Couple Interaction in Happy and Unhappy Marriages PDF

Chapter 3 Couple Interaction in Happy and Unhappy M arriages Gottman Laboratory Studies Janice Driver Amber Tabares Alyson F. Shapiro John M. Gottma...

Chapter 3 Couple Interaction in Happy and Unhappy M arriages Gottman Laboratory Studies Janice Driver Amber Tabares Alyson F. Shapiro John M. Gottman O urdecades research team at the Gottman Laboratory has devoted over three to identifying the patterns that distinguish masters of mar- riage—happy, stable couples—from unhappy couples headed for divorce. Although a great deal of marital research has been based on survey methods such as questionnaires and self-­reports, our research also includes detailed, in-depth observations. Our research has focused on marital conflict, which we believe is an important and necessary part of both happy and unhappy mar- riages. We have found that the success or failure of a marriage depends not on whether there is conflict, but onhow conflict is handled when it does occur. This research has enabled us to expose myths about marriage. Through the years, we have expanded our observational studies to include nonconflict situations of couples during daily interactions and couple inter- views. By looking at partners in these three distinct settings, we have identified marked differences between happy and unhappy relationships. We have also learned what factors contribute to the friendship at the foundation of happy marriages. We summarize the major results of these findings in this chapter. Demographics This summary is based on seven different longitudinal studies with a total of 843 married couples. As required by the National Institute of Mental Health, 57 58 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES each of these studies matched the major economic, racial, and ethnic groups in the Northwest region where the research was conducted. Approximately 30% of the total sample across all six studies was from nonwhite ethnic groups. Although our sample includes ethnic minorities, we do not make racial dis- tinctions in our summary. This kind of future research would require over- sampling a particular ethnic group to observe differing patterns in couple interactions. Throughout this summary, we refer to couples as happily married, unhap- pily married, or divorced. The classification of happy or unhappy was based on marital satisfaction questionnaires given to each of the partners at various time points throughout the study. For a couple to be classified as happy, both partners had to be satisfied with the marriage. To be considered unhappy or distressed, one or both partners had to be dissatisfied with the marriage. If one partner was happy in the marriage and the other was unhappy, we considered the couple to be unhappy or distressed. In all of our studies, we have followed the couples longitudinally to determine whether they remained married. The divorce category includes all couples who went on to divorce. Four Horsemen One consistent characteristic of distressed couples headed for divorce is the expression of specific negative behaviors we call the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Gottman, 1994). Although negativity is part of any marital con- flict, these are specific predictors of impending doom to a relationship. The Four Horsemen are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. The first of the Four Horsemen, criticism, is very common in distressed relationships. All couples have complaints of some kind during an argument, but criticism goes much further and is more damaging to the relationship than a simple complaint. Criticism is more global and includes character attacks, such as “You didn’t take the trash out last night. Why can’t you ever remember to do it? You’re so lazy!” A complaint, on the other hand, remains specific to a situation, such as “I’m annoyed that you didn’t take the trash out last night.” The added personality attack of criticism escalates negativity and causes dam- age to the relationship over time. In addition to character attacks, criticism includes global complaints, which can be identified by words such as “You always... ” and “You never..., ” or it can include a laundry list of complaints that imply “always” or “never.” For example, “You didn’t clean the bathroom like you said you would. That’s so typical! Just like last week when you said you’d organize the shelves and get up early to help make lunch for the kids and you didn’t do those things either.” Contempt, the next of the Four Horsemen, is the most corrosive. It is more destructive than criticism, because it conveys disgust and disrespect between spouses. A contemptuous comment might include sarcasm, mockery,  Couple Interaction 59 insults, eye rolls, scowls, and hostile humor to belittle the partner. The atti- tude conveyed by contempt is one of disdain or superiority. One spouse may show condescension by taking a higher moral ground: “Did you really think showing up for just one soccer game all season would really be enough? That’s an involved parent for you.” Contempt is a type of scorn that often hinders any conciliatory attempts by the other spouse and may severely escalate nega- tivity on both sides. The third of the Four Horsemen is defensiveness. Although defensive- ness seems a natural way to protect oneself against a perceived attack, our research shows that it usually becomes a counterattack, which further esca- lates negativity. Defensiveness is ineffective, because it becomes a way for one spouse to blame the other for his or her own behavior. One person might start with contempt: “Well that was pretty immature to go barhopping with your friends.” To which a defensive spouse would respond, “You did the same thing last week.” Defensiveness frequently takes on a childish tone, with the partners trying to shield themselves from both attack and personal responsibility. Stonewalling is the fourth of the Four Horsemen. After many arguments with high levels of contempt, criticism, and defensiveness, it is easy for one spouse to feel overwhelmed by the conflict. At this point, the overwhelmed spouse begins stonewalling by conveying to the speaker that he or she does not want to interact, and appearing not to listen at all. There is no eye contact, no back-­channeling, and no verbal response. The speaker is actively ignored. Stonewalling appears after the emergence of what Christensen and Heavey (1990) call the demand–­withdraw pattern. This pattern shows clear gender differences, with the wife commonly demanding and the husband withdraw- ing, each reacting to the other as the couple becomes increasingly polarized. Stonewalling follows this same pattern, with husbands stonewalling more often than wives. Surprisingly, although the stonewaller appears to be hos- tile, his primary thoughts during this interaction are usually self-­protective: “When is she going to quit talking?”; “I can’t stand arguing about this any- more”; or “If I’m quiet, she’ll leave me alone.” This kind of self-­protection requires a great deal of energy and makes it impossible to listen, even if the comments are constructive and helpful. When all of the Four Horsemen are present during a conflict discussion, we are able to predict divorce, even with newlywed couples (Gottman, 1994; Carrère & Gottman, 1999), and to predict decline in marital quality when couples stay married (Gottman, Coan, Carrère, & Swanson, 1998). These truly are danger signals for any relationship. When used habitually during conflict, they erode the marriage and create hostility. Although some happily married couples occasionally use defensiveness, criticism, or even stonewall- ing, they rarely use contempt. We believe the disrespect that is characteristic of contempt is most harmful to the relationship overall. A high frequency of all the Four Horsemen, however, creates lasting damage and, most likely, the eventual ruin of the marriage. 60 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Emotional Disengagement Whereas the interactional patterns we call the Four Horsemen are detrimental to a marriage, emotional disengagement is also damaging for a couple (Gott- man, 1994). Emotionally disengaged couples do not display extreme levels of negativity and are unlikely to include the Four Horsemen, but they do show a complete lack of positive affect. Characteristically, they demonstrate little of the interest, affection, humor, and concern characteristic of happy couples. Emotional disengagement is an interesting phenomenon because the couples appear fine on the surface but are actually highly distressed. Emotionally dis- engaged couples are attempting to enclave the problem, so that it does not poi- son the entire relationship. However, the cost of this avoidance is the erosion of intimacy and the absence of shared positive affect in their interaction. They begin editing out parts of their personality and become hidden from their partners. This further erodes their intimate connection. Couples who appear emotionally disengaged may exhibit higher levels of physiological arousal dur- ing conflicts as a result of suppressing negative affect. Gross and Levenson (1997) reported that the suppression of negative affects does increase physi- ological arousal. In this way, emotionally disengaged couples may also expend tremendous physical effort to act as if everything is OK. Both emotional disengagement and the Four Horsemen predict divorce, but there is a marked difference in the timing of divorce for each of these nega- tive styles. Gottman and Levenson (2000) found that couples who frequently use contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling tend to divorce ear- lier in the marriage, most within 7 years. Emotionally disengaged couples, however, tend to divorce after 7–14 years. It seems that these relationships slowly atrophy as the partners become more and more distant. Flooding When a conflict is tainted by the Four Horsemen pattern or by emotional disengagement, it is common for one or both partners to become emotionally and physically overwhelmed (Gottman, 1994; Gottman & Levenson, 1983). In our physiological research, we find that at this point of “flooding,” palms begin to sweat, heart rate increases to over 90 beats per minute, and breathing becomes shallow or irregular. With these physiological symptoms, the partner is unable to think clearly or participate in constructive conversation. The pri- mary focus of the flooded spouse is reduced to self-­preservation, with thoughts such as “I can’t stand this anymore” or “Why is she attacking me?” At this point, it is impossible to take in new information. Even positive interactions, such as an apology or a humorous moment, are subdued as the partner tries to protect himself from a perceived attack. Although flooding is more common for men than women, it can happen to either partner during an argument. Flooding, an emergency state during a conflict, must be treated with respect and concern. The best antidote to flooding is to take a break from  Couple Interaction 61 the conflict for at least 20 minutes. Taking a break, however, does not mean going to separate rooms and preparing for another attack. The person who feels flooded needs to engage in a soothing activity, such as going for a walk, reading, or listening to music. It is essential during this time to concentrate on thoughts other than the argument. To ruminate on the conflict or brood over being an innocent victim will only maintain a flooded state. As important as it is to take time out when flooded, it is equally impor- tant to return to or reschedule the conflict discussion as soon as possible. If the couple does not return to the argument, a break to relieve flooding becomes a way to stonewall. Thus, the respite, which is intended to improve the mar- riage, can become a way to damage it. Negative Reciprocity Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling are specific types of negative conflict that signal danger, but not all negativity is damaging to the relationship. One pattern of marital conflict we have studied is that of negative reciprocity (Gottman et al., 1998; Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977), in which one spouse responds to the other’s negativity with more negativity. There has long been a myth that this pattern is harmful to relationships; but we have found that there are two types of negative reciprocity, only one of which predicts divorce (Gottman et al., 1998). The more harmful of the two is the pattern of negative escalation, in which negativity is responded to with increased negativity. There is an escala- tion of the conflict when each partner uses a more hurtful or severe response. In watching these interactions, it is as if each partner is trying to get back at the other by trying to “win.” This type of negative escalation is often found in conjunction with the Four Horsemen. A lower level of negative affect, such as anger or sadness, from one spouse will be reciprocated with contempt, criti- cism, or defensiveness. This specific pattern of combative escalation, along with the Four Horsemen, predicts divorce (Gottman et al., 1998). The second type of negative reciprocity is characteristic of all marriages, including happy ones. This pattern matches negativity for negativity. One partner will respond to anger with anger, and to sadness with sadness. This does not include, however, those couples that respond to contempt with con- tempt. We consider this to be escalation of the negativity. When couples are able to match low-level negativity the argument will be negative but not harm- ful. It is important to understand from this finding that negative emotions are a natural part of conflict and are not all perilous to marriage. Conflict Styles of Happy Couples As with the myth that all negative reciprocity is destructive, an opposite myth exists regarding happy couples. This is the belief that all happily married 62 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES couples talk about their problems in a way that validates each other’s views. Not all satisfied couples argue in this way, however. We have found three different conflict styles (or couple types) that seem to work well for happy couples: validators, volatiles, and avoiders (Gottman, 1993, 1994). Validators “talk out” their problems. These partners are very adept at validating their spouse’s emotions and opinions. They are very good friends and, when questioned about their relationship, tend to emphasize “we” over “me” or “I.” Validators are also noncoercive and tend to have few disagree- ments. But when disagreements do arise, there is a strong sense of mutual respect between these spouses. Rarely, if ever, would validators raise their voices during conflict. They are very skilled at compromise and use these skills to resolve their differences. A different approach to dealing with conflict is seen in couples with a volatile style, who have a more explosive approach to handling conflict. Their arguments tend to be higher energy and more heated than disagreements between validators. In volatile couples, both partners are highly involved in the argument, viewing each other as equals. Volatiles give significance to their own individuality and feel marriage should strengthen and accentuate their distinctiveness. During arguments, volatiles express both negative and positive emotions with vigor, though their arguments rarely contain the Four Horse- men. Volatiles tend to be passionate, however, and their displays of warmth and affection counterbalance the negativity. In fact, all stable couple types, including volatiles, exhibit five times more positive interactions than negative ones. For every negative behavior, there are five positive behaviors (Gottman & Levenson, 1992). The key to the success of volatile couples is the overall warm and loving environment they maintain in their marriage despite their negative and explosive moments. On the opposite end of the conflict scale is the third style, the avoiders. Avoiders minimize their problems and thus avoid conflict. They emphasize any positive aspects of the marriage, while downplaying or completely ignoring any complaints. When ignoring differences is not possible, they often agree to disagree. The marital style of conflict avoiders has been the most difficult for the psychological community to accept, because there is a pervasive myth that “avoiding conflict will ruin your marriage.” We have found that some couples prefer to avoid disagreements, but they describe themselves as satisfied with their marriages and share a deep love for each other. All three conflict styles can be equally effective. Whereas some couples avoid all arguments, others jump into the conflict with shouting, and still others discuss disagreements and find compromise. No one style is better or worse for a marriage, but it is important to understand that it has to work for both spouses. When people of differing styles get married, it can be a difficult situation. For example, if one spouse tends to avoid conflict, he or she is not likely to be happy with someone who argues loudly and vigorously. Thus, an avoider can be happily married to another avoider but would be unhappily married to a volatile. This does not mean that partners are hopeless  Couple Interaction 63 and destined for divorce if they have differing styles, but the relationship will require tremendous effort and patience on the part of both spouses. It would be interesting for future research to focus on the cultural differ- ences related to these conflict styles. Each culture may have strong preferences in dealing with interpersonal conflict, but there may also be great variability within each system. Regardless of the style of handling conflict, it is important to remember that each couple must offset disagreements with positive interactions. As we mentioned earlier, all couples, regardless of style, must counter each negative behavior with five positive behaviors. Maintaining this level of positive inter- action is crucial to sustain a happy and stable relationship. Solvable versus Unsolvable Problems Yet another myth about happily married couples is the belief that they are able to resolve all their disagreements. We have found, however, that both happy and unhappy marriages have unsolvable as well as solvable problems. In fact, we have found that all conflict can be reduced to these two categories. Solv- able problems have a solution, whereas unsolvable problems are ongoing issues that may never be resolved. Unsolvable or perpetual problems often arise from fundamental personality, cultural, or religious differences, or essential needs of each spouse. One partner may love to hike and camp, while the other enjoys city attractions. Chronic stress may also arise from crisis events or adverse situations beyond the couple’s control, such as serious illness and disability, harsh environmental conditions, or prolonged unemployment. Both successful and unsuccessful marriages have disagreements, but hap- pily married couples seem to understand the distinction between the two types of problems and handle them differently. Satisfied couples deal with perpetual problems much the way aging adults deal with persistent back pain. It may irritate them, but they learn to accept it. The aim in discussing a perpetual problem is to create an atmosphere of acceptance of the partner’s viewpoint rather than creating a condition of “gridlock.” So the goal is not to solve the problem, but for the couple to find a way to gain some degree of peace around it. Robert and Anna Maria have opposing views on how to spend their weekends. A nna M aria: It’s just that we have different ideas about what it means to relax. I like to sleep late and take it slow, while you jump out of bed and straight into your running shoes. Robert: No! I usually put on my socks first. (They both laugh.) A nna M aria: I do like it when you bring me back some coffee. Robert: That’s good. That’s my secret to jump-start our day. 64 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Anna Maria may never enjoy getting up early, and Robert may never sleep in, but they are able to live with each other’s style. Successful couples try to understand what is at the foundation of the differences that are causing conflicts and use this understanding to communicate amusement and affec- tion while learning to cope with their perpetual issue. The positive affect in these discussions is in direct contrast to gridlocked discussions of perpetual problems. Greg and Kimberly also discuss how they spend their weekends, but they become gridlocked around the problem. Greg: We didn’t get a chance to relax all weekend. You’re constantly going from one thing to the next. K imberly: What do you mean? We went on that bike ride on Saturday. That was relaxing. Greg: Relaxing? That was exhausting! You dragged me half way around the city. K imberly: Well, I wouldn’t have to drag you if you were in better shape. Partners who are gridlocked are firmly planted in their respective posi- tions. As a result their discussions include very little positive affect and one or more of the Four Horsemen. Over time, these couples feel rejected, over- whelmed, and hopeless about ever reaching any sort of a compromise. Grid- locked couples seem to focus on the unsolvable problem rather than on the underlying meaning that contributes to the opposing views. Accepting Influence One way that masterful couples deal with gridlocked conflict is by accepting “influence” from each other. This is a term we use to describe each partner’s willingness to yield during an argument, in order to “win” in the relationship. The best analogy for accepting influence is city driving. You are driving home in traffic when someone stops and illegally parks in your lane. You cannot move unless one of two things happens: Either the other driver moves his car or you change lanes and drive home. It would be a waste of time and energy to park behind the offender, shout threats of traffic violations, and summon a police officer, when simply changing lanes will achieve your greater purpose. Accepting influence is similar to this idea of changing lanes and driving home. By learning to find a point of yielding, even a minor point, the spouse wins the desired purpose of a close and satisfying relationship. Yielding to win, however, should not be mistakenly translated into a com- plete surrender of oneself to the other’s whims. Instead, accepting influence is the ability to find a point of agreement in the other’s position. It is important  Couple Interaction 65 to note that partner needs to accommodate the other, or the relationship becomes skewed. Often, this agreement is only achieved when each partner tries to understand the meaning of the other’s perspective in the conflict. Vincent and Alicia, for example, often argued about how to spend their vacation. Vincent wanted to visit his family in Virginia, and Alicia preferred that they go somewhere alone as a couple. This problem had been a continu- ing area of disagreement in their 10-year relationship. Each had decided that his or her position was correct, so the couple considered taking separate vaca- tions. Vincent would go to visit his family, while Alicia would go somewhere with her best friend. To look at this problem from the standpoint of accepting influence, both Vincent and Alicia needed to understand why the other was entrenched (or parked) in his or her position. Vincent only saw his family once a year and found it easy to relax and enjoy himself in their company. Alicia’s family lived nearby, so he saw them often (at least once a week) and felt he deserved to see his family more regu- larly. Alicia, on the other hand, did not get along with Vincent’s mother and found it difficult to spend an entire week with her. She also had a very stressful job and wanted go somewhere more relaxing. Each partner had good reasons for remaining in his or her fixed position. This inflexibility, however, made it impossible to move toward an agreeable solution. In contrast, if the partners were able to accept influence from each other, they could move from positions that were rigid and unyielding to ones of com- promise and collaboration. Vincent would be able to see that Alicia needed a break from her demanding schedule. Alicia would be able to understand Vin- cent’s desire to spend time with his family. If each could acknowledge some part of the other’s viewpoint, BOTH could see the problem differently. The issue would no longer be where to go, but how to achieve both goals. Although accepting influence is difficult at times, it has tremendous power for the marital relationship. When partners learn to yield on certain points of a conflict, they realize that they can cooperate and work together as a couple. The problem itself becomes an issue that they can conquer together as a team. This creates cohesiveness in other areas of their life as well, and they learn to move through time together. This ability for both partners to accept influence is a skill that discrimi- nates between happily married, unhappily married, and divorced couples in our research. In fact, we found that abusive husbands never accepted influence from their wives (Coan, Gottman, Babcock, & Jacobson, 1997). Although these abusive husbands are the extreme, their inability to accept influence highlights its importance for healthy relationships. Gottman et al. (1998) reported that in nonviolent marriages, once again it was the husband’s rejec- tion of influence from his wife that predicted divorce and not the wife’s rejec- tion of influence from her husband. Wives were accepting influence at high rates in all the marriages. This finding speaks to general issues of women’s power and powerlessness in heterosexual relationships (Walsh, 1989; see Knudson-­Martin, Chapter 14, this volume). 66 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Repair Attempts In addition to accepting influence, happy couples also manage conflict and mis- communication with what we call “repair attempts.” We have defined repair attempts as interactions that prevent or decrease negative escalation. Because disagreements are a natural part of any relationship, even happy relationships, the ability to repair is crucial. This is especially true when couples are engaged in conflict. The actual issue, whether finances, in-laws, or housework, is less important than the way the couple engages in the dispute. Miscommunication during these conflicts often leads to an increase or escalation of negativity and erosion of the relationship; so it is important to repair the miscommunication during the conflict or soon after. For nearly 3 years we studied repair attempts in an effort to understand their role in preventing and reducing increased negativity. Examples of repair attempts include apologies, humor, affection, and changing the subject. These repair interactions are not necessarily related to the content of the argument but may simply provide a brief reprieve from it. For instance, one husband suddenly stopped in the middle of a heated debate and said, “After this, I need to stop by my sister’s house to drop off the DVD we borrowed.” The wife went along with his repair by saying, “OK. We can drop it off before we pick up the kids.” This seemingly unimportant change of subject gave the couple a brief diversion from the intensity of the conflict. Once they talked about the DVD, both seemed more relaxed and were able to return to the argument. Happy couples tend to give their partners the opportunity to maneuver in the discussion. They allow the conflict to ebb and flow, with occasional unrelated topics interspersed in the conflict. Allowing a change of topic, however, must not be misconstrued as avoiding the topic. Happy couples return to the argu- ment and do not allow the reprieve to derail their discussion, even if the topic is uncomfortable or tense. Members of unhappy couples, by contrast, frequently respond to these types of repairs with a negative interpretation of their partners’ intent. Rather than allowing the change of subject, an unhappy spouse may respond, “You’re not listening to me!” or “Who cares about the stupid DVD?” As a result, unhappy couples may remain adamantly fixed on the discussion topic and not allow breaks in the argument. This rigid adherence to the conflict seems to escalate negativity. As a result, unhappy couples are not able to modulate the discussion and thus cannot keep the argument within a tolerable range. In addition to accepting the repairs, we have seen that couples who use repairs early in the conflict prevent it from becoming too negative. Happily married couples tend to use repairs throughout their discussion, whereas dis- tressed couples wait until the argument is heated and divisive. When the argu- ment is at a point of severe negativity, repair attempts are often less effective and may even backfire. One couple was in the middle of a heated and hostile debate about finances, when the husband tried to lighten the moment with a joke about a stain on his T-shirt. Rather than reducing the negative tone  Couple Interaction 67 of the conflict, this attempt at humor enraged the wife, who responded with increased anger and contempt. Repairs often have this backlash effect during high negativity, because unhappy spouses tend to ignore or reject a repair when the conflict is too intense. Our research has found that using repairs early and often is more effective than waiting until the conflict is more severe (Driver, Tabares, & Gottman, 2010). When there is a balance of repair attempts between the spouses, the con- flict also tends to maintain a lower level of negativity. If, however, one partner is making repair after repair, while the other plunges on with the conflict, the argument will continue to escalate. This pattern of uneven repair attempts seems characteristic of distressed couples. Another important component of repair attempts is each partner’s ability to respond in a positive way when a repair is made. If one partner recognizes a repair and allows his or her spouse to lighten the moment or gain a reprieve, the overall conflict is more positive. For example, one couple in our laboratory was involved in an intense disagreement about the husband’s disappointment with their oldest son. During a brief pause in the argument, the husband commented, “I do admire the fact that you’re able to stay calm no matter what he says.” The wife smiled and simply said, “Thanks.” After this moment of affection (compli- ment), both the husband and wife returned to the conflict discussion. As this example shows, repairs do not avoid the conflict or demean the partner, but they do interject some positive moments into difficult discussions. One important finding from our recent study is that all couples attempt to repair during conflict (Driver et al., 2010). This indicates that all couples naturally repair and do not need to be taught how to repair. Instead, partners need to learn to initiate repairs sooner and more often, while also learning to accept and recognize repairs as they occur. This seems encouraging, because it may be easier to enhance and encourage existing repair skills than to teach and build new skills. In summary, repair attempts are tools that can be used effectively to prevent escalation, to reduce negativity, and to provide a break from intense moments during an argument. The conflict will continue in a more positive manner when repairs are used often and accepted well. Turning Toward One of the most important leaps we made in our way of thinking occurred when we started studying marriages in the day-to-day moments outside of conflict. By observing couples’ interactions in our apartment laboratory at the University of Washington, and by interviewing couples about the history of their relationship, we have discovered several key factors we attribute to suc- cessful marriages. In couple therapy, there is often an emphasis on the major events in the couple’s interactions, such as conflict discussions. However, the minor, 68 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES everyday moments for a couple may determine how the partners interact when major events unfold. As a foundation for approaching major events, daily interactions are a crucial component for marital success. Imagine, for example, that a husband gives his wife a dozen roses for Valentine’s Day. These roses might have a completely different meaning, depending on daily interactions: whether the husband has been aloof, crabby, and absent or attentive, positive, and helpful. In the first instance, the roses would be an inadequate attempt to make up for his neglect; in the second, they would be a loving and romantic gesture. The giving of roses comes with current and ongoing contexts. To understand these daily interactions, we designed one of our studies to accommodate couples in an apartment laboratory setting. We asked the couples to live in a studio-type apartment and videotaped them for 12 of the 24 hours they stayed there. We allowed them to bring anything from home that would help them feel comfortable, such as groceries, CDs, videos, and work. One couple even brought their cat. The only instruction we gave to each couple was to ask the partners to live as they would at home. To capture their everyday interactions, we created an observational cod- ing system that categorizes ways in which couples initiate and respond to each other on a moment-to-­moment basis. We defined an invitation to interact as a “bid.” For each bid, we noted the needs and demands involved, from infor- mation exchange to sharing emotional support. The responses to these bids ranged from mere eye movement to playfulness and were categorized as “turn- ing toward,” “turning away,” and “turning against.” From these data, we found that each time one partner initiates an inter- action (or “bids” for attention), the other spouse is given a choice that will improve or erode the marriage. Ignoring the interaction or responding in a negative way fosters distance and separation, whereas even a minor response helps promote emotional connection and friendship. Suppose, for example, that Stephanie and Carl are sitting in the living room reading. Stephanie looks up and comments that there’s a sparrow outside their window. At that moment, Carl faces a series of choices for his response. He can ignore the comment and continue reading (turning away); he can comment that he thinks bird watching is a waste of time (turning against); he can momentarily set aside his book to look at the bird (low-level turning toward); or he can look at the bird and comment on its activity (enthusiastic turning toward). If Carl responds by ignoring Stephanie or making a negative comment, it discourages her from making further attempts to interact. Such responses lead to reduced bidding and connection. On the other hand, if Carl responds by looking at the bird and making a comment, he is welcoming her interaction, which will lead to increased interactions and increased marital connection. We have found that happily married couples rarely ignore their part- ners. Nearly 85% of their bids were met with some kind of positive response (Driver, 2006). What is interesting about these responses is that they were not always overly attentive or enthusiastic. One partner may simply look up and  Couple Interaction 69 smile. Acknowledging the bid in some way seemed to play an important role in maintaining a healthy relationship. This does not mean, however, that sat- isfied couples always made low-level responses. Their responses ranged from low-level to playful. With this variety, spouses expressed their willingness and interest to interact. Having an eagerness to interact, we believe, creates more interaction and increased friendship. In fact, our happily married couples made up to 77 bids in 10 minutes. Contrast this to some distressed couples that made 10–20 bids in 10 minutes. A positive response to a bid appears to lead to increased bid- ding and strengthened friendship. Playful bidding was another characteristic of happy couples. We defined “playfulness” as good-­natured teasing with some physical sparring. For exam- ple, a husband might throw a crumpled napkin at his wife in a mock snowball fight. Such playful interactions were nonexistent for distressed couples. What is important, however, was that couples who used playfulness and enthusiasm in their daily interactions had better access to humor and affection during their conflict discussions (Driver & Gottman, 2004). In a longitudinal study of middle-aged and senior couples in first marriages, humor and affection during conflict was a characteristic of happily married, stable, older couples (Carstensen, Gottman, & Levenson, 1995). Thus, if daily interactions con- tribute to more positive affect during conflict, the overall quality of the rela- tionship is affected by these minor moments. Rewriting the Past Another nonconflict situation we have studied is the way that couples describe their relationship. We have found that a couple’s description of the past pre- dicts the future of the marriage (Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992; Carrère, Buehlman, Coan, Gottman, & Ruckstuhl, 2000; Shapiro, Gottman, & Car- rère, 2000). Over and over again, we have seen that partners who are deeply entrenched in a negative view of their spouse and their marriage often revise the past, such that they only remember and talk about the negative things that have happened in their relationship. Happy couples, in contrast, highlight their good memories. This revision of their marital history has allowed us to predict stability in marriage versus divorce with 88–94% accuracy (Buhelman et al., 1992; Carrère et al., 2000). These retrospective descriptions have also allowed us to identify buffers that appear to protect couples from decline in marital satisfaction during the stressful adjustment to parenting (Shapiro et al., 2000). To engage the partners in a description of their marital history, we use the Oral History Interview (OHI) and related coding system, developed in our laboratory by Buehlman and Gottman (1996). This interview asks cou- ples about the beginnings of their relationship, their philosophy of marriage, how their relationship has changed over time, and what marriage was like in 70 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES their family of origin. By interviewing the partners in this way, we are able to capture the dynamics of their marital journey and their identity as a couple. Although they may tell us about their past in great detail, our focus is not on content, but rather on how the couples describe their relationship. Most couples enter marriage with high hopes and great expectations. When a marriage is not going well, however, history gets rewritten for the worst. In a distressed marriage, the wife is more likely to recall that her hus- band was 30 minutes late to the ceremony. He, in a similar way, may focus on all the time she spent talking to his best man and may even speculate that she was actually flirting with him. Along with remembering the worst, unhappy couples find the past dif- ficult to remember. It is as though the memory is unimportant or painful, and they have let it fade away. Their lack of appropriate detail, along with their negative perspective, gives us tremendous insight into their marital distress. In happy marriages, couples tend to look back on their early days with fondness. Even if the wedding was not perfect, they emphasize the highlights rather than the low points, and even joke about the low points and imperfec- tions. This is also true for the way they remember and describe each other. They reminisce about how positive they felt early on, how excited they were when they first met, and how much admiration they had for each other. When they talk about the tough times, they emphasize the strength they drew from each other rather than the specific struggles. Through categorizing couples’ descriptions during the OHI, we have been able to separate the masters of marriage from the disasters. Unhappy spouses headed toward divorce were negative to each other, thought of their lives as chaotic, and expressed disappointment in the marriage. Happy partners used fondness during their interview, used expressions of “we-ness,” tended to glo- rify any hardships, and reflected awareness of each other’s worlds through their expansive descriptions. Each of these categories is described in more detail below. Unhappy Couples Negativity toward Spouse Distressed spouses tend to express negativity and criticism toward each other, even when remembering pleasant events such as their wedding or honey- moon. A husband describing the honeymoon might only remember tension and unpleasant experiences: “It seems like all we did was fight; she nagged me all the time.... Oh, and the mosquitoes were terrible. I could barely step foot outside.” Unhappy partners may also be vague and unclear about what attracted them to their spouse. The husband and wife may wrack their brains to think of a single quality they admired about their spouse before they were married, and sometimes what they remember is not very flattering. One wife’s first impression of her husband was “Well, I guess I thought he was cute enough but, boy, was he a bad dresser!”  Couple Interaction 71 Chaotic Perceptions Many couples face struggles such as financial loss or stress at work. When these events occur, however, unhappy couples tend to view their lives as out of control or chaotic. They see themselves as pummeled by outside events: “It’s just one thing after another. It seems like one of us is always needed some- where. If it’s not our families, it’s the kids or one of our jobs. There’s pressure from every angle and there’s no way to stop it. We can’t do anything about our situation.” There is a helpless quality to these chaotic perceptions, with couples feeling unable to overcome stress and hardship. Often these couples are dealing with major stresses, such as sick parents, but the critical thing that defines their relationships is hopelessness. They believe that any solution to their problems is beyond their ability to control. Disappointment/Disillusionment One final pattern of unhappy couples is their disappointment and disillusion- ment with the relationship. Each partner has given up on their marriage and expresses depression about the relationship: “We used to be such good friends and now we don’t agree about anything. This is not what I expected.” A tone of sadness and resignation often accompanies these statements. Unhappy couples also seem unable to articulate what makes a successful marriage. It is as if per- sonal disappointment alters their general view of marriage, making it difficult to define a happy relationship. During the relationship interviews, negativity and chaos were predictive of divorce, but this tendency toward disappointment was the strongest divorce predictor (Buehlman et al., 1992; Carrère et al., 2000). Happy Couples Fondness and Admiration Happy partners who were still “in love” also showed unique characteristics in the way they described their marital past. Fondness and admiration are two of the most crucial elements in a rewarding and lasting romance. Part- ners conveyed a fundamental sense that their spouse was worthy of admira- tion, respect, and love. In a marriage with much fondness and admiration, a wife may recall her first impressions of her husband as being “perfect, like a dream.” In a marriage with less fondness, the wife might describe him being “a nice, stable guy.” Although even happily married couples have times of frustration with their partners’ flaws, partners still remember that the person they married is worthy of honor and respect. When this sense is completely missing from a marriage, we believe the relationship cannot be revived. Awareness or Love Maps Along with fondness and admiration, happy spouses usually show an aware- ness of each other and their relationship. This is clear in the way expansive 72 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES couples describe the details of their past. They are expressive and descriptive during the interview and often finish each other’s sentences. For example, Marcos and Judy describe their first date: M arcos: I remember when I picked her up for the night, she was wearing blue dress that brought out the color of her eyes, and had the bright- est smile I had ever seen. I couldn’t help thinking how lucky I was to have her going out with me. Judy: I kept him waiting for 15 minutes while I was in the bathroom making sure I looked perfect in that blue dress, and he didn’t com- plain at all. He was a perfect gentleman. (Both laugh and smile.) This dimension shows not only each spouse’s expressiveness, but also how both respond to and expand on their partner’s comments. In contrast, distressed spouses respond to questions with just a few short sentences, seem withdrawn, and do not add to the description. An unhappy spouse would describe the same first date by saying, “We went out to dinner.” Happy spouses are also intimately familiar with their partner’s world. They remember the major events in each other’s history and keep updating these facts/feelings as their partner’s world changes. We call this a richly detailed “love map.” When she orders him a salad, she knows to ask for his favorite dressing. We believe that this type of awareness works together with fondness and admiration to create a satisfying relationship. Suppose, for example, that the wife is having a difficult time with her boss at work. If the husband is aware of his wife’s distress, he may respond by expressing warmth and emotional support. Thus, the level of awareness is directly related to his ability to express comfort. Glorifying the Struggle In contrast to couples who are unhappy in their marriage, happy couples approach hardships as trials to be overcome together and believe that these struggles make their relationship stronger (Walsh, 2006; see Walsh, Chap- ter 17, this volume). They emphasize how they conquered their difficulties together as a couple: “It was really hard at first when he was laid off, but we managed to support each other and things started to work out.” Sometimes the hardships are even about the relationship or adjusting to marriage: “Mar- riage is the hardest job you’ll ever have, but it’s worth it.” Happy couples emphasize both the difficulty of their experiences and pride in how they man- aged through it all. Their struggles bring them closer together as they endure challenging outside events and work to prevail. We‑ness When happy couples describe their marital past, each partner tends to use the words “we” and “us” as opposed to “he or she” or “I.” This simple pattern  Couple Interaction 73 reflects the degree to which couples perceive themselves as a team rather than as individuals: “We oversaw the remodeling of our house. It was difficult at times, but we were able to work it out.” If this same couple were low in we-ness, each partner would talk about the remodeling in individual terms: “The remodeling was difficult, but I was able to work with the contractor.” Couples who use “we” more often also tend to emphasize the same beliefs, values, and goals. Although happy couples tend to use the terms “we” and “us,” this does not describe their level of differentiation. For example, happy partners may phone each other daily and spend most of their free time together. Other equally happy partners may rarely call during the day, have separate friends, and enjoy different interests. Regardless of their level of independence, happy couples will continue to talk about their relationship in terms of teamwork and collaboration. These couples maintain their desired level of unity or sep- arateness, while referring to themselves as “we” and “us.” It is their percep- tion of we-ness that is important. Transition to Parenthood After the arrival of a new baby, for women there is often a dramatic decline in marital satisfaction and increase in hostility during conflict (see Cowan & Cowan, Chapter 18, this volume; Shapiro & Gottman, 2005). In fact, 67% of the wives in our study showed a decline in marital satisfaction (Shapiro et al., 2000). Not all of these couples experienced this decline, however. We again turned to the OHI to understand better why some couples are vulnerable and others are resilient during transition to parenthood. By looking at the way couples talked about their marital past, we were able to predict this decline in marital satisfaction. It is particularly interesting that this prediction was pos- sible from interviews conducted during the early newlywed period. Our classifications of couples in the OHIs can be seen as reflecting the health of the couples’ marital friendship. We have found that this friendship can be seen in the early months of marriage and becomes an important buffer when couples encounter stresses such as the transition to parenthood. Vulnerable Couples Based on the newlywed interviews, we have been able to identify two warning signs of couples who are vulnerable to marital decline with the arrival of the first baby: First, the husbands tended to express negativity toward their wives; and second, the partners were likely to view their lives as chaotic. This is valu- able information regarding couples at risk for marital decline. When husbands were critical and negative toward their wives in the newlywed interview, the marital satisfaction of wives plummeted with the arrival of the first baby. Early in their marriage, these husbands tended to express negativity toward their wives and disappointment in the marriage. 74 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Here, again, we see the corrosiveness of criticism and negativity eating away at the quality of the marriage. We found that wives were particularly sensi- tive and vulnerable to their husbands’ negativity and marital disappointment when they became parents. Thus, a habit of negativity seems to have a more damaging impact after the baby is born. As mentioned earlier, unhappy partners tend to view their lives as cha- otic and out of control. This feeling is exacerbated by the disorder that often accompanies life with a new infant. The feelings of chaos expressed by dis- tressed newlywed couples make them particularly vulnerable in coping with the additional stresses and duties necessary for parenting. They are more likely to see parenting challenges as problems beyond their control that throw their lives and their relationship into disarray. Difficulties such as getting up in the middle of the night seem insurmountable and overwhelming. Resilient Couples Stable couples, in contrast, use awareness, with fondness and admiration, to buffer the marriage through this stressful period. A husband with a high level of awareness or a detailed love map of his wife’s world knows when she is feeling overwhelmed by the challenges she faces as a new mother. He then responds to her stress by expressing his fondness and admiration for her and increasing his level of participation in child care and household tasks. A wife who is highly aware of her husband’s world might also sympathize with his frustrations and increasingly support him as well. The Influence of New Fathers It is interesting to note that the most important predictor of continuing rela- tionship satisfaction after the first baby is born was the husband’s descrip- tions during the newlywed OHI. Wives are most vulnerable to a decline in marital satisfaction over the transition to parenthood, probably because the wife traditionally bears the bulk of the childrearing responsibilities. They are expected to know naturally how to be good mothers. It is, however, the hus- band’s fondness, awareness, and lack of negativity and disappointment during the newlywed interview that buffers his wife’s decline in martial satisfaction when the first baby arrives. Overall, the OHI provides a dynamic index to the marital relationship. The quality of couples’ friendship makes stressful periods, such as the transi- tion to parenthood, either more difficult or smoother. Disappointment in the marriage, negativity toward one’s spouse, and the feeling of chaos in couples’ lives may reflect vulnerabilities in the relationship and, for some, an overload of stressors that become particularly problematic during stressful periods. On the other hand, qualities such as fondness, admiration, and awareness seem to act as buffers in protecting the relationship during stressful changes.  Couple Interaction 75 Transition‑to‑Parenthood Intervention Based on the buffers and vulnerabilities for decline in marital satisfaction over the transition to parenthood (Shapiro et al., 2000), we developed a psycho- educational intervention for couples becoming parents (see also Cowan & Cowan, Chapter 18). This intervention, titled Bringing Baby Home, focuses on (1) promoting positive couple relations over the transition to parenthood, (2) promoting positive father involvement, and (3) promoting positive copar- enting and sensitive parenting. To date we have found that this psychoeduca- tion has been successful in preventing decline in martial satisfaction, reducing hostility in couple conflict (Shapiro & Gottman, 2005), reducing competi- tion in coparenting during family play with young infants (Shapiro, Nahm, Gottman, & Content, 2011) and increasing father satisfaction with parenting related duties (Shapiro, Pennar, Gottman, & Fink, 2009). This research illus- trates that couple relations are amenable to intervention during the transition- to-­parenthood period, and that not all marriages need be adversely affected by the birth of a new baby. Conclusions Through careful observational research, we have identified couple interaction patterns that characterize both happy and unhappy marriages. The relation- ships that end in divorce tend to gravitate toward the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and negative reciprocity during conflict discussions. This leads to the dysfunctional coping mechanisms of flooding and eventual emotional disengagement as partners struggle to protect themselves. Likewise, in daily interactions, they reject bid attempts and become more and more distant. These couples also remember and describe their relationships with negativity, disappointment, and feelings of chaos. When stressors such as parenthood come along, these relationships are vulnerable, and the couples become dis- tressed in response to the added pressure. In contrast, masters of marriage use repair attempts, daily moments of connection, and accepting influence to moderate and counterbalance their negativity. The use of these skills keeps their arguments from escalating out of control and allows them to stay engaged in the conflict. This, in turn, allows them to find possible solutions to their disagreements. If their conflicts are over issues without resolution, they use humor and acceptance to arrive at some peace with the issue. In their daily lives, they encourage interaction and stay emotionally connected. These couples describe their relationship with fondness and expressiveness, reflecting awareness of each other’s struggles that leads to support and encouragement over stressful periods such as the transition to parenthood. Later, when the stress has subsided, these couples emphasize their teamwork in conquering the problem. 76 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES We believe that finding these clear differences between unhappy and happy couples is the first step toward effecting lasting change for distressed couples. We have not studied cohabiting or same-sex couples to date, but some generalizations have been suggested in other writings (Gottman, & Declair, 2001; Gottman, Levenson, & Swanson, 2003). The next step in our mari- tal research involves further developing and testing interventions aimed at improving couples’ marital friendship by increasing positive affect in their daily lives. Our goal is to combine clinical practice with research to create effective, empirically based interventions tailored to each couple’s needs and values. References Buehlman, K. T., & Gottman, J. M. (1996). The Oral History Coding System. In J. Gottman (Ed.), What predicts divorce: The measures (pp. OH11–OH118). Hills- dale, NJ: Erlbaum. Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295–318. Carrère, S., Buehlman, K. T., Coan, J., Gottman, J. M., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 42–58. Carrère, S., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38, 293– 301. Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 140–149. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. C. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/ withdrawal pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 59, 73–81. Coan, J., Gottman, J. M., Babcock, J., & Jacobson, N. (1997). Battering and the male rejection of influence from women. Aggressive Behavior, 23(5), 375–388. Driver, J. L. (2006). Observations of newlywed interactions in conflict and in every- day life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples Family Process, 43(3), 301– 314. Driver, J. L., Tabares, A., & Gottman, J. M. (2010). Repair during marital conflict in newlyweds: Moving from attack–­defend to collaboration. Manuscript submit- ted for publication. Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 6–15. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrère, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital hap-  Couple Interaction 77 piness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22. Gottman, J. M., & Declair, J. (2001). The Relationship Cure: A five-step guide for building better connections with family, friends, and lovers. New York: Crown. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological link- age and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 587–597. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dis- solution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14–year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(3), 737–745. Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., & Swanson, C. (2003). Observing gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples’ relationships: Mathematical modeling of conflict interac- tion. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(1), 65–91. Gottman, J. M., Markman, H., & Notarius, C. (1977). The topography of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Mar- riage and the Family, 39(3), 461–477. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhib- iting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95–103. Shapiro, A. F., & Gottman, J. M. (2005). Effects on marriage of a psycho- ­communicative-­educational intervention with couples undergoing the transition to parenthood, evaluation at 1-year post intervention. Journal of Family Com- munication, 5, 1–24. Shapiro, A. F., Gottman, J. M., & Carrère, S. (2000). The baby and the marriage: Identifying factors that buffer against decline in marital satisfaction after the first baby arrives. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 59–70. Shapiro, A. F., Gottman, J. M., Nahm, E. Y., & Content, K. (2011). Bringing baby home together: Exmining the impact of a couple-­focused intervention on the dynamics within family play. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(3), 337– 350. Shapiro, A. F., Pennar, A. L., Gottman, J. M., & Fink, B. (2009, April). Fathers bring- ing baby home: Examining a transition to parenthood intervention for promot- ing father involvement and satisfaction. Poster session presented at a meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO. Walsh, F. (1989). Reconsidering gender in the marital quid pro quo. In M. McGol- drick, C. M. Anderson, & F. Walsh (Eds.), Women in families: A framework for family therapy (pp. 267–285). New York: Norton. Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.