19 Marital communication
Abstract: For many people marriage is the most consequential relationship of their adult lives, yet the high divorce rate suggests that it can be a relationship laden with difficulties. This chapter presents several conceptual models designed to explain changes in marital quality and skill-based models of marital quality. The maintenance of positive affect and reduction or management of negative affect are key processes associated with long-term martial outcomes that are strongly influenced by marital communication behaviors. These behaviors include disclosure, expressing positive affect and provision of social support on the positive side, and anger, demand-withdrawal, and emotional and verbal aggression on the negative side. Many of these negative behaviors have proven to be useful indicators of a couple’s risk for divorce. Finally, researchers have been able to reliably classify marriages into distinct types, based in part on their communication behaviors, particularly how the couple handles marital conflicts. Collectively, these finding illustrate the major role of communication processes in marital success and failure.
Key Words: marital satisfaction, emotion, conflict, social support, divorce, couple types
1 Introduction
Although most people get married at some point in their lives, a large portion of these marriages end in divorce. For example, in the United States about 45% of all recently initiated marriages are predicted to end in divorce, with about 5% more ending in permanent separation (Amato 2010). The highest divorce rates in the world can be found in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the United States, Cuba, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic (United Nations 2011). In the United States the crude divorce rate (number of divorces per 1,000 people in the population) has decreased slightly in the past 10 years; however, the marriage rate has as well. Therefore, what appears to be a slight drop in the divorce rate is at least partly an artifact of having fewer people in the population eligible for divorce. Other industrialized nations such as Germany, Japan, Denmark and the United Kingdom have experienced either stable or slightly increasing divorce rates between 1980 and 2000 (Martin and Kats 2003).
Most people who marry expect their union to be a lifelong commitment rich in companionship, intimacy, and romance (Thornton and Young-DeMarco 2001). In reality, these expectations often go unfulfilled. Many marriages end in divorce and a substantial number of other marriages remain intact but lack the emotional fulfillment expected by spouses when they began their union. Social scientists have devoted considerable research attention to the processes that lead to marital dissatisfaction and dissolution and the processes that are associated with marital satisfaction. Although interrelated, both sets of processes deserve attention in their own right because creating a good marriage requires more than simply avoiding negative actions (Segrin 2006).
This chapter is devoted to understanding the communication processes that affect marital quality. The pursuit of this understanding has led to conceptual models of marital quality and marital change, as well as skill-based models of relationship maintenance. This chapter opens with a review of some prominent conceptual and skill-based models. Next, we focus attention on two challenges in marital interaction that have been identified by Gottman (1993) as most vital for the success of a marriage: maintaining positive affect and reducing negative affect. In doing so, we highlight work that shows how specific communication behaviors influence marital quality. Without question, marital quality and longevity are influenced by other perceptual and contextual processes such as changing societal attitudes toward divorce, economic independence of women, and increases in premarital cohabitation, but the scope of this chapter is restricted to communication processes in marriage. Toward the end of the chapter, we examine the unique ways that different types of couples regulate marital quality.
2 Models of marital quality
2.1 Conceptual models of marital quality
The term “marital satisfaction” refers to a subjective and global appraisal of how happy and content people are with their marriage. “Marital quality” is often used in a more general sense and includes constructs such as marital satisfaction, as well as related indicators of marital quality such as commitment, attachment, and trust. Family scientists have developed several theoretical models designed to explain marital quality and why satisfaction changes for so many married couples. There is no single model that is useful for explaining all or even most cases of marital stability, but some models enjoy more empirical support than others (Caughlin and Huston 2006).
The relational bank account model of marital satisfaction and erosion posits that satisfied couples maintain a positive balance in their relational bank account by making more deposits to the relationship than withdrawals (Clements et al. 1997; Markman 1984). Making a deposit requires expressing positive relational behaviors (e.g., affection, intimacy, compliments, agreements). Withdrawals result from negative relational behaviors (e.g., put downs, criticisms, defensiveness). Using a similar analogy of an emotional bank account in marriage, Gottman (1994) explains that the relationships of stable, happy couples are defined by a balance of positivity that overpowers the negativity. According to Gottman (1994), most stable, happy couples maintain a 5 : 1 ratio of positive to negative behaviors even during conflict discussions, as compared with unstable, dissatisfied couples who express as much or more negativity than positivity. When discussing non-conflict topics such as the events of the day, the account balance of satisfied couples is boosted with a ratio of positive to negative behaviors even larger than 5 : 1.
Gottman (1999) articulated a more expansive model of marital quality that he termed the core triad of balance. This model proposes that marital interaction can be understood from three domains of human experience: behavior, perception, and physiology. Although the focus of this chapter is on communication behaviors, the core triad of balance expands on the relational or emotional bank account models that focus primarily on verbal and nonverbal behaviors. The core triad of balance acknowledges that stable, happy couples are defined by positivity in their perceptions and physiology as well. By perceptions, Gottman refers to the idiosyncratic ways people cognitively process behaviors and events. Physiology refers to the way one’s body feels and functions (e.g., heart rate, breathing) as a result of behaviors and perceptions in the relationship. The three domains are interrelated. For example, negative perceptions may stem from or, in turn, prompt certain negative behaviors. Negative behaviors or perceptions can also trigger negative physiological arousal. The challenge for couples is to regulate each domain at a “stable, steady state,” or to maintain a pervasive culture of positivity (Gottman 1999: 33). Marital quality becomes threatened when the negative threshold of any domain in the triad is exceeded (Carrère et al. 2000).
The vast majority of marriages experience changes in satisfaction over time. For some marriages, declines in satisfaction are so severe that the couple divorces. For others, changes in satisfaction over time merely represent a recalibration from the idealistic and perhaps euphoric honeymoon phase of the marriage to a more realistic appraisal of the marriage’s quality. Attempting to explain the source of change in marital satisfaction over time, Huston and his associates have tested several models of marital change after following newlywed couples for over 13 years into their marriage.
According to the disillusionment model, couples enter marriage with idealized views of each other (Huston, Caughlin, et al. 2001). This idealization is the result of part imagination by one spouse and part impression management by the other. The erosion of love and the eventual appearance of ambivalent feelings toward the marriage explain the development of marital distress and divorce. The difficulty of sustaining idealized images of each other, along with decreased motivation to enact positive behaviors to impress each other, is thought to cultivate feelings of disillusionment. Consistent with the disillusionment model, the emergent distress model also assumes that marriages start out with high levels of satisfaction. However, eventually problems surface and antagonistic behaviors, particularly during conflict, erode the positive aspects of marriage over time. In the emergent distress model, it is the expression of negativity that is the presumed cause of declining marital satisfaction, whereas in the disillusionment model it is the deconstruction of positive illusions and an increasingly accurate view of reality that causes marital satisfaction to decline. A third perspective, called the enduring dynamics model, departs from the prior models by assuming that courtship is not a period of idealization and extreme impression management. Rather, would-be spouses come to marriage with some awareness of each others’ shortcomings. This model postulates that patterns of interpersonal interaction are established in courtship and persevere into marriage, largely unchanged.
In most Western cultures the lay perception of marital decline is most consistent with the emergent distress model: Marriages generally start out fine and then negative events occur (e.g., conflict, infidelity, other destructive behaviors) that cause marriages to deteriorate. However, most of the research that has explicitly examined different models of changing marital satisfaction provides far more support for the enduring dynamics model than for either of the other two. For example, the expression of negativity during marital interactions that occurred within the first two months of marriage was found to be predictive of marital satisfaction and stability measured 13 years later (Huston, Caughlin, et al. 2001). Also, trait anxiety (a stable personality trait assessed at the time of marriage) has been found to be associated with increased levels of negativity (e.g., complaining, criticizing, yelling), that in turn predict declines in the partner’s satisfaction years later (Caughlin, Huston, and Houts 2000). Such findings indicate that the roots of eventual marital distress are often evident at the time of marriage, if not before. In other words, among currently married couples, those who report that they are happy were probably happy at the time of their marriage, and those who report being unhappy were probably relatively unhappy at the time of their marriage. Research showing that the happiest couples 13 years into their marriage were also the most in love at the time of their marriage support this contention (Huston, Caughlin, et al. 2001). Huston, Niehuis, and Smith (2001) observed that the disillusionment model is a better explanation for couples that eventually divorced. Many of the couples in their study who went on to divorce showed sharp drops in affection and responsiveness, and increases in ambivalence toward the marriage in the first two years of marriage.
Research on couples before and after initiation of their marriage shows that although marital satisfaction may change over time, couples’ communication patterns are relatively stable (e.g., Noller and Feeney 1998; Prado and Markman 1999). Many of the problematic communication behaviors such as negativity, criticism, conflict, and poor perceptual and sending skills can be identified before a couple marries (Huston and Houts 1998). These findings lead to an undeniable conclusion. The communication behaviors that will ultimately lead to the demise of marriage are already in place before the husband and wife marry. The fact of the matter is that “irreconcilable differences” that are commonly cited as a cause for divorce may well be in place before the wedding day. According to Gottman and Mark-man’s bank account model, most couples start out with a positive balance that causes them to be content with their relationship. Even though negative behaviors, or “withdrawals,” may be evident at the time of marriage, it takes some time for couples to accumulate enough of these to actually distress their marriage. Huston and his associates (e.g., Huston, Niehuis, and Smith 2001) use the term “enduring-dynamics” to characterize the hypothesis that patterns established early in the relationship persevere and lead to later declines in marital happiness. Although there is sound evidence for the enduring dynamics model, negative changes in feelings and behaviors can also be identified in couples headed for divorce (Huston, Caughlin et al. 2001). Consequently, many marriages end up on the rocks because of both enduring patterns of interaction that predate the marriage as well as changes in the marriage that lead to disillusion, and perhaps even the interaction between the two.
2.2 Skill based models of marital quality
Alongside conceptual models of marital quality are equally important skill-based tactics and principles for sustaining marital quality. Two of the most well-known are Gottman’s principles for making marriage work along with Stafford and Canary’s relationship maintenance behaviors. Gottman developed his principles after years of observing successful and unsuccessful married couples interact in the laboratory. Stafford and Canary originally identified their list of behaviors by asking couples what they do to maintain their relationship. Neither is meant to be an exhaustive list of principles. Both rest on the premise that marital satisfaction is high when marriages begin, but that satisfaction must be nurtured and maintained in a preemptive way, rather than waiting until the health of the marriage has deteriorated. Both also acknowledge that a majority of relationship maintenance behaviors are the small and even routine behaviors that keep a healthy marriage going. Upon examining each, it becomes apparent that there is considerable overlap between the two lists.
Canary and Stafford (1992) originally presented a list of five primary relationship maintenance behaviors, but the typology has been expanded in other research (Stafford, Dainton, and Haas, 2000), and most recently refined in a 7-factor measure (Stafford 2011). Stafford’s (2011) relationship maintenance behaviors include: (1) positivity (i.e., acting upbeat, cheerful, optimistic, or having a global positive demeanor), (2) understanding (i.e., expressing understanding rather than judgment, and offering forgiveness or an apology), (3) self-disclosure (i.e., self-disclosing general feelings and fears and encouraging the partner to share thoughts and feelings), (4) assurances (i.e., showing and telling a partner how much s/he means and talking about a future together), (5) tasks (i.e., helping with household tasks and other responsibilities that face the couple), (6) networks (i.e., relying on a joint family and/or friend network for activities and aid), and a final type of self-disclosure that Stafford found to be negatively related to relational quality, (7) relational talk (i.e., discussing the quality and state of the relationship). Stafford’s (2011) recent work shows that not all forms of self-disclosure (e.g., compare relational talk with self-disclosure) function to maintain relationships. Relational talk is a type of self-disclosure partners use to discuss relational problems and evaluate the relationship. For many couples, the outcome of this kind of talk may be more negative than positive.
Gottman bases his approach on seven principles. As described by Gottman and Silver (1999), they include: (1) enhance love maps (i.e., being familiar with the primary events, feelings, and history in each other’s lives), (2) nurture fondness and admiration (i.e., expressing genuine liking, respect), (3) turn toward each other (i.e., acknowledging and responding to a partner’s bids for affection, support, attention, or humor), (4) accept influence from the partner (i.e., when appropriate, considering the partner’s feelings and opinions, (5) solve solvable problems (i.e., using good conflict resolution tactics to solve situational conflicts), (6) overcome gridlock (i.e., dealing with persistent or deep-rooted perpetual problems through dialogue, understanding, and compromise), and (7) create shared meaning (i.e., creating relational symbols and rituals that honor the relationship).
Three of Gottman’s principles, “enhancing love maps,” “nurturing fondness and admiration,” and “creating shared meaning,” are about orienting thoughts and behaviors so as to appreciate and understand one’s partner and to recognize the meaning in the relationship. Several of Stafford’s behaviors, “self-disclosure,” “understanding,” “assurances,” and “positivity,” are grounded in a similar intent. Both models emphasize that intimacy is grounded not just in self-disclosure, but also in partner responsiveness, that is, “turning toward,” as Gottman terms it, or “understanding” one’s partner, as Stafford terms it. In comparison to Stafford’s list of behaviors, Gottman’s principles are more specific in documenting how successful couples deal with a variety of situational and enduring conflicts as well as influence attempts in marriage. Stafford’s behaviors uniquely highlight the importance of balancing shared friend and family networks. Of the behaviors and principles delineated in each model, none is a new, groundbreaking tactic or a tactic that is only available to trained couples. Rather it is largely the identification of these tactics that allows couples to become more consciously aware of specific and tangible ways to maintain a relationship. Most of the behaviors are ones that spouses simply forget to enact over time or fail to develop in intentional ways, thus leaving the relationship vulnerable to other less desirable forms of interaction.
3 Positive and negative themes in marital interaction
Aside from the conceptual and skill-based models, marital communication researchers have also examined specific aspects of marital interaction that are beneficial or deleterious to marital quality. Some scholars have lamented that much of the research on marital interaction has focused heavily on negative affect, and namely how spouses handle negative affect in conflict episodes, to the exclusion of positive affect (Fincham and Beach 2010). Even when it is considered, positive affect is often examined for the role it plays in handling conflict episodes, with far fewer studies of positive affect in non-conflictual, positive interactions (Graber et al. 2011). This lacuna is unfortunate, especially after work more than a decade ago established that fading positive affect in the early years of marriage means greater likelihood for divorce, above and beyond the effects of conflict (Huston, Caughlin et al. 2001, see also Markman et al. 2010). In the upcoming section, skill-based approaches are expanded by highlighting research on positive communication behaviors, some of which occur in non-conflictual episodes, for example in interactions that involve expressing affection and offering support, and others that are effective in navigating conflict episodes, such as positive problem solving. This discussion is followed by a summary of the negative communication behaviors that spark conflict and influence the course of conflict in marriage.
3.1 Positive communication
3.1.1 Expressing positive affect
In comparison to dissatisfied couples, satisfied couples spend more time expressing positive affect (e.g., fondness and admiration) toward their partners (Gottman and Silver 1999). The notion that such expressions boost marital satisfaction has been corroborated by other researchers. For example, Graber et al. (2011) instructed newlywed couples to reflect on positive feelings about their partner for a period of time, followed by an interaction task where they were asked to spend close to 15 min. talking about their positive feelings with their partner. The more positive affective behavior that spouses expressed in this interaction task, the more marital satisfaction and less divorce proneness they reported. In addition to direct verbal expressions of positive affect, indirect and nonverbal expressions are powerful means of showing positivity, expressing love and interest, complimenting partners, and even repairing or deescalating conflict. Flirting behaviors, many of which are indirect or nonverbal, have been found to be critical for married couples, not just dating couples (Frisby 2009).
3.1.2 Disclosure and Responsiveness
Compared to less satisfied couples, satisfied couples also spend more time “debriefing” each other about the events of the day (Vangelisti and Banski 1993). As described earlier in this chapter, Gottman’s principles suggest that successful couples stay updated on their partners’ feelings, likes, and dislikes as a means of maintaining intimacy and staying connected as a couple. Nurturing this connection comes naturally to most dating couples because one primary goal in dating is to get to know a partner. Such exchanges of self-disclosure remain important over time as spouses change.
Yet to study spouses’ self-expressions and self-disclosures without investigating what effect they have on their partners makes little sense in research on marital interaction. Reis and Patrick (1996) contend that emotional intimacy is as an interactive process – one that begins with a spouse’s verbal or nonverbal self-expression followed by a partner’s response that makes the spouse feel “understood, validated, and cared for” (p. 536). Self-disclosure alone is not a path to intimacy, but the right kind of partner responsiveness is critical. Laurenceau, Barrett, and Rovine (2005) found that partner responsiveness (i.e., expressing understanding, validation, and care) predicts intimacy, even above the effects of self-disclosure and partner-disclosure.
3.1.3 Emotional bidding
In line with Reis and Patrick’s interactive view of intimacy, Gottman stresses the importance of what he terms the emotional bidding process. Self-expressions are “bids” spouses make for affection and attention (Gottman and DeClaire 2001). “A bid can be a question, a gesture, a look, a touch – any single expression that says, ‘I want to be connected to you’” (Gottman and DeClaire: 4). Bids can be direct and explicit (e.g., A husband discloses to a wife, “I wish we could spend more time together”) or more subtle. As described by Gottman and DeClaire (2001: 31), a majority of bids are expressed without words, as in the case of vocalizations (e.g., laughing, chuckling, grunting, sighing, or groaning in a way that invites interaction or interest), affectionate touching (e.g., a back-slap, a handshake, a pat, a squeeze, a kiss, a hug, or a back or shoulder rub), or affiliating gestures (e.g., opening a door, offering a place to sit, handing over a utensil, or pointing to a shared activity or interest).
In the emotional bidding process, intimacy depends on whether the partner responds by accepting the bids (Gottman and DeClaire 2001). Bids are accepted by figuratively “turning toward” with a response that at least acknowledges the bid and, better yet, communicates support, expresses positive feelings or agreement, or indicates that the partner is listening. In our own research, we found that regardless of whether wives were expressing complaints or compliments during an interaction, if their husbands gazed at them more while listening, their marital well-being was higher (Flora and Segrin 2000). If it is the case that husbands’ gaze communicates “I’m taking the time to be attentive to you,” then such a nonverbal acknowledgement may be valued by wives because it indicates the very opposite of withdrawal – involvement. An alternative to responsiveness is ignoring a bid, for example, when partners are too preoccupied to notice the bid or too busy to respond. Worse yet, bids can be denied with disconfirming, defensive, contradictory, critical, or sarcastic responses.
3.1.4 Provision of social support
Well aware of how critical partner responsiveness is to maintaining intimacy and positive affect, several social support researchers have turned their attention to the marriage context. Some of this research examines not only social support for spouses’ negative events, but also supportive acknowledgement of and capitalization on spouses’ positive events. Offering supportive responses when spouses share good things is related to relational well-being (Gable, Gonzaga, and Strachman 2006). Unfortunately, some spouses fail to acknowledge their partner’s disclosures of positive events, missing an opportunity to capitalize on positivity. Responding to good events with active enthusiasm can demonstrate acknowledgement, pride, validation, and admiration of a partner’s strengths (Gable et al. 2006).
When responding to negative events, it appears that some types of social support are more beneficial to marriages than others. Comparing different types of support offered in marriage (e.g., informational, emotional, esteem, or tangible support), esteem support and emotional support are most consistently linked with marital satisfaction (Brock and Lawrence, 2009; Xu and Burleson 2004). Brock and Lawrence found that any level of esteem support is positively related to marital quality for both husbands and wives. In the Brock and Lawrence study, it was as if spouses could not get too much support of the type that boosted their self-esteem. However, husbands who received more informational support (i.e., informative tips or advice) than they desired from their wives experienced poorer marital quality. For wives, marital quality was negatively affected by too much support from husbands in the following forms: informational, tangible, and emotional support. Thus it may be possible to offer too much support, especially if it is of the wrong type. Clearly unwanted advice and directives can do more harm than good to relationships.
Being supportive toward a partner’s positive and negative events appears to rest on what Gordon and Baucom (2009) call positive affectivity. Although there are several components, one major component in Gordon and Baucom’s definition of positive affectivity is optimism. Optimism refers to being globally optimistic about the relationship and partner, including sharing the partner’s good fortune and positive disclosures. Another major component is adaptive coping skills, whereby a partner helps positively reframe negative stressors, rebuild a partner’s esteem, and take active steps toward coping. Positive affectivity is especially important because it is related to higher marital satisfaction for both spouses (Gordon and Baucom 2009).
3.1.5 Forgiveness
Recently there has been a major surge in research concerning the perceptual and communicative process of forgiveness in marriage. Forgiveness occurs when one spouse communicates undeserved sympathy or absolution toward the other spouse, most commonly in the face of some significant relational transgression. Forgiveness is as much of an interpersonal communication process as it is an individual decision, and it is deeply rooted in the communication exchanges of spouses (Waldron and Kelly 2008). When couples enact forgiveness with benevolence (e.g., accepting their partners’ humanness, flaws, and failures) they tend to experience better conflict resolution both concurrently (Fincham, Beach, and Davila 2004) and prospectively (Fincham, Beach, and Davila 2007). People who explicitly forgive their partners and who couple their forgiving communication with nonverbal behaviors that signify genuineness tend to experience improvement in their relationship after a transgression (Waldron and Kelly 2005). Unfortunately, the effects of forgiveness are not uniformly positive as some evidence shows that forgiveness from one spouse may promote continuation of negative behaviors by the other spouse (McNulty 2010).
To this point, we have presented positive communication behaviors in mostly non-conflictual interactions, but the discussion of forgiveness naturally leads to addressing other positive problem solving tactics used during conflictual interactions. Although it is not possible to address all positive problem solving behaviors in this chapter, some critical tactics include compromise and accepting influence (vs. defensiveness), soothing oneself physiologically (vs. becoming emotionally flooded), and initiating conflict in gentle ways (vs. starting up conflict with harsh criticisms). Some these positive tactics are covered in upcoming sections on negative behaviors because they represent the constructive foil to that negative behavior.
3.2. Negative communication
There is no communication behavior that has been the focus of more attention in marriage than conflict. In fact, it has been argued that “Nearly all communication-based research and theory on marriage has been focused on how couples contend with conflicts and disagreements” (Sullivan et al. 2010: 631). The tacit assumption underwriting this line of research is that problems with managing and resolving conflicts presage the deterioration of marital satisfaction and ultimately marital stability. As will become evident, certain patterns of marital conflict can be detrimental to marital well-being. Research on marital conflict has also focused on the experience and expression of negative affective states during conflict interactions. These too can foreshadow impending marital doom. Before we briefly examine findings on marital conflict and negative affect, two points must be stressed. First, it is the specific form and nature of marital conflicts, not the sheer frequency, that predict declines in marriage. Second, even though conflict and negative affect are useful predictors of marital well-being, it is now evident that the expression of support and positivity is also an important indicator of marital outcomes (e.g., Flora and Segrin 2000; Ledermann et al. 2012). Clearly, there is more to a “good marriage” than the mere absence of destructive patterns of marital conflict and corrosive negative emotions.
3.2.1 Behavioral cascade toward divorce
John Gottman and his colleagues have identified a series of destructive marital conflict behaviors that reliably signal risk for divorce (Gottman 1993, 1994; Gottman and Krokoff 1989). These conflict behaviors have been identified through laboratory-based observations of married couples’ interactions, coupled with longitudinal follow-up assessments. Gottman characterized the pattern of these conflict behaviors as elements of a behavioral process cascade toward marital dissolution. Once the cascade is set in motion, subsequent stages or elements of the process become inevitable and non-reversible. The cascade conceptualization comes from demonstration that elements in the behavioral cascade form a Guttman-like progression whereby enactment of behaviors at one stage of the model only occurs in marriages where spouses also enacted earlier processes in the model.
The first of these dysfunctional conflict behaviors is known as complain/criticize. Although some aspects of this behavior are common in virtually all marriages, couples headed for divorce have a tendency to comingle criticism with the expression of dissatisfaction. For example, a statement such as “We never seem to have enough money to afford a nice vacation together, but you always seem to spend plenty on the things that you want” has two clear elements. There is the complaint (we never have enough money) and the criticism (you spend money on things for yourself). What elevates complaint to the level of criticism is the addition of blame, often executed with terms such as “you always” and “you never” (Gottman 1999).
The next step in the behavioral cascade is defensiveness. When people get defensive in marital interactions they try to protect themselves from criticism and avoid blame. In so doing they deny any responsibility for wrongdoing. Usually, people become defensive when they perceive that they are under attack and being victimized in some way. This is often manifested in whining during disagreements, underwritten by an innocent victim demeanor (Gottman 1994). Defensiveness is dysfunctional for marriage because the denial of any wrongdoing forecloses opportunities for conflict resolution.
The third component of the behavioral cascade model is contempt. Contemptuous communication sends the message that “you are stupid” or “you are incompetent.”In extreme forms it expresses hatred of the listener by the speaker. In laboratory interactions contempt is often expressed as hostile humor, mockery, or sarcasm (Gottman 1994). Contempt is also communicated through a particular facial expression that involves pulling back one corner of the mouth and perhaps rolling the eyes. By the time couples are expressing contempt in their conflicts, irrevocable damage is being done to the relationship. The predictive value of contempt during marital interactions on divorce proneness has been replicated in a sample of newlyweds followed for the first two years of their marriage (Graber et al. 2011).
The final stage in the behavioral cascade is stonewalling or the absence of marital communication. Spouses who stonewall show no signs of receiving messages from their partner. Their facial expressions are often blank and they may not even make eye contact with their spouse. Stonewalling prevents any possibility of conflict resolution and the symbolic validation of the partner. By sending the message “I’m not listening to you,” or “you’re not even here” the stonewalling spouse does not acknowledge much less respect the partner’s concerns. The fact that stonewalling is the final stage of the behavioral process cascade toward marital dissolution reflects the fact that marriages rarely end in a fit of intense conflict, but rather after the passion has dissipated and spouses no longer care or feel that the bother to try to work things out is worth it. Despite being the least dramatic communication behavior in the cascade, it is the most ominous because it indicates that spouses have given up on the relationship. Stonewalling during marital conflict has been found to be a significant but not perfect predictor of subsequent marital dissolution (r = .29) indicating that stonewalling is best conceptualized as a risk factor for divorce (Gottman 1993).
3.2.2 Demand-withdrawal
There is perhaps no single pattern of marital conflict that has received more research attention that the demand-withdrawal pattern. In the demand-withdrawal pattern, one spouse (usually the wife) presents a complaint, demand, or criticism. The other spouse (usually the husband) responds by withdrawal and defensiveness (Christensen 1988). This is a corrosive conflict pattern that is associated with marital distress and that can foreshadow eventual divorce when particularly pervasive and rigidly enacted. This dysfunctional interaction pattern appears to reflect an unresolved discrepancy within the couple over desires for closeness versus distance. The tendency for either husbands or wives to be in the demand role is associated with their desire for change in their partner (Caughlin and Vangelisti 1999). Caughlin and Vangelisti noted that in some cases, the desire for change might be over a couple-level issue that will occasionally put both spouses in the demanding role, with the attendant partner withdrawal.
One reason why the demand-withdrawal pattern of marital interaction is associated with low marital quality is because it causes most conflicts to go unresolved. In some cases, the demand-withdrawal pattern could also be a symptom of unresolved conflict. Couples characterized by high levels of demand-withdrawal report lower levels of conflict resolution, more negative conflict tactics such as threat, verbal hostility, and verbal aggression, and fewer constructive conflict management tactics such as problem solving, compromise, and expressing support or affection (Papp, Kouros, and Cummings 2009). Because expressions of conflict may not even raise a response from the withdrawing partner, much less a move toward resolution, spouses in such marriages tend to feel less understood by their partner than spouses in marriages with lower levels of demand-withdrawal (Weger 2005).
Just as husbands and wives may enact the demand and withdrawal roles differentially, they also appear to react differently to them. In one study of newlyweds, partner hostility proved to be the strongest predictor of decreases in marital satisfaction at the third anniversary for wives, but partner withdrawal was the strongest predictor of declines in satisfaction for husbands (Roberts 2000). Stereotypically, people think of the nagging wife and the withdrawn husband. However, it is when these roles are reversed that marital satisfaction is harmed the most. Wives’ marital satisfaction is damaged far more by their husbands’ hostility than their husbands’ withdrawal. Even though husbands’ marital satisfaction is also negatively affected by wives’ hostility, their wives’ withdrawal harms marital satisfaction even further (Roberts 2000). Wife withdrawal is also very detrimental to the subjective well-being (e.g., depression, self-esteem, satisfaction with life) of their husbands, much more so than husbands’ withdrawal affects their wives’ well-being (Siffert and Schwarz 2010). Nevertheless, frequent demand-withdrawal in marital conflicts is often a marker of marital dissatisfaction regardless of who is in the demand and who is in the withdrawal mode (Caughlin 2002). Also, withdrawal from conflict is deleterious to the marital satisfaction of both the person withdrawing as well as his or her spouse (Segrin, Hanzal, and Domschke 2009). Fortunately for some marriages, when the demand-withdrawal pattern is accompanied by other more positive communication behaviors such as physical affection, approval, compliments, and demands framed with “we” versus “you” terms, demands and even occasional withdrawals are not significantly associated with marital dissatisfaction (Caughlin and Huston 2002; Mitnick et al. 2009).
3.2.3 Verbal aggression
One communication behavior that is harmful to relationships, marriage being no exception, is verbal aggression. Verbal aggression involves attacking another person’s self-concept, ordinarily with the intent to make the target feel bad. Verbal aggressiveness is the characteristic tendency to engage in such behavior. Verbal aggression is an expression of an argumentative skill deficiency because instead of arguing with a person’s opinion or position on a point of contention, verbal aggressiveness is simply attacking the person, not the argument (Infante, Chander, and Rudd 1989; Payne and Sabourin 1990). Verbal aggression is particularly likely when spouses are faced with stressors but otherwise possess and enact ineffective coping skills (Bodenmann et al. 2010). In a marital context, verbal aggressiveness and verbal aggression are consistently associated with relational problems. For example, spouses’ verbal aggression is negatively associated with their partner’s marital satisfaction (Gavazzi et al. 2000; Payne and Sabourin 1990) and their partner’s depression (Segrin and Fitzpatrick 1992). Verbal aggression is also a risk factor for marital violence (Infante et al. 1989) especially when it is reciprocated (Sabourin, Infante, and Rudd 1993). Related evidence shows that verbal aggression predicts subsequent physical aggression over the first two years of marriage (Schumacher and Leonard 2005). Consistent with the enduring dynamics model discussed previously in this chapter, symptoms of personality disorders (e.g., borderline, antisocial) are substantial predictors of both increased verbal aggression and decreased marital satisfaction (South, Turkheimer, and Oltmanns 2008). South et al.’s findings suggest that the traits that may fuel verbal aggression and subsequent marital dissatisfaction are likely to be in place well before the initiation of marriage, as the personality disorder symptoms that they studied tend to be rather stable. Verbal aggression research highlights the importance of keeping conflicts focused on issues without attacking the participants in the conflict. Findings on verbal aggressiveness reveal that this trait is exceptionally threatening to marital well-being and may foreshadow danger in the marriage by being a precursor to marital violence.
3.2.4 “I” vs. “we.”
During conflicts, or virtually any other type of marital interaction, spouses’ pronoun usage can reflect a shared identity or ownership of problems (e.g., “we”) or an accusatory blame (e.g., “you”). The frequency of uttering “you” during problem solving interactions is predictive of negatively toned interaction behaviors such as criticism, disagreement, and justification, and negatively associated with spouses’ marital satisfaction (Simmons, Gordon, and Chambless 2005). In contrast, the frequency of uttering “we” is associated with more positive marital problem solving behaviors such as constructive solutions and compromises (Simmons et al.). “Weness” is conceptualized in the marital interaction literature as an expression of unification in the marriage (Carrère et al. 2000). It is part of a larger latent variable referred to as perceived marital bond and has proved to be an effective predictor of marital outcomes. A strong marital bond, expressed in part through higher use of “we” and lower use of “I” or “you” during marital interactions discriminates remaining married or getting divorced over a 5-year period with 87% accuracy (Carrere et al.). Strong marital bonds also predict high levels of marital satisfaction and low levels of loneliness among spouses (Doohan, Carrere, and Riggs 2010; Segrin and Flora 2001).
3.2.5 Emotional flooding and self-soothing
One of the major warning signs of impending doom in a marriage is the characteristic experience of emotional flooding during marital conflict. In Gottman’s (1993) theory of marital dissolution and stability, flooding is characterized as a bewildering and overwhelming feeling when confronted with the spouse’s expression of negative affect. Spouses who experience flooding feel that their partner’s negative emotions (e.g., anger, criticism, hostility) came from out of nowhere, were unprovoked, disorganized, and highly aversive. Flooding motivates an urgent desire to escape the situation rather than confront and resolve the conflict. According to Gottman, people who experience flooding subsequently experience hypervigilance to any of their partner’s cues (e.g., yelling, complaining) that triggered the flooding. People who experience flooding ultimately start to see their marital problems as severe, believe that it is better to work things out on their own, and eventually structure their marriage such that the spouses live parallel, rather than interdependent, lives (Gottman, 1994). As one might expect, couples where at least one spouse often experiences flooding tend to have low levels of marital quality (Gubbins, Perosa, and Bartle-Haring 2010; Holman and Jarvis 2003). In the context of a marital conflict, flooding represents an emotional oversensitivity or overreactiveness that puts the marriage at risk, because the flooded person is so overwhelmed by his or her emotional response to the partner that rational communication is abandoned in favor of escape and withdrawal.
Fortunately, there appears to be an antidote to flooding and that is self-soothing and soothing of the partner. Gottman and Silver (1999) argue that soothing the self and partner during moments of overwhelming emotion in conflict interactions is a key ingredient to a successful marriage. They suggest that when people experience emotional flooding, they are no longer able to process information and that this is the time to momentarily step away from the conflict to allow for dissipation of the physiological arousal that accompanies emotional flooding. Ideally, the now-calm spouse who engaged in self-soothing would turn his or her attention to soothing the partner. In one of the rare empirical investigations of soothing during conflict newlywed couples were brought into the laboratory and observed in a conflict resolution interaction (Gottman et al. 1998). Soothing was defined as an episode in which a negative emotional utterance was made by one spouse, followed by a sustained expression of neutral affect by the other, resulting in a lower heart rate in his or her partner. Gottman et al. followed their newlywed couples for six years and found that one of the hallmark signs of those couples who would go on to divorce was a failure of husbands to soothe their wives during the laboratory conflict interaction (the effect of wives’ soothing of their husbands on martial stability was marginally significant). Gottman teaches self-soothing and soothing of each other as a key skill to be mastered by couples seeking to improve their marriage. There is some promising evidence of the effectiveness of this technique (Johnstone 2004), but how easily it can be taught and enacted in the heat of conflict awaits further research.
3.2.6 Anger and negative affectivity
The experience and expression of strong negative emotions during conflicts is ordinarily an indicator of marital distress. For example, in the laboratory, the experience of anger and irritation, as well as its perception by a spouse or even a third party observer, during a conflict resolution discussion strongly correlates with husbands’ and wives’ marital distress (Sanford 2012). Spouses who score high on trait anger tend to report lower martial satisfaction and higher conflict, and wives’ trait anger predicts decreasing martial satisfaction over time (Baron et al. 2006). However, the experience and expression of anger during marital conflict may not be dysfunctional for all couples. For spouses who typically avoid conflict, the expression of anger can sometimes foretell improvements in marital satisfaction (Krokoff 1991). For such couples, perpetually containing and suppressing their anger might do more harm than good, and at least occasionally expressing it may be beneficial to the long term health of the marriage. In contrast, Krokoff found anger to predict a subsequent deterioration in marital satisfaction; suggesting that perhaps spouses have a certain tolerance for the processing of their partner’s anger. However, habitual expressions of anger may be harbingers of trouble for the marriage.
Although all people experience negative emotions from time to time, some are more prone to these experiences than others. The characteristic or trait-like tendency to experience feelings such as sadness, anxiety, and hostility is known as neuroticism or negative affectivity. Negative affectivity has deleterious consequences for both the encoding and decoding of marital communication, and not surprisingly, to marital satisfaction (Karney and Bradbury 1997). For example, negative affectivity is associated with greater tendencies to engage in negative marital communication behaviors such as yelling, criticizing, complaining, and snapping at the partner (Caughlin, Huston, and Houts 2000). Negative affectivity may also corrupt spouses’ desires or tendencies to engage in mutual problem solving when confronted with conflicts. Woszidlo and Segrin (in press) found that newlyweds’ negative affectivity was negatively associated with both their own mutual problem solving, assessed with Gottman’s (1999) Distance and Isolation Questionnaire (e.g., “I have given up trying to talk things out,” “Our conversations about our problems never seem to get anywhere”) and their partner’s mutual problem solving. It is now evident that destructive conflict behaviors can explain the often-noted association between negative affectivity and low marital satisfaction. The negative affectivity-marital distress association is mediated by lower levels of positive problem solving, and higher levels of aggressive and hostile as well as withdrawing marital conflict behaviors (Hanzal and Segrin 2009).
With regard to decoding, spouses who score high on measures of negative affectivity have a bias toward seeing their spouse as more hostile and dominant, and less friendly during a disagreement discussion, compared to the perceptions of independent observers (Traupman et al. 2011). Not only does negative affectivity generate more corrosive marital communication behaviors, but it also tends to make spouses biased toward overly harsh evaluations of their partner’s behavior. It is therefore understandable why this trait is so deleterious to marital well-being.
4 Couple types
Much in the same way that biologists find that animals can be usefully and reliably classified based on certain functional characteristics that they possess (e.g., flying in the air, living in water), family scientists find that marriages also exist in certain identifiable forms. To describe these forms, taxonomies of marriage have been developed and marital communication figures prominently in the classification of different marital couple types.
4.1 Fitzpatrick’s couples types
Early research by Fitzpatrick and her colleagues (Fitzpatrick 1984; Fitzpatrick and Indvik 1982) suggested that there are patterns of beliefs and behaviors in marriage that differentiate one type of couple from others. This work revealed that marriages can be classified as a function of three bipolar dimensions that include a conventional versus nonconventional relationship ideology, interdependence versus autonomy, and conflict avoidance versus conflict engagement.
The ideology dimension describes the extent to which the couple adheres to and endorses what could be considered historically conventional beliefs about marriage (e.g., a married woman should take her husband’s last name) versus nonconventional beliefs about the marriage (e.g., spontaneity and novelty are more important than adhering to norms). The interdependence/autonomy dimension reflects the extent to which married couples structure their lives around each other, sharing maximal time and space (interdependent), versus pursuing their own goals and activities without as much regard for their partners’ whereabouts (autonomous). Finally, the conflict avoidance dimension describes the extent to which the spouses assert their point of view with each other, even in cases of disagreement, versus valuing harmony.
Crossing the three dimensions, Fitzpatrick found that there are three different couple types, each reasonably able to maintain marital satisfaction and stability. In traditional type marriages, husbands and wives value stability and adhere to conventional relational ideologies, customs, and gender roles; that is, they adhere to a traditional marital ideology. Traditionals are also highly interdependent, as evident by their frequent sharing, companionship, and regulated time together (e.g., scheduled meal times). They tend to be expressive and engage in conflict over serious issues. By contrast, independent couples hold nonconventional values about relationships (e.g., believing the relationship should not constrain individual freedom and should have novelty). They are highly interdependent in their emotional connection, though they may maintain separate physical spaces and lack the timed routines that characterize Traditionals. Independents are very expressive, report some assertiveness, and willingly engage in conflict. Separate couples, the third type, have ambivalent relational ideologies, often holding traditional values toward marriage and family while also endorsing the individual freedom and ideology of change and uncertainty that Independents uphold. Sometimes Separates enact different public and private behaviors (e.g., they may publicly support conventional relationship values, but privately behave in an unconventional way). Separates are not very expressive in their interactions and maintain emotional and physical space apart from their spouses as they find emotional support outside the marriage. As might be expected, Separates generally tend to avoid marital conflict. In sum, about 60% of married couples can be classified as “pure” types where both the husband and wife are the same type, with the other 40% being “mixed types” (Fitzpatrick 1988; Kelley 1999).
4.2 Gottman’s couple types
About a decade after Fitzpatrick (1984) advanced her typology, Gottman introduced his typology of marital couples. Gottman (1994) describes three functional couple types that he terms Volatile, Validating, and Conflict-avoiding couples (1994), each of which differs from dysfunctional couple types, most notably the Hostile couple type. What is similar about the interaction of the three functional couple types is that they each maintain a climate rich in positivity, even during conflict interactions. Gottman (1994) describes the three functional couples types as regulated couples, namely because they are able to regulate their interactions to maintain a 5 : 1 ratio of positive interactional behaviors to negative ones. The Hostile couple type suffers from nonregulated interactions characterized by as much or more negativity as positivity.
The three functional couple types differ according to the way they exert influence, resolve conflict, and communicate about emotions. Volatile couples are more emotionally expressive than spouses in the other couple types (Gottman 1994). Even when spouses disagree with strong emotion, passion, and involvement, their negative expressions are soothed by positive expressions such as relational affirmations, affection, and humor. They regulate the 5 : 1 ratio of positive to negative behaviors, even though this requires frequent positive expressions to offset their tendency to assert their individual agendas and deal with differences openly as they engage in conflict. In contrast to Volatile couples, Validating couples are moderate in emotional expression (Gottman 1994). These couples carefully choose which issues to bring up, initiate conflict in gentle ways, and consider the timing of conflict. Using a great deal of positive affect and a careful approach to conflict, partners are able to maintain the sense of togetherness and companionship that they cherish. Validating couples value cooperation, respect for the other’s opinion, and work hard to achieve outcomes that are best for them as a team, not just as individuals. Conflict-avoiding couples are characterized by low, even levels of emotional expression (Gottman, 1994). They prefer to avoid or minimize conflict and instead focus on compromising, accepting their partners as they are, and turning their attention instead on the areas of agreement in the relationship. Gottman (1994) expresses concern about marital quality when partners in a marriage are “mismatched” (e.g., a Volatile spouse with a Conflict-avoiding partner).
5 Conclusion
Persistently robust divorce rates and countless dissatisfied spouses fuel the need for knowledge of those processes that explain and predict both positive and negative marital outcomes. Some efforts to identify such processes have focused on skills that promote relational maintenance and an emotional bond between spouses. Possession and enactment of such skills are commonly found in spouses who report high levels of marital satisfaction. Over the past 3 or 4 decades, researchers have developed an ever-growing catalog of positive and negative communication behaviors that seem to help or hinder marriage. These include such communication processes as disclosure, support messages, compliments, and forgiveness on the positive side and demand-withdrawal, verbal aggression, emotional flooding and negative affectivity on the negative side. These communication behaviors either add depth and strength to the psychosocial foundation of the marriage, or trauma and erosion to that foundation.
A great deal of marital communication research has focused on the need to express and manage positive and negative affect in ways that are beneficial, or at least minimally harmful to the marriage. Although rarely stated, marital dissatisfaction is presumed to be the most proximal predictor of divorce. Because (dis)satisfaction is an inherently affective phenomenon, the experience and expression of affect has occupied a prominent position in marital communication research. Finally, research on marital couple types raises an important caveat. It would be unwise to view the communication processes highlighted in this chapter as having uniform effects across all marriages. Students of marital communication must always remain cognizant of the systems theory concept of equifinality, indicating that in any social system, different sets of inputs can lead to the same output.
References
Amato, Paul R. 2010. Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 650–666.
Baron, Kelly, Timothy Smith, Jonathan Butner, Jill Nealey-Moore, Melissa Hawkins and Bert Uchino. 2006. Hostility, anger, and marital adjustment: Concurrent and prospective associations with psychosocial vulnerability. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 30: 1–10.
Bodenmann, Guy, Nathalie Meuwly, Thomas N. Bradbury, Simone Gmelch and Thomas Ledermann. 2010. Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27: 408–424.
Brock, Rebecca L. and Erika Lawrence. 2009. Too much of a good thing: Underprovision versus overprovision of partner support. Journal of Family Psychology 23: 181–192.
Canary, Daniel J. and Laura Stafford. 1992. Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs 59: 243–267.
Carrère, Sybil, Kim T. Buehlman, John M. Gottman, James A. Coan and Lionel Ruckstuhl. 2000. Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology 14: 42–58.
Caughlin, John P. 2002. The demand-withdrawal pattern of communication as a predictor of marital satisfaction over time: Unresolved issues and future directions. Human Communication Research 28: 49–85.
Caughlin, John P. and Ted L. Huston. 2002. A contextual analysis of the association between demand/withdrawal and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships 9: 95–119.
Caughlin, John P. and Ted. L. Huston. 2006. The affective structure of marriage. In: Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 131–155. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Caughlin, John P., Ted. L. Huston, T. L. and Renate M. Houts. 2000. How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78: 326–336.
Caughlin, John P. and Anita L.Vangelisti. 1999. Desire for change in one’s partner as a predictor of the demand/withdrawal pattern of marital communication. Communication Monographs 66: 66–89.
Christensen, Andrew. 1988. Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In: Patricia Noller and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (eds.), Perspectives on Marital Interaction, 31–52. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Clements, Mari L., Allan D. Cordova, Howard J. Markman and Jean Philippe Laurenceau. 1997. The erosion of marital satisfaction over time and how to prevent it. In: Robert J. Sternberg and Mahzad Hojjat (eds.), Satisfaction in Close Relationships, 335–355. New York: Guilford.
Doohan, Eve-Anne M., Sybil Carrère and Matt L. Riggs. 2010. Using relational stories to predict the trajectory toward marital dissolution: The oral history interview and spousal feelings of flooding, loneliness, and depression. Journal of Family Communication 10: 57–77.
Fincham, Frank D. and Steven R. H. Beach. 2010. Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 630–649.
Fincham, Frank D., Steven, R. H. Beach and Joanne Davila. 2004. Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 18: 72–81.
Fincham, Frank D., Steven R. H. Beach and Joanne Davila. 2007. Longitudinal relations between forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 21: 542–545.
Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne. 1984. A typological approach to marital interaction: Recent theory and research. In: Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 18: 1–47. New York: Academic Press.
Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne. 1988. Between Husbands and Wives. Newbury Park: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne and Julie Indvik. 1982. The instrumental and expressive domains of marital communication. Human Communication Research 8: 195–213.
Flora, Jeanne and Chris Segrin. 2000. Affect and behavioral involvement in spousal complaints and compliments. Journal of Family Psychology 14: 641–657.
Frisby, Brandi N. 2009. “Without flirting, it wouldn’t be a marriage”: Flirtatious communication between relational partners. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 10: 55–60.
Gable, Shelly L., Gian C. Gonzaga and Amy Strachman. 2006. Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91: 904–917.
Gavazzi, Stephen M., Patrick C. McKenry, Jill A. Jacobson, Teresa W. Julian and Brenda Lohman. 2000. Modeling the effects of expressed emotional, psychiatric symptomology, and marital quality levels on male and female verbal aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 669–682.
Gordon, Cameron L. and Donald H. Baucom. 2009. Examining the individual within marriage: Personal strengths and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships 16: 421–435.
Gottman, John M. 1993. A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology 7: 57–75.
Gottman, John M. 1994. What Predicts Divorce: The Relationship between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale., NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gottman, John M. 1999. The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy. New York: W. W. Norton.
Gottman, John M., James Coan, Sybil Carrere and Catherine Swanson. 1998. Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60: 5–22.
Gottman, John M. and Joan DeClaire. 2001. The Relationship Cure. New York: Crown.
Gottman, John M. and Lowell J. Krokoff. 1989. Marital interaction and marital satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57: 47–52.
Gottman, John M. and Nan Silver. 1999. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Crown.
Graber, Elana C., Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, Erin Miga, Joanna Chango and James Coan. 2011. Conflict and love: Predicting newlywed marital outcomes from two interaction contexts. Journal of Family Psychology 25: 541–550.
Gubbins, Christine A., Linda M. Perosa and Suzanne Bartle-Haring. 2010. Relationships between married couples’ self-differentiation/individuation and Gottman’s model of marital interactions. Contemporary Family Therapy 32: 383–395.
Hanzal, Alesia and Chris Segrin. 2009. The role of conflict resolution styles in mediating the relationship between enduring vulnerabilities and marital quality. Journal of Family Communication 9: 150–169.
Huston, Ted L., John P. Caughlin, Renate M. Houts, Shanna E. Smith and Laura J. George. 2001. The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80: 237–252.
Huston, Ted L. and Renate M. Houts. 1998. The psychological infrastructure of courtship and marriage: The role of personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. In: Thomas N. Bradbury (ed.), The Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction, 114–151. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Huston, Ted L., Sylvia Niehuis and Shanna E. Smith. 2001. The early marital roots of conjugal distress and divorce. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10: 116–119.
Infante, Dominic A., Teresa A. Chandler and Jill E. Rudd. 1989. Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs 56: 163–177.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2004. Working with a couple with borderline qualities. In: Julie S. Gottman (ed.), The Marriage Clinic Casebook, 89–100. New York, NY: W W Norton and Co.
Karney, Benjamin R. and Thomas Bradbury. 1997. Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 1075– 1092.
Kelley, Douglas L. 1999. Relational expectancy fulfillment as an explanatory variable for distinguishing couple types. Human Communication Research 25: 420–442.
Krokoff, Lowell J. 1991. Communication orientation as a moderator between strong negative affect and marital satisfaction. Behavioral Assessment 13: 51–65.
Laurenceau, Jean-Philippe, Lisa Feldman Barrett and Michael J. Rovine. 2005. The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology 19: 314–323.
Ledermann, Thomas, Guy Bodenmann, Myriam Rudaz and Thomas N. Bradbury. 2010. Stress, communication, and marital quality in couples. Family Relations 59: 195–206.
Manning, Wendy D., Monica A. Longmore and Peggy C. Giordano. 2007. The changing institution of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family 69: 559–575.
Markman, Howard J. 1984. The longitudinal study of couples’ interactions: Implications for understanding and predicting the development of marital distress. In: Kurt Hahlweg and Neil S. Jacobson (eds.), Marital Interaction: Analysis and Modification, 253–281. New York: Guilford.
Markman, Howard. J., Galena K. Rhoades, Scott S. Stanley, Erica P. Ragan and Sarah W. Whitton. 2010. The premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 289–298.
Martin, Gary and Vladimir Kats. 2003. Families and work in transition in 12 countries, 1980–2001. Monthly Labor Review, September: 3–31.
McNulty, James K. 2010. Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner transgressions in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 787–790.
Mitnick, Danielle M., Richard E. Heyman, Jill Malik and Amy M. S. Slep. 2009. The differential association between change request qualities and resistance, problem resolution, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology 23: 464–473.
Noller, Patricia and Judith A. Feeney. 1998. Communication in early marriage: Responses to conflict, nonverbal accuracy, and conversational patterns. In: Thomas N. Bradbury (ed.), The Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction, 11–43. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Papp, Lauren M., Chrystyna D. Kouros and E. Mark Cummings, E. M. 2009. Demand-withdraw patterns in marital conflict in the home. Personal Relationships 16: 285–300.
Payne, Michael J. and Teresa Chandler Sabourin. 1990. Argumentative skill deficiency and its relationship to quality of marriage. Communication Research Reports 7: 121–124.
Prado, Lydia M. and Howard J. Markman. 1999. Unearthing the seeds of marital distress: What we have learned from married and remarried couples. In: Martha J. Cox and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (eds.), Conflict and Cohesion in Families: Causes and Consequences, 51–85. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reis, Harry T. and Brian C. Patrick. 1996. Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In: E. Tory Higgins and Arie W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 523–563. New York: Guilford Press.
Roberts, Linda J. 2000. Fire and ice in marital communication: Hostile and distancing behaviors as predictors of marital distress. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 693–707.
Sabourin, Teresa Chandler, Dominic A. Infante and Jill E. Rudd. 1993. Verbal aggression in marriages: A comparison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Human Communication Research 20: 245–267.
Sanford, Keith. 2012. The communication of emotion during conflict in married couples. Journal of Family Psychology 26: 297–307.
Schumacher, Julie A. and Kenneth E. Leonard. 2005. Husbands’ and wives’ martial adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73: 28–37.
Segrin, Chris. 2006. Family interactions and well-being: Integrative perspectives. Journal of Family Communication 6: 3–21.
Segrin, Chris and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick. 1992. Depression and verbal aggressiveness in different marital couple types. Communication Studies 43: 79–91.
Segrin, Chris and Jeanne Flora. 2001. Perceptions of relational histories, marital quality, and loneliness when communication is limited: An examination of prison inmates. Journal of Family Communication 3: 151–173.
Segrin, Chris, Alesia D. Hanzal and Tricia J. Domschke. 2009. Accuracy and bias in newlywed couples’ perceptions of conflict styles and their associations with marital satisfaction. Communication Monographs 76: 207–233.
Siffert, Andrea and Beate Schwarz. 2010. Spouses’ demand and withdrawal during marital conflict in relation to their subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28: 262–277.
Simmons, Rachael A., Peter C. Gordon and Dianne L. Chambless. 2005. Pronouns in marital interactions: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health? Psychological Science 16: 932–936.
South, Susan C., Eric Turkheimer and Thomas F. Oltmanns. 2008. Personality disorder symptoms and marital functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 76: 769–780.
Stafford, Laura. 2011. Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28: 278–30.
Stafford, Laura, Marianne Dainton and Stephan Haas. 2000. Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs 37: 306–323.
Sullivan, Kieran, Lauri A. Pasch, Matthew D. Johnson and Thomas Bradbury. 2010. Social support, problem solving, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98: 631–644.
Thornton, Arland and Linda Young-DeMarco. 2001. Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family 63: 1009–1037.
Traupman, Emily, Timothy Smith, Paul Florsheim, Cynthia A. Berg and Bert A. Uchino. 2011. Appraisals of spouse affiliation and control during marital conflict: Common and specific cognitive correlates among facets of negative affectivity. Cognitive Therapy and Research 35: 187–198.
United Nations. 2011. Demographic Yearbook 2009–2010. New York: United Nations.
Waldron, Vincent L. and Douglas L. Kelley. 2005. Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 723–742.
Waldron, Vincent L. and Douglas L. Kelley. 2008. Communicating Forgiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weger, Harry. 2005. Disconfirming communication and self-verification in marriage: Associations among the demand-withdraw interaction pattern, feeling understood, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 19–31.
Vangelisti, Anita L. and Mary A. Banski. 1993. Couples’ debriefing conversations: The impact of gender, occupation, and demographic characteristics. Family Relations 42: 149–157.
Woszidlo, Alesia and Chris Segrin. In press. Negative affectivity and educational attainment as predictors of newlyweds’ problem solving communication and marital quality. Journal of Psychology.
Xu, Yan and Brant R. Burleson. 2004. The association of experienced spousal support with marital satisfaction: Evaluating the moderating effects of sex, ethnic culture, and type of support. The Journal of Family Communication 4: 123–145.