https://www.gottman.

com/
z
Gottman model
z

John and Julie Gottman

 z
Theoretical formulations

The Gottman Method, developed by Drs. John and Julie Gottman, is a well-known and
extensively researched approach to couples therapy and relationship counseling. It is based
on empirical research conducted over several decades. Here's an overview of the research
base for the Gottman Method:

The Love Lab: Drs. John and Julie Gottman established their "Love Lab" research facility
at the University of Washington, where they conducted numerous observational studies on
couples. The Love Lab allowed them to observe couples in a controlled setting, recording
various aspects of their interactions, including communication patterns, emotional
expressions, and physiological responses. They began discovering consistent sequences
that differentiated happily married from unhappily married couples, which Dr. Gottman
wrote about in a book, called Marital Interactions: Experimental Investigations.
 z
Research innovation

In a series of research studies, Dr. Gottman developed new observational coding systems
with his colleagues, and the lab applied brand new methods for studying sequences of
interaction. They built a device called a “talk table,” in which people could interact and
also rate how positive or negative their intentions were and how positive or negative were
the impacts of the messages they received.

In 1975, Robert Levenson and John Gottman teamed up to combine the study of emotion
with psycho-physiological measurement and a video-recall method that gave them rating
dial measures of how people felt during conflict. They discovered Paul Ekman and
Wallace Friesen’s Facial Affect Coding System (FACS), and Dr. Gottman subsequently
developed the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF).
Summary of research on couples
Research Phase 1- Understanding couple interactions
 In 1976, Dr. Robert Levenson and Dr. John Gottman teamed up to combine the study of emotion
with psycho-physiological measurement and a video-recall method that gave us rating dial
measures (still applying game theory) of how people felt during conflict.

 in their first study with 30 couples they were able to “predict” the change in marital satisfaction
almost perfectly with their physiological measures. The results revealed that the more
physiologically aroused couples were (in all channels, including heart rate, skin conductance,
gross motor activity, and blood velocity), the more their marriages deteriorated in happiness over
a three-year period, even controlling the initial level of marital satisfaction.

 Gottman and Levenson were amazed to discover that harsh startup by women in the conflict
discussion was predictable by the male partner’s disinterest or irritability in the events of the day
discussion. They found that the quality of the couple’s friendship, especially as maintained by
men, was critical in understanding conflict. Furthermore, the ability to rebound from, or “repair”,
conflict to the positive conversation became a marker of emotion regulation ability of couples.
Research Phase 2- Predicting couple outcomes
 Gottman developed the concept of “meta-emotion”, which is how people feel about emotion (such as
specific emotions like anger), emotional expression, and emotional understanding in general. Meta-
emotion mismatches between parents in that study predicted divorce with 80% accuracy.

 Gottman and Levenson discovered that couples interaction had enormous stability over time (about 80%
stability in conflict discussions separated by 3 years). They also discovered that most relationship problems
(69%) never get resolved but are “perpetual problems” based on personality differences between partners.

 In a longitudinal study of newlywed interactions, a model containing only these four communicative
behaviors predicted, with 85% accuracy, whether couples would later divorce (Gottman, 1999, c.f. 1994a).
Further, Gottman and Levenson’s (2000) 14-year study also found that these communication behaviors
could discriminate, with 95% accuracy, those newlywed couples who would divorce early (within about 7
years of marriage) from those who would divorce later (within about 14 years of marriage).
 z
Example of study: Gottman, Coan, Carere and Swanson (1998).
Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions.

 Studied 130 newly wed couples over 7 years.

 Significant patterns of a) the husband rejecting wife’s influence, b)

wife starting conflict discussion in a harsh way, c) the husband not
de-escalating wife’s low intensity negativity, d) the wife not de-
escalating the husband's high intensity negative affect, and e)
neither being able to soothe the husband’s high arousal

 Predicted divorce with 83% accuracy and satisfaction with 80%

accuracy
 z
The four horsemen…

In seven longitudinal studies, one with violent couples (with Neil

Jacobson), the predictions replicated. Gottman could predict whether a
couple would divorce with an average of over 90% accuracy, across studies
using the ratio of positive to negative SPAFF codes, the
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt,
and Stonewalling), physiology, the rating dial, and an interview they
devised, the Oral History Interview.
 Gottman’s four horsemen
Criticism Defensiveness Contempt Stonewalling

Communication styles that predict divorce with 85% to 95% accuracy, and are often seen quite
early in the relationship (Gottman, 1999)
 Criticism

 More than complaining (which is healthy)

 Attacks someone’s personality or character (rather than a specific behaviour), usually

with blame.

 Criticisms may take the form of accusations.

 Or be a chained list of negative comments.

 They are often expressed using global statements such as ‘‘you never’’ or ‘‘you always’’
(Gottman, 1994b).
 Defensiveness

 a self-protective response to a partner’s actions

 denial of responsibility

 making excuses

 making (and responding to) negative assumptions about what a partner is feeling

 engaging in counter-attacks

 whining (Gottman, 1994b).

 Contempt

 Marked by the goal of causing a partner psychological pain through expressions of

disgust.

 It may be conveyed verbally (e.g., via insults, name-calling, or mockery)

 nonverbally (e.g., by rolling one’s eyes).

 Driving these behaviors is a lack of respect or admiration for the partner (Gottman,
1994b).
 Stonewalling

 Entails creating psychological or physical distance from a partner by being unresponsive

to efforts to communicate, responding in grunts, or withdrawing from interaction (Gottman
& Levenson, 1992).

 With no emotional signals, partners cannot interpret your emotions, they may assume
wrongly and can feel very frustrated.

 Removes the ability to build mutual understanding and increases discord (Fruzzetti &
Iverson, 2006; Waldinger & Schulz, 2006).
 z
Research Phase 3- Testing interventions
 In 1996, John and Julie Gottman designed both proximal and distal change studies. In a
proximal change study, one intervenes briefly with interventions designed only to make
the second of two conflict discussions less divorce-prone. In one of these studies, they
discovered that a 20-minute break, in which couples stopped talking and just read
magazines (as their heart rates returned to baseline), dramatically changed the
discussion, so that people had access to their sense of humor and affection.

 Together with Julie, John Gottman started building the

Sound Relationship House Theory. That theory became the basis of the design of
clinical interventions for couples in John Gottman’s book, The Marriage Clinic, and
Julie Gottman’s book, The Marriage Clinic Casebook. In August of 1996, they founded
The Gottman Institute to continue to develop evidence-based approaches to improving
couples therapy outcomes.
 z
Process of therapy

 Starting session by catching up, especially checking up on any assignments

 Pre-intervention interaction: therapist remains quiet – may use video

 Before suggesting intervention, ask couple to suggest their own intervention

 Ask if the intervention seems phony/foreign. Ask how they can make it feel more
natural and consistent with their personality – Couple owns the intervention 

 Explore any resistances. Resistance is not failure but a chance to discover the client’s
internal working model

 Give homework so couple can generalize new skill in everyday life.

z
Role of the therapist- very similar to
structural ft and cbft
 Collaborative-empirical stance- equal relationship, where goals
are created together and possible ways of achieving these goals
are discussed together.

 Therapist is active and empathetic- facilitates conversations

between family members.

 Identify and block negative interaction patterns (as identified by

Gottman’s research)

 Provides family with a road-map for change.

 z
Minimal Goals of Couple’s Therapy:

 Movement from gridlock to dialogue on perpetual problems

 Couple’s ability to process a fight without the therapist

 Establish skills for dialogue

 Build marital friendship

 Therapist fades out

 If couple is motivated, may explore shared meaning system

 z
Outcome research

 Davoodvandi M, Navabi Nejad S, Farzad V. Examining the Effectiveness of

Gottman Couple Therapy on Improving Marital Adjustment and Couples'
Intimacy. Iran J Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;13(2):135-141. 16 couples (32
individuals) - received ten sessions of Gottman therapy- improved marital
adjustment and intimacy, both immediately after and on follow up.

 Garanzini et al (2017)- effective with gay and lesbian couples (10 sessions of
therapy, 106 couples).

 Irvine (2022) (PhD thesis)- effective with healing from affairs

z
Unique aspects

 It is based on research and not theory.

 Takes physiological arousal/responses into

consideration.
 z
Treatment techniques- Seven principles
of making marriage work
Share Love Maps: This is where all the information learned about
our partners gets stored. One example of information gathered and
stored is the things that they like and things that they dislike.
Nurture Your Fondness & Admiration: This is showing that you
care about the other person and focusing on and acknowledging
the positives. The basis for this starts in friendship.
Turn Towards Each Other Instead of Away: This is doing things
together and showing the other person that they are valued. It is
taking the time to listen and not telling them you don’t have time.
Let Your Partner Influence You: share the decision making and be
 z
Treatment techniques- Seven principles
of making marriage work

Solve Your Solvable Problems: this is realizing which

problems can be solved and focusing on them.
Overcome Gridlock: figuring out what is causing a block in
your life and taking steps to overcome this block. It does not
necessarily mean fixing problems but taking steps to overcome
them.
Create Shared Meaning: creating a life that is shared and
meaningful for both of you.
 z
Effective techniques- based on outcome
research

 Communication skill training + behavior exchange

 Management of stress spill-over into marriage

 Insight into past marital dysfunction

 An emotion focus: All emotions are acceptable

 z

Gottman therapeutic interventions

 Gottman Repair Checklist: This Gottman communication intervention helps
couples to identify healthy ways of repairing conflict. Repair attempts can be
broken down into several categories:

• I feel: These are statements that partners use during the conflict, such as expressing
that they are fearful or stating that they feel sad or unappreciated.

• Sorry: As the title might suggest, this involves apologizing to a partner during the
conflict by directly expressing fault, asking for forgiveness, or admitting to
overreacting.

• Get to Yes: This type of repair attempts to look for a compromise and may involve
expressing agreement or a desire to find common ground.
 z

Gottman therapeutic interventions

• I Need to Calm Down: These repair attempts can involve asking to take a break,
asking your partner for a kiss, or expressing feelings of being overwhelmed.

• Stop Action!: Used when an argument is beginning to escalate. Stop Action requires
asking your partner to stop the conversation, suggesting that you start over, or agreeing
to change the topic.

• I appreciate: When a couple uses these repair strategies, they may admit to their own
wrongdoing, thank their partner for something they have said or done, or acknowledge
that they understand their partner’s point of view.
 z

Gottman therapeutic interventions

 The Four Horsemen Activity: Couples in Gottman therapy learn to identify these four conflict
styles and replace them with healthier ways of managing conflict.

 Conflict Blueprint Exercises: Gottman counselors may use conflict blueprint exercises to
help couples use healthy conflict-resolution behaviors, such as compromising, listening, and
validating each other.

 Dreams with Conflict Exercise: This is among the Gottman method worksheets that can help
couples to gain a better understanding of each other’s beliefs, dreams, and values on
particular topics.

 The Art of Compromise: This Gottman worksheet helps couples to identify areas in which
they are able to be flexible, as well as areas that represent “core needs” that they cannot
compromise.