of Washington
researcher John Gottman received
when his article appeared when the
Journal of Marriage and the Family
ran his most recent article in
its February issue. The Washington
Post announced that Gottman's
6-year study of the ups and downs
of 130 newlyweds had resulted
in a "counseling theory that may
rock the marriage therapists'
boat." In a front page story, the
LA Times said that Gottman's
study suggests that "the widespread
use ofactive listening in
marital counseling--a field already
beset by sharp philosophical
division--should be abandoned."
Even beyond the popular media,
the study set off alarm bells and
debates among therapists that
are still reverberating.
Gottman's study was the latest installment
in his 20-yearground-
breaking investigation of the connections
between the ways
couples handle conflicts
and their level of marital satisfaction.
Widely regarded as one of the most
respected researchers of
couples' interactions, Gottman's
work on predicting divorce
and marital satisfaction through
behavioral, verbal and physio-
logical interactional patterns,
and his procedures for coding
those patterns, have contributed
a staggering amount of data to
the field. "I've said before that
I'd nominate him for a Nobel
Prize if they offered one in studying
marital relationships,"
says Bernard Guerney, director of
the National Institute of
relationship Enhancement.
Gottman's latest study was part of
his ongoing attempt to
describe relational patterns
shared by successfully married
couples. Suggesting that marital
therapy's high relapse rate is
due to therapists working with models
derived from insufficiently
empirical data and from assumptions
transplanted from individual
psychotherapy, Gottman set out to
examine a variety of therapeutic
theories concerning marriage:
that anger is necessarily destructive
and that successful marriages depend
upon the ability of both
partners to recognize their childhood
wounds. He also wondered
whether active listening, "the model
which forms the basis of most
complex multi-component marital
treatments," really leads to
better marriages.
Directly observing couples, whom
he calls "the masters and
disasters of marriage," Gottman's
team videotaped the verbal
and behavioral patterns and monitored
the physiological stress
responses of 130 couples as they
discussed conflictual issues.
In addition to testing the hypothesis,developed
through his earlier
studies, that marital outcomes can
be predicted by measuring the
male's physiological stress
reaction when the female initiates criticism
or begins an argument, Gottman also
tested the predictive accuracy
of other patterns that therapists
have assumed lead to either divorce
or satisfaction-- whether the corrosiveness
of anger predicts
divorce, for instance, or whether
active listening predicts marital
satisfaction or success.
After following the couples' marriages for
six years, Gottman found that
the only accurate predictions of both
positive andnegative marital outcome
resulted from measuring the
male's level of distress in the
face of the female's perceived
criticism or argumentativeness.
Thus, a harmonious, lasting marriage
is one in which, when
the female initiates negativity, the male reacts
with reduced physiological stress.
Based upon this finding, Gottman
suggested marital therapists should
help couples focus on a model
of
the woman "softening her nagative
start-up" and the male reacting
with humor, affection or compromise--a
pattern designed to reduce
his stress levels.
Gottman was "astonished" to find
that active listening was barely
present in successful relationships
and wondered whether therapists
ought to spend much time teaching
it. But psychologist Howard Markman,
developer of PREP, another marital
psychoeducational model, says
that Gottman's analysis of active
listening sets up a "straw man."
Insisting it's irrelevant whether
happy couples use it, Markman
says, "We use it to help
couples disrupt the negative patterns
that
predict divorce." Guerney, saying
that Gottman defines active listening
as a kind of mechanistic paraphrasing,
objects to being identified as
a proponent of this type of communication,
pointing out that his
empathic- response model involves
genuine emotional connection
within the communication.
Gottman himself insists that he's no enemy
of active listening, pointing
out that he will continue to use it in his m
arital workshops. "Of course
active listening can have an impact,"
he
says. "I'm just saying it doesn't
predict anything longitudinally
and
that couples who have successful
relationships don't
use it all that much."
The reason Gottman's findings have
generated such debate may have
more to do with
his media relations than his science. The popular media
like nothing better than
to turn a study mentioning mediocre marital therapy
success into a controversial
pronouncement about the efficacy of
traditional
therapy methods. Even a press release
from his own University of Washington
announced, "Gottman may have turned
traditional marriage counseling
protocol on its head." When he talks
with the press, says Diane Sollee,
director of the Coalition for Marriages,
Families and Couples Education,
"John might sometimes forget he's
not talking to other therapists," and
doesn't sufficiently highlight the
nuances of his data and the shading of
his conclusions. Then therapists
react to what they see as a negative
start-up, and the stress level starts
spiraling.
Return to Abstracts |