PSYCHOLOGISTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SEATTLE'S ''LOVE LAB'' ARE USING SCIENCE TO UNCOVER THE REAL REASON WHY MARRIAGES SUCCEED OR FAIL.
Magazine: New Age Journal
Issue: September/October 1994
Title: What Makes Love Last
Author: Alan AtKisson
PSYCHOLOGISTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SEATTLE'S "LOVE LAB" ARE USING
SCIENCE TO UNCOVER THE REAL REASON WHY MARRIAGES SUCCEED OR FAIL.
My old friends Karen and Bill, married since 1955, recently
celebrated another anniversary. "I wore the same nightgown I wore
on our wedding night," confessed Karen to me over the phone. "Just
as I have every anniversary for thirty-nine years." "I wore pajamas
on our wedding night," offered Bill. "But last night I didn't wear
nothin'." They laughed, and even over three thousand miles of
telephone wire I felt the strength of their love for one another.
Long-lasting marriages like Bill's and Karen's are becoming
increasingly rare. Not only do more than 50 percent of all first
marriages in the United States end in divorce (make that 60 percent
for repeat attempts), but fewer people are even bothering to tie
the slippery knot in the first place. One fourth of Americans
eighteen or older -- about 41 million people -- have never married
at all. In 1970, that figure was only one sixth.
But even while millions of couples march down the aisle only to
pass through the therapist's office and into divorce court, a quiet
revolution is taking place when it comes to understanding how
long-term love really works. Inside the laboratories of the Family
Formation Project at the University of Washington in Seattle --
affectionately dubbed the Love Lab -- research psychologists are
putting our most cherished relationship theories under the
scientific microscope. What they're discovering is that much of
what we regard as conventional wisdom is simply wrong.
"Almost none of our theory and practice [in marital therapy] is
founded on empirical scientific research," contends the Love Lab's
head, John Gottman, an award-winning research psychologist trained
both as a therapist and a mathematician. Indeed, it is this lack of
solid research, Gottman believes, that contributes to a
discouraging statistic: for 50 percent of married couples who enter
therapy, divorce is still the end result.
Gottman believes that, although relationship counseling has helped
many people, much of it just doesn't work. Not satisfied with warm
and fuzzy ideas about how to "get the love you want," Gottman is
scouting for numbers, data, proof -- and he's finding it.
For the past twenty years, in a laboratory equipped with video
cameras, EKGs, and an array of custom-designed instruments, Gottman
and his colleagues have been intensely observing what happens when
couples interact. He watches them talk. He watches them fight. He
watches them hash out problems and reaffirm their love. He records
facial expressions and self-reported emotions, heart rhythms and
blood chemistry. He tests urine, memories, and couples' ability to
interpret each other's emotional cues. Then he pours his data, like
so many puzzle pieces, into a computer.
The resulting picture, he says, is so clear and detailed it's like
"a cat scan of a living relationship." [See "Putting Love to the
Test," at right.]
What Gottman and his colleagues have discovered -- and summarized
for popular audiences in a new book, Why Marriages Succeed or Fail
(Simon & Schuster) -- is mind-boggling in its very simplicity. His
conclusion: Couples who stay together are . . . well . . . nice to
each other more often than not. "[S]atisfied couples," claims
Gottman, "maintained a five-to-one ratio of positive to negative
moments" in their relationship. Couples heading for divorce, on the
other hand, allow that ratio to slip below one-to-one.
If it ended there, Gottman's research might remain just an
interesting footnote. But for him and his colleagues, this
discovery is just the beginning. In fact, Gottman's novel and
methodical approach to marriage research is threatening to turn
much of current relationship therapy on its head. He contends that
many aspects of wedded life often considered critical to long-term
success -- how intensely people fight; whether they face conflict
or avoid it; how well they solve problems; how compatible they are
socially, financially, even sexually -- are less important than
people (including therapists) tend to think. In fact, Gottman
believes, none of these things matter to a marriage's longevity as
much as maintaining that crucial ratio of five to one.
If it's hard to believe that the longevity of your relationship
depends primarily on your being five times as nice as you are nasty
to each other, some of Gottman's other conclusions may be even more
surprising. For example:
Wildly explosive relationships that vacillate between heated
arguments and passionate reconciliations can be as happy -- and
long- lasting -- as those that seem more emotionally stable. They
may even be more exciting and intimate.
Emotionally inexpressive marriages, which may seem like repressed
volcanoes destined to explode, are actually very successful -- so
long as the couple maintains that five-to- one ratio in what they
do express to each other. In fact, too much emotional catharsis
among such couples can "scare the hell out of them," says Gottman.
Couples who start out complaining about each other have some of the
most stable marriages over time, while those who don't fight early
on are more likely to hit the rocky shoals of divorce.
Fighting, whether rare or frequent, is sometimes the healthiest
thing a couple can do for their relationship. In fact, blunt anger,
appropriately expressed, "seems to immunize marriages against
In happy marriages, there are no discernible gender differences in
terms of the quantity and quality of emotional expression. In fact,
men in happy marriages are more likely to reveal intimate personal
information about themselves than women. (When conflict erupts,
however, profound gender differences emerge.)
Men who do housework are likely to have happier marriages, greater
physical health, even better sex lives than men who don't. (This
piece of news alone could cause a run on aprons.)
Women are made physically sick by a relentlessly unresponsive or
emotionally contemptuous husband.
Gottman's researchers can even tell just how sick: They can predict
the number of infectious diseases women in such marriages will
suffer over a four-year period.
How warmly you remember the story of your relationship foretells
your chances for staying together. In one study that involved
taking oral histories from couples about the unfolding of their
relationship, psychologists were able to predict -- with an
astonishing 94 percent accuracy -- which couples would be divorced
within three years.
THE THREE VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE
In person, Gottman is a fast-talking, restless intellect, clearly
in love with his work. Now in his late forties and seven years into
a second marriage (to clinical psychologist Julie Schwartz), he
seems very satisfied. Yet, in his book, he sheds the mantle of guru
in the first sentence: "My personal life has not been a trail of
great wisdom in understanding relationships," he says. "My
expertise is in the scientific observation of couples."
Gottman began developing this expertise some twenty years ago, when
a troubled couple who came to him for help didn't respond well to
conventional therapy. In frustration, Gottman suggested that they
try videotaping the sessions.
"Both the couple and I were astonished by the vividness and clarity
on the tape of the pattern of criticism, contempt, and
defensiveness they repeatedly fell into," he recalls. "It shocked
them into working harder . . . [and] it gave me my life's work."
Struck by the power of impartial observation, Gottman became
fascinated with research. His goal: to systematically describe the
differences between happy and unhappy couples, and from those
observations develop a scientific theory capable of predicting
This seemed a daunting task, both because "marriage is so
subjective" and because "personality theory, in psychology, has
been a failure at predicting anything."
The result of Gottman's passion is a veritable mountain of data:
tens of thousands of observations involving thousands of couples,
gathered by the Love Lab's researchers and stored in its computer
data-bases. The geography of that mountain reveals a surprising
pattern: Successful marriages come in not one but three different
varieties, largely determined by how a couple handles their
inevitable disagreements. Gottman calls these three types of stable
marriages validating, volatile, and conflict-avoiding.
Validating couples are what most people (including most therapists)
have in mind when they think of a "good marriage." Even when these
couples don't agree, they "still let their partner know that they
consider his or her opinions and emotions valid." They "compromise
often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as
they arise." And when they fight, they know how to listen,
acknowledge their differences, and negotiate agreement without
screaming at each other. "These couples," Gottman notes, "look and
sound a lot like two psychotherapists engaging in a dialogue."
But where modern therapy often goes wrong, says Gottman, is in
assuming that this is the only way a marriage can work -- and
trying to force all couples into the validating mold. While
"viewing this style of marriage as the ideal has simplified the
careers of marital therapists," it hasn't necessarily helped their
clients, he says, who may fall into the other two types of stable
Volatile couples, in contrast to validating ones, thrive on
unfiltered emotional intensity. Their relationships are full of
angry growls and passionate sighs, sudden ruptures and romantic
reconciliations. They may fight bitterly (and even unfairly), and
they may seem destined for divorce to anyone watching them
squabble. But Gottman's data indicate that this pessimism is often
misplaced: These couples will stay together if "for every nasty
swipe, there are five caresses."
In fact, "the passion and relish with which they fight seems to
fuel their positive interactions even more." Such couples are more
romantic and affectionate than most -- but they are also more
vulnerable to a decay in that all-important five-to-one ratio (and
at their worst, to violence). Trying to change the style of their
relationship not only isn't necessary, Gottman says, it probably
Nor will conflict-avoiding couples, the third type of stable
marriage, necessarily benefit from an increase in their emotional
expression, he says. Gottman likens such unions to "the placid
waters of a summer lake," where neither partner wants to make
waves. They keep the peace and minimize argument by constantly
agreeing to disagree. "In these relationships, solving a problem
usually means ignoring the difference, one partner agreeing to act
more like the other . . . or most often just letting time take its
course." The universal five-to- one ratio must still be present for
the couple to stay together, but it gets translated into a much
smaller number of swipes and caresses (which are also less
intensely expressed). This restrained style may seem stifling to
some, but the couple themselves can experience it as a peaceful
Things get more complicated when the marriage is "mixed" -- when,
say, a volatile person marries someone who prefers to minimize
conflict. But Gott-man suggests that, even in these cases, "it may
be possible to borrow from each marital style and create a viable
mixed style." The most difficult hurdle faced by couples with
incompatible fighting styles lies in confronting that core
difference and negotiating which style (or combination of styles)
they will use. If they can't resolve that primary conflict, it may
be impossible to tip the overall balance of their relational life
in the direction of five-to-one.
The important thing here is to find a compatible fighting style --
not to stop fighting altogether. Gottman is convinced that the
"one" in that ratio is just as important as the "five": "What may
lead to temporary misery in a marriage -- disagreement and anger
-- may be healthy for it in the long run." Negativity acts as the
predator in the ecosystem of marriage, says Gottman. It's the lion
that feeds on the weakest antelopes and makes the herd stronger.
Couples who never disagree at all may start out happier than
others, but without some conflict to resolve their differences,
their marriages may soon veer toward divorce because their
"ecosystem" is out of balance.
THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE
Even the most stable marriages of any style can fall apart, and
Gottman and company have observed an all-too-predictable pattern in
their decline and fall. He likens the process to a cascade -- a
tumble down the rapids -- that starts with the arrival of a
dangerous quartet of behaviors.
So destructive is their effect on marital happiness, in fact, that
he calls these behaviors "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse."
The first horseman is criticism: "attacking someone's personality
or character" rather than making some specific complaint about his
or her behavior. The difference between saying, say, "I wish you
had taken care of that bill" (a healthy and specific complaint) and
"You never get the bills paid on time!" (a generalizing and blaming
attack) is very significant to the listener. Criticism often
engenders criticism in return and sets the stage for the second
"What separates contempt from criticism," explains Gottman, "is the
intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner."
Negative thoughts about the other come out in subtle put-downs,
hostile jokes, mocking facial expressions, and name-calling ("You
are such an idiot around money"). By now the positive qualities
that attracted you to this person seem long ago and far away, and
instead of trying to build intimacy, you're ushering in the third
Defensiveness comes on the heels of contempt as a seemingly
reasonable response to attack -- but it only makes things worse. By
denying responsibility, making excuses, whining, tossing back
counter-attacks, and other strategies ("How come I'm the one who
always pays the bills?!"), you just accelerate your speed down
Gottman also warns that it's possible to skip straight to the third
horseman by being oversensitive about legitimate complaints.
Once stonewalling (the fourth horseman) shows up, things are
looking bleak. Stonewallers simply stop communicating, refusing to
respond even in self-defense. Of course, all these "horsemen" drop
in on couples once in a while. But when a partner habitually shuts
down and withdraws, the final rapids of negativity (what Gottman
calls the "Distance and Isolation Cascade") can quickly propel the
marriage through whirlpools of hopelessness, isolation, and
loneliness over the waterfall of divorce. With the arrival of the
fourth horseman, one or both partners is thinking negative thoughts
about his or her counterpart most of the time, and the couple's
minds -- as well as their bodies -- are in a perpetual state of
defensive red alert.
The stress of conflict eventually sends blood pressure, heart rate,
and adrenaline into the red zone -- a phenomenon Gott-man calls
flooding. "The body of someone who feels flooded," he writes, "is a
confused jumble of signals. It may be hard to breathe. . . .
Muscles tense up and stay tensed. The heart beats fast, and it may
seem to beat harder." Emotionally, the flooded person may feel a
range of emotions, from fear to anger to confusion.
The bottom line is that flooding is physically uncomfortable, and
stonewalling becomes an attempt to escape that discomfort. When
flooding becomes chronic, stonewalling can become chronic, too.
Eighty-five percent of the time the stonewaller (among heterosexual
couples) is the man. The reason for this gender discrepancy is one
of many physiological phenomena that Gottman sees as critical to
understanding why marriages go sour, and what people can do to fix
Though flooding happens to both men and women, it affects men more
quickly, more intensely, and for a longer period of time. "Men tend
to have shorter fuses and longer-lasting explosions than women,"
says Gottman. Numerous observations in the laboratory have shown
that it often takes mere criticism to set men off, whereas women
require something at least on the level of contempt. The reasons
for this are left to speculation. "Probably this difference in
wiring had evolutionary survival benefits," Gottman conjectures.
An added sensitivity to threats may have kept males alert and ready
to repel attacks on their families, he suggests, while women calmed
down more quickly so they could soothe the children. Whatever its
origin, this ancient biological difference creates havoc in
contemporary male-female relationships, because men are also "more
tuned in to the internal physiological environment than women,"
Gottman reports. (For example, men are better at tapping along with
their heartbeat.) Men's bodily sensitivity translates into greater
physical discomfort during conflict. In short, arguing hurts. The
result: "Men are more likely to withdraw emotionally when their
bodies are telling them they're upset."
Meanwhile, "when men withdraw, women get upset, and they pursue
[the is-sue]" -- which gets men more upset.
Here is where physiology meets sociology. Men, says Gottman, need
to rely on physiological cues to know how they're feeling. Women,
in contrast, rely on social cues, such as what's happening in the
In addition, men are trained since early childhood not to build
intimacy with others, while women "are given intense schooling on
the subject" from an equally early age. Socially, the genders are
almost totally segregated (in terms of their own choices of
friendships and playmates) from age seven until early adulthood.
Indeed, it would seem that cross- gender relationships are set up
to fail. "In fact," Gottman writes, "our upbringing couldn't be a
worse training ground for a successful marriage."
Yet the challenge is far from insurmountable, as millions of
marriages prove. In fact, Gottman's research reveals that "by and
large, in happy marriages there are no gender differences in
emotional expression!" In these marriages, men are just as likely
to share intimate emotions as their partners (indeed they may be
more likely to reveal personal information about themselves).
However, in unhappy marriages, "all the gender differences we've
been talking about emerge" -- feeding a vicious cycle that, once
established, is hard to break.
Married couples who routinely let the Four Horsemen ransack their
living rooms face enormous physical and psychological consequences.
Gottman's studies show that chronic flooding and negativity not
only make such couples more likely to get sick, they also make it
very difficult for couples to change how they relate.
When your heart is beating rapidly and your veins are constricting
in your arms and legs (another evolutionary stress response), it's
hard to think fresh, clear thoughts about how you're communicating.
Nor can the brain process new information very well.
Instead, a flooded person relies on "overlearned responses" -- old
relationship habits that probably just fan the flames.
All this physiological data has enormous implications for
relationship therapists as well as their clients. Gottman believes
that "most of what you see currently in marital therapy -- not all
of it, but most of it -- is completely misguided."
For example, he thinks it's an exercise in futility when "the
therapist says 'Calm down, Bertha. Calm down, Max. Let's take a
look at this and analyze it.
Let's remember the way we were with our mothers.' Bertha and Max
can do it in the office because he's doing it for them. But once
they get home, and their heart rates get above 100 beats per
minute, whew, forget about it."
Teaching psychological skills such as interpreting nonverbal
behavior also misses the mark. "We have evidence that husbands in
unhappy marriages are terrible at reading their wives' nonverbal
But they're great at reading other people's nonverbal behavior. In
other words, they have the social skills, but they aren't using
them." The problem isn't a lack of skill; it's the overwhelming
feelings experienced in the cycle of negativity. Chronic flooding
short-circuits a couple's basic listening and empathy skills, and
it undermines the one thing that can turn back the Four Horsemen:
the repair attempt.
HEADING OFF DISASTER
Repair attempts are a kind of "meta- communication" -- a way of
talking about how you're communicating with each other. "Can we
please stay on the subject?" "That was a rude thing to say." "We're
not talking about your father!" "I don't think you're listening to
me." Such statements, even when delivered in a grouchy or
complaining tone, are efforts to interrupt the cycle of criticism,
contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling and to bring the
conversation back on track.
"In stable relationships," explains Gottman, "the other person will
respond favorably: 'Alright, alright. Finish.' The agreement isn't
made very nicely. But it does stop the person. They listen, they
accept the repair attempt, and they actually change" the way
Repair attempts are "really critical," says Gottman, because
"everybody screws up. Everybody gets irritated, defensive,
contemptuous. People insult one another," especially their spouses.
Repair attempts are a way of saying "we've got to fix this before
it slides any deeper into the morass." Even people in bad marriages
make repair attempts; the problem is, they get ignored.
Training people to receive repair attempts favorably -- even in the
middle of a heated argument -- is one of the new frontiers in
According to Gottman, "Even when things are going badly, you've got
to focus not on the negativity but on the repair attempt. That's
what couples do in happy marriages." He's convinced that such
skills can be taught: One colleague has even devised a set of flash
cards with a variety of repair attempts on them, ranging from "I
know I've been a terrible jerk, but can we take this from the top?"
to "I'm really too upset to listen right now." [See Upfront,
July/August 1993.] Even in mid- tempest, couples can use the cards
to practice giving, and receiving, messages about how they're
Breaking the Four Horsemen cycle is critical, says Gottman, because
"the more time [couples] spend in that negative perceptual state,
the more likely they are to start making long- lasting attributions
about this marriage as being negative." Such couples begin
rewriting the story of how they met, fell in love, made
commitments. Warm memories about how "we were so crazy about each
other" get replaced with "I was crazy to marry him/ her." And once
the story of the marriage has been infected with negativity, the
motivation to work on its repair declines. Divorce becomes much
more likely (and predictable -- consider that 94 percent accuracy
rate in the oral history study).
Of course, not all relationships can, or should, be saved. Some
couples are trapped in violent relationships, which "are in a class
by themselves." Others may suffer a fundamental difference in their
preferred style -- validating, volatile, or conflict-avoidant --
that leaves them stuck in chronic flooding. With hard work, some of
these marriages can be saved; trying to save others, however, may
do more harm than good.
In the end, the hope for repairing even a broken marriage is to be
found, as usual, in the courage and effort people are willing to
invest in their own growth and change. "The hardest thing to do,"
says Gottman, "is to get back to the fundamentals that really make
you happy." Couples who fail to do this allow the Four Horsemen to
carry them far from the fundamentals of affection, humor,
appreciation, and respect. Couples who succeed cultivate these
qualities like gardeners. They also cultivate an affirming story of
their lives together, understanding that that is the soil from
which everything else grows.
The work may be a continuous challenge, but the harvest, as my
long-married friends Bill and Karen would say, is an enormous
blessing: the joy in being truly known and loved, and in knowing
how to love.
THE LOVERS' LIBRARY
A slew of new books appearing in 1994 address some of the most
entrenched problems facing long-term lovers:
Hot Monogamy: Essential Steps to More Passionate, Intimate
Lovemaking, by Patricia Love and Jo Robinson (Dutton, 1994). This
is a wonderful guide to enriching your sex life in a host of
imaginative ways, and to reducing the shame and anxiety caused by
differences in sexual appetite. (Also available as an excellent
workshop on cassette from The Sounds True Catalog, 800-333-9185.)
When Opposites Attract: Right Brain/ Left Brain Relationships and
How to Make Them Work, by Rebecca Cutter (Dutton, 1994). A very
helpful and thorough guide to dealing with the wide range of
problems that can stem from fundamental differences in brain wiring.
The Couple's Comfort Book: A Creative Guide for Renewing Passion,
Pleasure, and Commitment, by Jennifer Louden (Harper SanFrancisco,
1994). A highly usable compendium of nurturing and imaginative
things to do together, cross- referenced so you can hop around the
book and design your own program of relationship rebirth.
The contents of this file are copyright 1994 by the publisher
in whose directory this file appeared. Any form of copying
for other than an individual user's personal reference without
permission of the publisher is prohibited. Further distribution
of this material is strictly forbidden. Please read the general
notice at the top menu of the Gopher Server for the Electronic
Newsstand. For information, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Download Complete. 26700 total bytes, 2670 bytes/sec
Press to continue