Structural flaws in the bridge from basic research on marriage to interventions for couples

In an article that received widespread media attention, Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (1998) reported on a longitudinal study of newlywed couples and recommended major changes in the practice of marital therapy and education. Most notably, they called for the abandonment of interventions that promote active listening, they concluded that anger was not detrimental to marital outcomes, and they advocated an interaction pattern wherein wives raise issues more gently and husbands more readily accept wives' influence. Because of several methodological and conceptual shortcomings, the recommendations of Gottman et al. appear to us to be premature at best. We raise methodological concerns about the nonrandom selection of research subjects, failure to control for factors that may have differentiated couples initially, procedural issues regarding observational and physiological data, and ambiguity about statistical tests employed. We raise conceptual concerns about how the labeling of patterns affects the conclusions drawn and also about the use of correlational data to make strong causal inferences. We conclude that the article by Gottman et al. risks influencing couples and practitioners alike in a manner that, in our view, exceeds the scope and methods of the underlying research. Key Words: active listening, divorce, marital research, marital therapy. Basic research on the family has tremendous potential to enhance the practice of marital therapy and education. In a recent paper, Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (1998) attempted to bridge the gap between research and practice, and their findings received widespread attention in the popular media (e.g., The Atlantic Monthly, Russo, 1997; The Los Angeles Times, Maugh, 1998) and in conferences attended by practitioners (e.g., Gottman, 1997; Gottman & Gottman, 1998). This interest stems from the fact that Gottman et al. framed their study as a major test of various views on how couple dynamics relate to subsequent marital deterioration. Interest was likely intensified because this journal hired a publicist to help in disseminating the findings to the media-an action that may be more commonly taken by some medical journals, but which was tried here for the first time. The key findings from this study led Gottman et al. to draw several noteworthy conclusions: that active listening strategies should be abandoned, that therapists may be wise to ignore negative offect reciprocity, that anger is overrated as a dangerous emotion, and that couples who do well are characterized by husbands who accept influence from wives and by wives who raise concerns with husbands gently. If valid, their conclusions have important implications for how practitioners work with couples. Indeed, numerous therapists and marriage educators have asked us about the meaning of this study. Because the findings from this one study had such far-reaching effects (which is not typical), the methods and interpretations bear close scrutiny. In forming our comments here, we (first and third author) acknowledge that the conclusion of Gottman et al. about active listening is in direct contrast to some of the things we advocate in our program for couples (e.g., Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994). Nevertheless, as will become apparent in this critique, our concern is that key conclusions in this study were stated too strongly, were based on nonreplicated findings in some instances, or were based on data that did not fully address the hypothesis being tested. Thus, major changes in how practitioners work with couples on the basis of this research is, in our opinion, premature. Before detailing some of our reasons for interpreting the Gottman et al. study with caution, we note our agreement with two key conclusions they reached. First, we agree that couple interventions can and should be better informed by ongoing research, because empirically based interventions are likely to be more effective. …