Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution

The Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution (also known as Gottman's Four Horsemen) is a relational communications theory that proposes four critically negative behaviors that lead to the breakdown of marital and romantic relationships.[1] This model is the work of psychological researcher John Gottman, a professor at the University of Washington and founder of The Gottman Institute and his research partner Robert W. Levenson.[2] This theory focuses on the negative influence of verbal and nonverbal communication habits on the success and/or failure of marriages and other relationships.[1] Gottman's model uses a metaphor that compares the four negative communication styles that lead to the breakdown of a relationship to the biblical Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, wherein each behavior, or horseman, compounds the problems of the previous, leading to the total breakdown of communication in a relationship.[1]

Background

Gottman and Levenson's research focuses on differentiating failed and successful marriages and notes that nonverbal emotional displays progress in a linear pattern, creating a negative emotional and physical response that leads to withdrawal.[1] Prior to the development of the model (1992-1994) little research had been conducted that focused on finding specific interactive behaviors and processes that resulted in marital dissatisfaction, separation, and divorce.[3][4] Additionally, Gottman and Levenson's research indicated that not all negative interactions, like anger, are predictive of relational separation and divorce.[3] Gottman and Levenson's research notes that the "cascade toward relational dissolution" can be predicted by the regulation, or non-regulation, of positive to negative interactions of couples, with couples that regulated their positive-to-negative interactions being significantly less likely to experience the cascade.[3] This research has been furthered by looking at ways to intervene in the cascade communication process, and on its application to other types and models of relationships, including homosexual marriages.[5]

Four Horsemen of Relational Apocalypse

Gottman and Levenson's Four Horseman of the Apocalypse theory is centered around the concept that the behaviors below work in a cascade model, in which one leads to the other, creating a continued environment of negativity and hostility that creates marital dissatisfaction, leads to considerations of marital dissolution, separation, and finally dissolution.[6][4][3][1]

Horseman One: Criticism

Criticism is the first indication of the Cascade Model and is an attack on the partner's character.[3][7] Criticism is defined by Gottman as a type of complaint that blames or attacks a partner's personality or character.[6] Critical comments often materialize in chained comments and are communicated by broadly thorough statements like ‘‘you never’’ or ‘‘you always.’’[6] Research indicated that non-regulated couples, or couples whose interaction trended more negative, engaged more frequently in criticism and were more likely to begin the Cascade of Dissolution.[4] Gottman and Levenson's research found the wife's criticism correlated to separation and possible dissolution, but this was not so with husbands.[3]

Horseman Two: Defensiveness

Defensiveness is a reaction to pervasive criticism, and sometimes contempt, and the second level of the Cascade Model.[3][7] Defensiveness is a protective behavior and is indicated by shifting blame and avoiding responsibility, often in an attempt to defend against the first two horsemen.[7] Fowler and Dillow also characterize defensiveness as utilizing negative counter-attack behaviors such as whining, making negative assumptions about the other's feelings, and denials of responsibility.[6] Gottman and Levenson's research found defensiveness to be strongest amongst men.[4][3]

Horseman Three: Contempt

Contempt is the result of repetitive criticism and the third level of the Cascade Model and is driven by a lack of admiration and mutual respect.[3][7][6] Contempt is expressed verbally through mocking, sarcasm, and indignation with an attempt to claim moral-superiority over the other partner.[7] Contempt can also be indicated nonverbally by eye-rolling, scoffing.[6] Underlying this behavior is Gottman and Levenson's research which found contempt to be the strongest predictor of relational dissolution, with contempt being the strongest overall predictor for women.[4][3]

Horseman Four: Stonewalling

Stonewalling is the final phase of the model and is a reaction to the previous three behaviors. Stonewalling occurs when parties create mental and physical distance to avoid conflict by appearing busy, responding in grunts, and disengaging from the communication process.[7][6] Gottman and Levenson's research found stonewalling to be most common among men and a very challenging behavior to redirect, once it became habitual.[4][3]

Methodology and Regulated vs. Non-Regulated Couples

Behavioral Coding Systems Methodology

Gottman and Levenson's primary research for this model, published in the 1990s, centered around utilizing a variety of measures, in combination, to study the conflict interactions amongst married couples.[3][4] Gottman and Levenson physiological information garnered by polygraphs, EKGs, and pulse monitoring and behavioral information collected via survey and video recording.[4] Information collected by video was coded using the Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System (RCISS), the Special Affect Coding System (SPAFF) and Marital Coding Information System (MCIS).[4] RCISS consists of a thirteen-point speaker behavior and a nine-point listener checklist, which can be broken down into five positive and eight negative codes.[4] The SPAFF is "a cultural informant coding system" which considers verbal content, tone, and context, as well as facial expression, movement, and gestures, and body movement.[4] MCIS is the oldest and most widely used affect coding system, but is not as specific as others and is generally used in addition to other methods.[4]

Regulated and Nonregulated Couples

Information obtained from the RCISS and SPAFF analysis lead to the formation of the idea of regulated and non-regulated couples. Gottman and Levenson defined nonregulated couples as more prone to conflict engaging behaviors, while regulated couples tend to engage in more constructive, positive communicative behaviors.[3][4] It is noted that not all nonregulated couples exhibit all negative affective behaviors, nor do all regulated couples exhibit all positively affected behaviors.[6][3][4] Gottman and Levenson proposed that maintaining marriage stability is not about the exclusion of negative behavior, but about maintaining a positive-to-negative comment ratio of around 5:1.[6][4]

The Marital Typology

Gottman's research indicates that there are five types of marriages: three of which are stable and avoid entering the Cascade Model, and two that are volatile.[8][3] All of the three stable couple types achieve a similar balance between positive and negative affect; however, this does not mean that negative interactions or communication is completely eliminated.[8]

Stable Couple Typologies

Validators

This couple mixes moderate amounts of positive and negative affect.[8] This model is the preferred model of marital counselors and is a more intimate approach focused on shared experiences; however, romance may disappear over time.[8] These couples engage in reduced persuasion attempts and do not attempt to persuade until a third of the conflict has elapsed.[8]

Volatiles

This couple type mixes high amounts of positive and negative affect.[8] These marriages tend to be quite "romantic and passionate, but [have] the risk of dissolving into endless bickering."[8] These couples also engage in high levels of persuasion from the beginning of a conflict.[8]

Avoiders

This couple type mixes small amounts of positive and negative affect.[8] This type of marriage avoids the pain associated with conflict, but risks loneliness and emotional distance.[8] Thee couples make very few, if any, attempts to persuade each other.[8]

Volatile Couple Typologies

Hostile

Hostile marriages often see the husband influence both positively and negatively, but the wife only influences by being positive.[8] In general, "the wife is likely to seem quite aloof and detached to the husband, whereas he is likely to seem quite negative and excessively conflictual to her."[8]

Hostile-detached

These relationships tends to display a significantly higher rate of contempt and defensiveness.[8] Hostile-detached marriages see the husband influence both positively and negatively, but the wife only influences by being negative.[8] In these cases, "the husband is likely to seem quite aloof and detached to the wife, whereas she is likely to seem quite negative and excessively conflictual to him."[8]

Mismatch Theory

This theory proposes that "hostile and hostile-detached couples simply fail to create a stable adaptation to marriage that is either volatile, validating, or avoiding."[8] The belief is that marital instability arises from a couples inability to accommodate one-another's preferences and create one of the three types of marriage.[8]

Interventions and Therapeutic Strategies

Proximal Change Interventions

Gottman and Tabres research on proximal change interventions attempts to interrupt the negative communications process by creating chances for positive influence to help alter relational dynamics and alter or repair damage done by the cascade.[9] Two interventions were implemented, a "compliments intervention" and a "criticize intervention" design to increase positivity and negativity respectively.[9] Groups were randomly assigned, with a control group, and while the interventions did not have an effect.[9] However, the research indicated that couples determined the effectiveness of the interventions, as many non-regulated couples who have entered the Cascade Model will "construe" interventions by coding them into criticisms and/or by communicating with contempt.[9] The effectiveness of these interventions is contingent on the continued facilitation and monitoring of interventions by therapists.[9]

Avoidance and Anxiety Attachment

Researchers Fowler and Dillow note that avoidance attachment can be predictive of defensiveness and stonewalling whereby an individual is reluctant to depend on others.[6] Those with avoidance attachment may also struggle to regulate negative emotions and be prone to lashing out at partners.[6] Fowler and Dillow hypothesized that avoidance attachment can be predictive through self-reports of criticism, contempt and defensiveness; however, research finding indicated that avoidance attachment was only predictive of stonewalling.[6] Additionally, Fowler and Dillow noted that anxiety attachment, characterized by over-dependence, flooding, and fear of rejection, will also predict criticism, contempt, and defensiveness as those who exhibit anxiety attachment tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies.[6]

Gottman Method Couples Therapy

Homosexual Couples

Research from 2017 indicates that while the study of the Gottman Method's application to homosexual couples is relatively new, that most same-sex couples are not inherently different from their heterosexual counterparts.[5] Garanzini, et al.'s research indicated that the length of treatment for homosexual couples was not statistically different from the comparable national averages for heterosexual couples.[5] There was a significant increase in effect noted, which can be attributed to the idea that "same-sex couples generally function better than heterosexual couples due to smaller gender-role and inequality."[5] It is also noted that the Gottman Model of Therapy created a better platform for the discussion of relationship equality preferences.[5]

Criticisms

Gottman has been criticized for claiming that his Cascade Model can predict divorce with over a 90% accuracy.[10] Additionally, research Stanley Scott and his colleagues noted that Gottman's highly publicized research findings from 1998, which recommended significant shifts in focus and application for marital educators and therapists, including the de-emphasis of anger management and active listening, has several flaws.[10] Among the concerns raised, the most significant are methodological, including Gottman and his fellow researchers not providing justification for the nonrandom selection of participants, not controlling for cultural impacts, and flaws in physiological impact analysis.[10] Concerns were also raised about the methods for observational data collection and the ambiguity of statistics tests used.[10] Stanley's findings indicate that, while Gottman's findings are interesting, there are too many unexplained methods and that additional research is needed before the overhauling Gottman's suggested.[10]

References

1. Knapp, M.L., Daly, John A. (2002). Handbook of interpersonal communication. SAGE Publications. p. 270. ISBN 0-7619-2160-5.
2. "Overview - Research". The Gottman Institute. Retrieved 2019-02-06.
3. Gottman, John M. (1993). "A theory of marital dissolution and stability". Journal of Family Psychology. 7 (1): 57–75. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57. ISSN 0893-3200.
4. Gottman, John M.; Levenson, Robert W. (1992). "Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63 (2): 221–233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221. ISSN 0022-3514.
5. Garanzini, Salvatore; Yee, Alapaki; Gottman, John; Gottman, Julie; Cole, Carrie; Preciado, Marisa; Jasculca, Carolyn (October 2017). "Results of Gottman Method Couples Therapy with Gay and Lesbian Couples". Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 43 (4): 674–684. doi:10.1111/jmft.12276. PMID 28940625.
6. Fowler, Craig; Dillow, Megan R. (2011-02-02). "Attachment Dimensions and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". Communication Research Reports. 28 (1): 16–26. doi:10.1080/08824096.2010.518910. ISSN 0882-4096.
7. "The Four Horsemen: Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, and Stonewalling". The Gottman Institute. 2013-04-24. Retrieved 2019-02-07.
8. Cook, Julian; Tyson, Rebecca; White, Jane; Rushe, Regina; et al. (1995). "Mathematics of marital conflict: Qualitative dynamic mathematical modeling of marital interaction". Journal of Family Psychology. 9 (2): 110–130. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.9.2.110. ISSN 0893-3200. S2CID 122029386.
9. Gottman, John M.; Tabares, Amber (2017). "The Effects of Briefly Interrupting Marital Conflict". Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 44 (1): 61–72. doi:10.1111/jmft.12243. PMID 28656613.
10. Stanley, Scott M.; Bradbury, Thomas N.; Markman, Howard J. (February 2000). "Structural Flaws in the Bridge From Basic Research on Marriage to Interventions for Couples". Journal of Marriage and Family. 62 (1): 256–264. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00256.x. ISSN 0022-2445.