User:Elboyd3/sandbox

Cascade Model of Dissolution

Lead:

The Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution is a relational communications theory that proposes four negative behaviors that lead to the breakdown of marital and romantic relationships.  This model is the work of psychological researcher John Gottman, a professor at the University of Washington and founder of The Gottman Institute.  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.

Background:

Content: The Four Horsemen of Relational Apocalypse

• Criticism:
• Contempt:
• Defensiveness:
• Stonewalling:

Applications:

Criticisms:

References:

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.

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

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• Source 1: is older/out of date, 1995, and cannot be viewed.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.