Transformative Processes in Marriage: Some Thoughts From a Sociologist

Although I am a sociologist, I have read many articles by the three eminent family psychologists, Fincham, Stanley, and Beach, and I have a great deal of respect for their work. Each author has made significant and lasting contributions to our understanding of marriage. I think that their current article is important and will stimulate a great deal of thought among marriage scholars. My comments, therefore, should be interpreted either as constructive criticism or as an attempt to add to the dialogue that the authors undoubtedly hoped to stimulate. ARE THE AUTHORS' MAIN POINTS CONVINCING? As I understand it, the article contains three main points. First, Fincham, Stanley, and Beach (henceforth, the authors) argue that marital research-especially research conducted by clinically trained family psychologists-has focused extensively on conflict. This focus has limited our understanding of positive couple processes that contribute to marital quality and stability. Presumably, therapists have focused on conflict because it seems an obvious entry point for intervention. Indeed, clinicians have made a great deal of progress in devising methods to teach couples how to communicate clearly, compromise, and resolve conflict constructively. Despite this progress, the authors are correct to point out that conflict is only moderately correlated with marital satisfaction and divorce. Some couples engage in frequent conflict yet manage to have satisfying and stable marriages, whereas other couples engage in little overt conflict but end their marriages in divorce (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Indeed, many marriages that end in dissolution appear to be preceded by relatively low levels of chronic discord (Amato, 2002). Clearly, we need to move beyond the notion that conflict is the central process that determines whether marriages succeed or fail. second, the authors elaborate on four positive aspects of marital relationships: forgiveness, commitment, sacrifice, and sanctification. A key point is that these factors function as self-repair or self-regulatory processes in healthy relationships. For example, two generally satisfied spouses may experience a serious heated argument that potentially damages the relationship. Later, these spouses may forgive one another (or engage in other positive process) and repair the damage, thus returning the marriage to its usual state of harmony. Correspondingly, couples in committed relationships often sacrifice their personal self-interest for the sake of the marriage. Most spouses do not view these sacrifices as relationship costs, however, but as factors that strengthen the union and, hence, provide longterm benefits to both partners. Through mutual sacrifice, spouses reinforce the affective bond between them and make their relationship less vulnerable to future stressors. The notion that couples engage in self-regulation to maintain a positive steady state makes a great deal of sense and is consistent with research showing remarkably high correlations over time in marital happiness and other aspects of relationship quality in stable marriages (Johnson, Amaloza, & Booth, 1992). Third, the authors argue that positive relationship factors can produce transformative processes in marriage. In my opinion, this is the least convincing part of the article. For example, the authors never define what they mean by a "transformative process. " Instead, they refer to self-transformation, couple transformation, transformation as a nonlinear effect, transformation of motives, transformation from self-focus to couple focus, and so on. Even more confusing, the authors refer in several places to "self-regulatory, transformative processes. " This term appears to be an oxymoron. How can a process that maintains self-regulation (or homeostasis) also be transformative? The authors discuss transformative processes within the context of nonlinear relationship dynamics. The exposition of nonlinear processes in the article is brief, and those who have read Gottman, Murray, Swanson, Tyson, and Swanson (2005) will understand this section more clearly. …