Behavioral Observation: cont'd
Approaches and findings      
    Predicting Marital Discord from Premarital Affect (Smith et al. 1990 JCCP)
6 weeks prior to marriage (1)
6 months post-marriage   (2)
18 months post-marriage  (3)
30 months post-marriage  (4)          V. Concurrent vs. Longitudinal
               Concurrent correlates measures at the same time
                     (e.g., all at time 1)
               Longitudinal correlates Time earlier with Time later
                     (e.g., Time 1 --> Time 2)
  VI. Results
       A.  Does MS at time 1 predict to later MS?                  Comparison between times:                Correlations  
      1 x 2
    r =.58*
      1x 3
    r= .38*
      1 x 4
    r= .26
       Note: 1, 2, 3 and 4  are time points of testing.

     B. Do Affect ratings predict to MS at various time points?
                   Time 1 to Time 1:  Only Negativity x  MS   r =  -.31
                   Time 1 to 6 mths:   No affect codes predicted
                   Time 1 to 18 mths:  Disengagement predicted  r =  -.27
                   Time 1 to 30 mths:  Disengaement predicted  r =   -.33

VII.  Implications:
      A. MS is not stable in early marriage
      B. Negative affect important very early one, but
      C. Disengagement (Withdrawal) most important predictor over time
           Early evidence of withdrawal is noteworthy
 

 Observational Coding as Language of Interaction       I.  The development of coding constructs   Step 1:
       Define behaviors to observe
       Where do these definitions come from?

   Step 2: Determine whether the codes coalesce into meaningful groups
       For example:
          MICS-IV (Heyman, Eddy, & Weiss, 1995)
               995 couples
               Factor Analysis yielded four factors:
               Hostility

       Constructive Problem Discussion,
       Humor
       Responsibility Discussion      Step 3: See whether the code categories discriminate distressed from
               nondisstressed couples using different analysis techniques (e.g., base
               rates or sequential analysis)

    Question: Do distressed couple behave differently from nondistressed
                    couples?
                  Why is this important? What form of validity is this?

II. Sequential analysis: some findings

    Revenstorf:
        Continued negativity (distancing) -- negative absorbing state
        Positive reciprocity (attraction) -- positive absorbing state
       Alternating problem description and negativity (problem escalation)
       Validation sequences –alternating sequences of problem description and
           positive responses to them (problem acceptance)

    Main findings (replicated many times by others):

  •   distressed couples engage in long chains of reciprocated negativity
  •   the interactions of nondistressed couples take place in a climate of agreement
    •           Negative affect reciprocity and perseveration (failing to cycle out of
              negative loops) characterize distressed couples
              Negativity becomes an absorbing state

       Gottman's Three types of Stable Marriages (based on observational studies)

  •   Volatile
  •   Conflict avoiding
  •    Validating
    •       Differ most in amount and timing of persuasion attempts:
              Volatile – start right off using high emotion
              Validating – wait, usually until the middle phases
              Conflict Avoiders – avoided all attempts to influence the other person

      What predicts divorce: Gottman Studies

          For all three stable types:  Positive to negative code ratios 5.0 positive  to negative,
          whereas  the divorcing couples were .8 positive to negative!
            Therefore, style is not important, only positive to negative ratios.

         Gottman’s "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse"
           Criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stone-walling (listener
              withdrawal)
          Latest Gottman longitudinal study results:  go to  SPAFF Results

    Return to Last Page