COMMUNICATION IN MARRIAGE

Communication was, is and will be the hallmark of successful people,

it breaks the barrier that exists between people that needs to be
removed and help build bonds.

It is a part of our daily life. We speak to someone or greet people,

we express opinions and may offer information, we ask questions and
we need to listen, we may even try to inspire someone to accept our
point of view. How well we verbalise our thoughts and ideas
determines the impression we make on people and ultimately, how
successful we are in life.

Relationship in Marriage is like a vehicle that has two steering

wheels and two different people driving .The bonds in marriage are
wafer thin and can be strengthened by our own efforts.
Communication plays a vital role in the growth of our oneness.

The three most important aspects of communication are the words

we use, the manner in which we speak and the gestures, body
language and facial expressions we use.

While most people think that the right words used are sufficient for
proper communication, the process needs to be looked at from a
different point of view, ie verbal and nonverbal, the words we use
comprise 7% of our communication and is known as verbal
communication. The remaining 93 % is the manner we speak and the
gestures or body language we tend to use. This is called nonverbal
communication, it sometimes louder than the words we speak.

While speaking expresses our thoughts and feelings, it the skill of

listening that makes communication complete, it is the more
important part of communication in marriage and it is seen that it is
also the most neglected part .The art of listening needs to be honed
in our attempts to build a strong relationship. Sensitive listening
builds better understating. Pausing before speaking, can change a
very negative statement we may or can make.

The use of overly dramatic words like Always in terms of refusal,

lateness, cooking quality etc in a negative way can damage a good
relationship

The most important information one needs in marriage is about the

person you marry. Understand, Accept and Adjust formula is very
important. Use of words strengthens this formula. Did I hear what
you said, or, did I hear what you meant to say, are two different
approaches .Bridging the gap of individuality is paramount in
marriage. Saying what I like to hear, Listening to respond or
waiting to speak are different aspects of communication that makes
things different. Paraphrasing is an excellent way to understand the
content or help understand the feeling.

Knowing what not to say in a relationship, the danger of crossing the

line are vital too. Agreeing to disagree, saying what is necessary, to
say yes when you can or need to say no, are situations that can be
great for our oneness.

Our thoughts and feelings lead to our words and actions. In an

attempt understand the dynamics of relationship, keeping
communication in mind, one must unlearn and relearn the process of
our communication.

Love is stronger when it is expressed, it can never be strengthened

by taking things for granted, its words that cements the bonding.
Here is another insightful section of the article. Keep reading to
find out the 20 most common reasons why couples break up.

1. Poor communication skills

Communication issues are often the root causes of problems in
relationships and one of the most common breakup reasons. They are
one of the key break up reasons in many cases.

Healthy communication creates an amazing cycle. Couples who are

happy tend to communicate more, and couples who regularly
communicate boost relationship satisfaction.

Keywords: communication, low-income families,

marriage and close relationships, satisfaction
Communication occupies a central role in models of
relationship deterioration, as intimate bonds are believed
to remain strong to the extent that partners respond with
sensitivity to one another (e.g., Reis & Patrick, 1996).
Nonetheless, evidence substantiating the critical
importance of communication comes almost exclusively
from cross-sectional studies (Woodin, 2011) and from
longitudinal studies in which communication observed at
one time point is used to predict later marital satisfaction
(Karney & Bradbury, 1995). If changes in communication
are truly the mechanism by which satisfaction changes,
however, longitudinal data on communication behaviors
are needed to show that communication consistently
predicts changes in satisfaction over time. Moreover, in
the absence of such data, cause and effect cannot be
disentangled: actual effects of communication on later
satisfaction might be overstated if earlier assessments of
satisfaction are generating variability in later
communication. In the current study we addressed this
gap by using four waves of observed communication and
self-reported satisfaction data from a sample of newlywed
couples to examine whether communication predicts
changes in satisfaction and whether satisfaction predicts
changes in communication.

Guided by social exchange theory, early approaches

argued that happy marriages could be distinguished from
unhappy marriages by the ratio of positive to negative
behavior in the relationship (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979).
Since then, cross-sectional studies have consistently
indicated that distressed couples display more negative
communication behaviors and fewer positive
communication behaviors during conflict resolution tasks
than relatively satisfied couples (Bradbury & Karney,
2013). Behavioral theory extended these findings to posit
that marital distress is a consequence of poor
communication, arguing that “distress results from
couples’ aversive and ineffectual response to conflict”
(Koerner & Jacobson, 1994, p. 208).

Evidence for the notion that poor communication predicts

couple outcomes is mixed. Consistent with the
aforementioned pattern, low levels of positive affect and
high levels of negative skills predict steeper declines in
marital satisfaction over time (Johnson et al., 2005),
negative behaviors observed at baseline distinguish
between satisfied and dissatisfied intact couples at 10-
year follow-up (Kiecolt-Glaser, Bane, Glaser, & Malarkey,
2003), and couples who express more negativity in the
first 2 years of marriage report greater unhappiness in
their marriages after more than a decade compared to
couples who are more positive early on (Huston, Caughlin,
Houts, Smith, & George, 2001). However, other studies are
inconsistent with this general pattern, revealing
counterintuitive associations between negative
communication and changes in satisfaction. Husbands’
negativity has been shown to predict a positive change in
wives’ satisfaction 1 year later, for example, and is
unrelated to their own satisfaction (Heavey, Layne, &
Christensen, 1993); more negative communication
predicts slower, not faster, declines in satisfaction (Karney
& Bradbury, 1997); and few links are found between
positive communication and satisfaction trajectories
(e.g., Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, & Whitton,
2010).

Considering Bidirectional Linkages

These findings pose a critical challenge for behavioral

theories: if poor communication reliably distinguishes
between distressed and nondistressed couples in the
cross-section (Woodin, 2011), how is it that poor
communication does not consistently predict relationship
distress? One possibility is that communication and
satisfaction are correlated concurrently not because
communication predicts satisfaction but because
satisfaction predicts communication. This idea is
consistent with longstanding evidence from the social
psychological literature that attitudes guide behavior
(e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), and would suggest that
couples’ global evaluations of their relationship should
predict how partners behave toward one another. As such,
communication may be a consequence of marital
satisfaction rather than a cause.
Support for this competing theoretical perspective would
have important applied implications. Because
communication has been viewed as the key mechanism
underlying relationship functioning, interventions
designed to prevent or ameliorate couples’ distress have
emphasized communication skills (e.g., Benson, McGinn, &
Christensen, 2012; Rogge, Cobb, Lawrence, Johnson, &
Bradbury, 2013). In particular, this focus on decreasing
negative communication and increasing positive
communication forms the core agenda in large-scale,
federally sponsored tests of leading couple education
programs (e.g., Hsueh et al., 2012; Wood, Moore,
Clarkwest, & Killwald, 2014), following the assumption
that improving couples’ communication will improve
relationships and, ultimately, prevent relationship
dissolution. This focus is appropriate if poor
communication is the root of marital distress. If poor
communication is a symptom or correlate of distress,
however, prevention programs targeting communication
may prove less useful than programs targeting more
proximal mechanisms generating distress. Thus, clarifying
the relationship between communication and marital
satisfaction may advance understanding of their
association and inform intervention.

Understanding the antecedent-consequent associations

involving communication and satisfaction therefore
requires multiwave assessments of both variables. Yet few
studies to date have assessed communication at multiple
time points, limiting our ability to directly test these
questions. Implementing a multiwave design also allows
for new questions about whether the communication-to-
satisfaction and satisfaction-to-communication effects
have differential temporal sequencing, such that marital
satisfaction initially predicts communication early in
marriage whereas communication predicts marital
satisfaction as time passes.

Prior research on the association between communication

and satisfaction is also limited by its focus on middle-class
Caucasian couples, which narrows the range of
experiences captured and limits the generalizability of
findings. Studying samples that are culturally and
economically diverse is especially important in light of the
interventions described earlier, as recent federal
initiatives have sought to develop and deliver
communication-based interventions to ethnically diverse
low-income couples (Hsueh et al., 2012; Wood et al.,
2014). The theoretical assumption underlying these
models—that better communication yields stronger and
more fulfilling relationships—has yet to be tested in these
populations, however.

Go to:

The Current Study

In this study we used four waves of data from a sample of

low-income, ethnically diverse newlywed couples studied
over the first 3 years of marriage to examine the direction
of the relationship(s) between marital satisfaction and
observed communication. The early years of marriage are
an ideal time to study these associations because they are
a period of significant risk and change for many couples
(e.g., Kreider & Ellis, 2011). Disentangling associations
between satisfaction and communication also requires
studying them before any linkages between them become
too well-established, thus necessitating research early in
couples’ marital careers.

The antecedent-consequent models yield two sets of basic

predictions: (1) communication at one time point should
lead to changes in satisfaction at a subsequent time point,
consistent with behavioral models, and (2) satisfaction at
one time point should lead to changes in communication
at a subsequent time point, consistent with attitude-
behavior models. Bidirectional associations between
satisfaction and communication may also be present,
indicating that communication and satisfaction mutually
reinforce one another. In addition, simultaneously
examining communication-to-satisfaction and satisfaction-
to-communication allowed us to compare the relative
magnitude of the pathways, providing new information
about which is a stronger predictor.

We considered two factors that may affect these general

patterns. First, we examined whether the relationship
between communication and marital satisfaction varies
depending on what type of communication is being
considered. We can distinguish between several different
types of communication behavior, including positive
communication (warmth, endearment), negative
communication (hostility, contempt), and effective
communication (assertiveness, generating solutions); each
of these may operate differently. Kim, Capaldi, and Crosby
(2007) found that positive emotion was more important
than negative emotion in predicting subsequent marital
satisfaction, consistent with the view that positivity serves
a predictive role in promoting intimacy and enhancing
relationship functioning. However, other theoretical
frameworks—most notably Gottman’s (1994) ‘Four
Horseman of the Apocalypse’—predict that negativity
should prove especially destructive to relationship
satisfaction. It is also possible that low levels of effective
communication may serve to undermine the relationship,
whereas positivity may only be the result of positive
feelings about the relationship. Accordingly, we
considered separate models for positivity, negativity, and
effectiveness to allow for the possibility that the pattern of
results may vary across communication type.

Second, we examined reciprocal associations between

spouses’ own satisfaction and communication (e.g.,
husband satisfaction and husband negativity) and
between their satisfaction and their partner’s
communication (e.g., husband satisfaction and wife
negativity). Within the marital literature there has been a
great deal of interest in partner effects in domains such as
personality (e.g., Luo, Chen, Yue, Zhang, Zhaoyang, & Xu,
2008) and stress (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2007), but there has
been less attention to these processes within the context
of communication. Examining partner effects can provide
a test of the robustness of the within-sex effects, and also
allows for the possibility that within-spouse and cross-
spouse effects will take different forms. For example,
satisfaction might predict one’s own future
communication behaviors, consistent with attitude-
behavior models, but communication might predict the
partner’s subsequent satisfaction. This study examined
these possibilities.

Go to:
Method

Sampling

The sampling procedure was designed to yield

participants who were first-married newlywed couples in
which partners were of the same ethnicity, living in low-
income neighborhoods in Los Angeles County. Recently
married couples were identified through names and
addresses on marriage license applications in 2009 and
2010. Addresses were matched with census data to
identify applicants living in low-income communities,
defined as census block groups wherein the median
household income was no more than 160% of the 1999
federal poverty level for a four-person family. Next, names
on the licenses were weighted using data from a Bayesian
Census Surname Combination, which integrates census
and surname information to produce a multinomial
probability of membership in each of four racial/ethnic
categories (Hispanic, African American, Asian, and
Caucasian/other). Couples were chosen using
probabilities proportionate to the ratio of target
prevalences to the population prevalences, weighted by
the couple’s average estimated probability of being
Hispanic, African American, or Caucasian, which are the
three largest racial/ethnic groups among people living in
poverty in Los Angeles County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002;
see also, Elliott, Becker, Beckett, Hambarsoomian, Pantoja,
& Karney et al., 2013). These couples were telephoned and
screened to ensure that they had married, that neither
partner had been previously married, and that both
spouses identified as Hispanic, African American, or
Caucasian. A total of 3,793 couples were contacted
through addresses listed on their marriage licenses; of
those, 2,049 could not be reached and 1,522 (40%)
responded to the mailing and agreed to be screened for
eligibility. Of those who responded and agreed to be
screened for eligibility, 824 couples were screened as
eligible, and 658 of those couples agreed to participate in
the study, with 431 couples actually completing the study.
The response rate to the initial screening compares
favorably to other studies of newlywed couples recruited
from marriage licenses (e.g., 17.8% in Johnson et al., 2005;
18% in Kurdek, 1991).

Participants

For the 431 couples who completed the study, at the time
of initial assessment, marriages averaged 4.8 months in
duration (SD = 2.5), and 38.5% of couples had children.
Men’s mean age was 27.9 (SD = 5.8), and women’s mean
age was 26.3 (SD = 5.0). Wives had a mean income of
$28,672 (SD = $24,549), and husbands had a mean income
of $34,153 (SD = $27,094). Twelve percent of couples
were African American, 12% were Caucasian, and 76%
were Hispanic, which is comparable to the proportion of
people living in the sampled neighborhoods in Los Angeles
County (12.9% African American, 14.7% Caucasian, and
60.5% Hispanic; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). Of the
Hispanic couples, 33% spoke Spanish during their
interactions and 67% spoke English. All African American
and Caucasian couples spoke English during their
interactions.

Procedure
Couples were visited in their homes by two trained
interviewers who described the IRB-approved study and
obtained written informed consent from each participant.
The marital satisfaction measure was administered orally
to participants by an interviewer who entered their
responses immediately via computer. After completing
this and other self-report measures individually, partners
were reunited for three 8-minute videotaped discussions.
For the first interaction, which was designed to assess
problem-solving behaviors, partners were asked to
identify a topic of disagreement in their relationship and
then to devote 8 minutes to working toward a mutually
satisfying resolution of that topic. For the second
interaction, which was designed to assess social support
behaviors, one randomly chosen spouse was asked to “talk
about something you would like to change about yourself”
while the partner was instructed to “be involved in the
discussion and respond in whatever way you wish.”
Spouses were instructed to avoid selecting or discussing
any topics that were sources of tension or difficulty within
the relationship. After a short break, a third discussion
was held that was identical to the second discussion, with
the roles reversed. Couples were debriefed and paid $75
for participating.

These procedures were repeated three more times at

approximately 9-month intervals subsequent to the initial
assessment (i.e., Wave 2 = 18 months into marriage; Wave
3 = 27 months into marriage; Wave 4 = 36 months into
marriage). After completing each phase, couples were paid
for participating ($100 at Wave 2, $125 at Wave 3, and
$150 at Wave 4).
Behavioral Observation

Videotapes were scored by 16 trained coders using the

Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (IFIRS; Melby et al.,
1998). Coders—five of whom were native Spanish
speakers—coded only in their native language. Factor
analysis was used to reduce the IFIRS codes to three
scales: positivity, negativity, and effectiveness. At Wave 1,
principal axis factor analysis was applied to the IFIRS
codes, which were formed by averaging each individual’s
scores for each code across the three discussion tasks, to
investigate their latent structure. The scree plot suggested
three factors (i.e., positivity, negativity, effectiveness) for
husbands and for wives (Cattell, 1966), which explained
35.7% of the total variance for husbands and 34.7% of the
total variance for wives. Adding a fourth factor accounted
for only an additional 3.6% of the variance for husbands
and 5.1% for wives, and was not indicated by the scree
plot (for details, see Williamson, Bradbury, Trail, &
Karney, 2011). The means, standard deviations, and
intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each of the
behavioral scales are presented in Table 1.

Relationships go through a myriad of stages as they grow and progress.

There are the first few months of puppy love when you can’t get enough of each
other, and you grow into a mature and happy couple where you feel content and
confident in the love nest you’ve created.

But then there are the not-so-fun stages, such as boredom and conflict. This may
gradually lead to separation, causing many to ask: Why do people break up?

It used to be the seven-year-itch that haunted the future of blissfully happy couples,
but recent studies show that 70% of couples are now breaking up within the first
year of getting together.
Is this the new average length of a relationship before a breakup?

Why are relationships so hard? Do couples ever break up for no reason? Keep
reading to find out.

What’s the meaning of breaking up?

Breaking up is the emotional process of ending a romantic relationship. It
involves two people deciding to separate and go their separate ways, typically due
to differences, conflicts, or changing feelings.

This decision can be challenging and painful, as it often involves letting go of

shared dreams and a deep emotional connection. Breaking up can bring a range of
emotions, including sadness, anger, and confusion.

It’s a difficult but necessary step when a relationship is no longer healthy or

fulfilling for both individuals. It’s essential to approach it with empathy,
understanding, and open communication to minimize hurt and promote personal
growth.

23 possible reasons why people break up

Poor communication skills

Communication issues are often the root causes of problems in relationships and
one of the most common breakup reasons. They are one of the key break up
reasons in many cases.

Healthy communication creates an amazing cycle. Couples who are happy tend to
communicate more, and couples who regularly communicate boost relationship
satisfaction.

On the other hand, research published in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage
reports that 53% of the 886 couples polled cited a lack of communication as one of
the most common reasons couples break up.

No emotional connection
One of the most common reasons couples break up is a lack of an emotional
connection.
Emotional intimacy is a bond that goes beyond physical lust and chemistry. It’s a
bond built over time through shared experiences and getting to know one another.

When an emotional connection is missing, a relationship can start to feel shallow

and boring.

https://youtu.be/7ibmDIjPxoM
1. Poor communication skills
Communication issues are often the root causes of problems in relationships and
one of the most common breakup reasons. They are one of the key break up
reasons in many cases.

Healthy communication creates an amazing cycle. Couples who are happy tend to
communicate more, and couples who regularly communicate boost relationship
satisfaction.

On the other hand, research published in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage
reports that 53% of the 886 couples polled cited a lack of communication as one of
the most common reasons couples break up.

. No emotional connection
One of the most common reasons couples break up is a lack of an emotional
connection.

Emotional intimacy is a bond that goes beyond physical lust and chemistry. It’s a
bond built over time through shared experiences and getting to know one another.

When an emotional connection is missing, a relationship can start to feel shallow

and boring.

4. You aren’t friends

What are good reasons to break up? For some couples, a lack of marital
friendship can contribute to a mutual breakup.

Being friends is just as important as being romantic partners with your spouse.

The Journal of Happiness Studies found that couples who are best friends
experience twice the level of well-being and life satisfaction.
Why do people break up? Couples who lack this special bond may feel
disconnected from their spouse and will have difficulties navigating their
relationship once the thrill of physical intimacy has worn off

You’re always arguing

Another answer to “Why do people break up?” has to do with the inability to deal
with conflict. Relationship breakup statistics show that conflict and arguing were
some of the most reported contributors to divorce.

And who wants to be in a relationship where you always feel the need to defend
yourself? Walking on eggshells is not a comfortable environment for love to grow.

13. No forgiveness
One of the most common reasons people break up is the inability to move on and
put the past behind them.

Nobody is perfect. No matter how much you love your spouse, they will still do
things that drive you crazy or hurt your feelings.

You can learn how to forgive wrongs, big and small, so long as your partner is
truly sorry and willing to make amends.

There is no compromise
Why are relationships so hard? Compromise often plays a big role in
relationship breakups.

Couples who value compromise put their partner’s happiness before their own.
Meeting in the middle on issues, both big and small, shows maturity, love, and
teamwork.

On the other hand, couples break up when they can’t compromise and exhibit
selfish and stubborn behavior.

▪ What is the most common reason for breakups?

Communication issues and differences in values or goals are often the top reasons
for breakups. These challenges can strain a relationship, leading to separation.

▪ Why do people fall out of love?

Falling out of love can happen due to changing feelings, evolving interests, or
unresolved conflicts. It’s a natural part of some relationships.