User:Elboyd3/sandbox

Note: Added links to article from "John Gottman" article and "Breakups" article for training module.

Cascade Model of Dissolution

The Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution is a relational communications theory that proposes four critically negative behaviors that lead to the breakdown of marital and romantic relationships.  This theory focuses on the negative influence of verbal and nonverbal communication habits on the success and/or failure of marriages and other relationships. 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 , signifying the complete breakdown of a relationship.

Background:

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. 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. 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. Additionally, Gottman and Levenson's research indicated that not all negative interactions, like anger, are predictive of relational separation and divorce. 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. 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.

Methodology and Regulated vs. Non-Regulated Couples

Behavioral Coding Systems Methodology:

Gottman and Levenson's primary research for this model, published in the 1990's, centered around utilizing a variety of measures, in combination, to study the conflict interactions amongst married couples. Gottman and Levenson physiological information garnered by polygraphs, EKGs, and pulse monitoring and behavioral information collected via survey and video recording. 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). RCISS is comprised of a thirteen-point speaker behavior and a nine-point listener checklist, which can be broken down into five positive and eight negative codes. 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. 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.

Regulated and Nonregulated Couples:

Information gained from the RCISS and SPAFF analysis lead the the formation of the idea of regulated and nonregulated 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. It is noted that not all nonregulated couples exhibit all negative affective behaviors, nor do all regulated couples exhibit all positively affected behaviors. 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.

Marital Typology

Gottman's research indicates that there are five types of marriages, three of which are stable, and two that are volatile. all three stable couple types achieve a similar balance between positive and negative affect.

Stable Couple Typologies:

validators:

This couple type mixes moderate amounts of positive and negative affect. This model is the preferred model of marital counselors and is a more intimate approach focused on shared experiences; however, romance may disappear overtime.

volatiles:

This couple type mixes high amounts of positive and negative affect. these marriages tend to be quite "romantic and passionate, but [have] the risk of dissolving into endless bickering."

avoiders:

This couple type mixes small amounts of positive and negative affect.

Volatile Couple Typologies:

hostile-detached:

These relationships tends to display a significantly higher rate of contempt and defensiveness.

The 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.

Horseman One: Criticism

Criticism is the first indication of the Cascade Model and is an attack on the partner's character. Criticism is defined by Gottman as a type of complaint that blames or attacks a partner's personality or character. Critical comments often materialize in chained comments and are communicated by broadly through statements like ‘‘you never’’ or ‘‘you always.’’ 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. Gottman and Levenson's research found the wife's criticism correlated to separation and possible dissolution, but this was not so with husbands.

Horseman Two: Defensiveness

Defensiveness is a reaction to pervasive criticism, and sometimes contempt, and the second level of the Cascade Model. 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. 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. Gottman and Levenson's research found defensiveness to be strongest amongst men.

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. Contempt is expressed verbally through mocking, sarcasm, and indignation with an attempt to claim moral-superiority over the other partner. Contempt can also be indicated nonverbally by eye-rolling, scoffing. Underlying this behavior is Gottman and Levenson's research found contempt to be the strongest predictor of relational dissolution, with contempt being the strongest overall predictor for women.

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. Gottman and Levenson's research found stonewalling to be most common among men and a very challenging behavior to redirect, once it became habitual.

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 change relational dynamics. Two interventions were implemented, a "compliments intervention" and a "criticize intervention" design to increase positivity and negativity respectively. Groups were randomly assigned, with a control group, and while the interventions did not have an effect. 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 or by communicating with contempt, are contingent on being monitored by therapists.

Avoidance and Anxiety Attachment

Fowler and Dillow also note that avoidance attachment can be predictive of defensiveness and stonewalling whereby an individual is reluctant to depend on others. Those with avoidance attachment may also struggle to regulate negative emotions and be prone to lashing out at partners. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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." It is also noted that the Gottman Model of Therapy created a better platform for the discussion of relationship equality preferences.

Criticisms:

Gottman has been criticized for claiming that his Cascade Model can predict divorce with over a 90% accuracy (FIND CITATION).

Working Bibliography:

BOLD = used

Fowler, C., & Dillow, M. (2011). Attachment Dimensions and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, (1), 16. Retrieved from http://libdata.lib.ua.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN285155804&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 57–75. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221.

Gottman, J. M., & Tabares, A. (2018). The effects of briefly interrupting marital conflict. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(1), 61–72. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1111/jmft.12243.

Gibson, David R. How the Outside Gets In: Modeling Conversational Permeation. (2008). Annual Review of Sociology, 359. Retrieved from http://libdata.lib.ua.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.266872518&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Garanzini, S., Yee, A., Gottman, J., Gottman, J., Cole, C., Preciado, M., & Jasculca, C. (2017). Results of Gottman Method couples therapy with gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(4), 674–684. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1111/jmft.12276

Cook, J., Tyson, R., White, J., Rushe, R., Gottman, J., & Murray, J. (1995). Mathematics of marital conflict: Qualitative dynamic mathematical modeling of marital interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 9(2), 110–130. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1037/0893-3200.9.2.110

Book:

Knapp, M. L., & Daly, J. A. (2002). Handbook of interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications.

Not able to access: Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? : the relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.

Page Thoughts: Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution

I would like to build the basic structure of an article with background info that other, more knowledgeable scholars can build upon.

Article Evaluation:

American Literature (academic discipline)

Thoughts on Article:

content: Initial comment is underdeveloped and needs expansion. The wording is awkward in places. Missing information on movements and theoretical approaches to study. Could use images.

tone: Tone is good and not biased.

sourcing: Has two comments in the second paragraph that are not cited.

• Source 1: is older/out of date, 1995, and cannot be viewed. I happen to be familiar with the book referenced. Other than being old, content would be acceptable in an article of this topic.
• Source 2: is also a book. It's a biography of an early American historian. Only some of its content would be connected to the study of American Literature. Source is from 2011. Biographer does have a specific view on topic, bias.
• Source 3: has an ISBN. I am also familiar with this book and it is acceptable.
• Source 4: has some info, but it is from a talk in 1996 and is more interested with Dartmouth's role in American Literature than the development of the content.
• Source 5: is a link to the journal being referenced. Acceptable
• Source 6: Information is current and connected to content. Acceptable

Talk Page: only has two comments. There is a link to a page on the same topic that seems to be the primary article that is significantly more developed. C-Class and mid importance, part of Wiki Project Education.