discussion 7

Before participating in this discussion board, please be sure to view and listen to the lecture, as well as complete this week’s reading.

For our week seven discussion board, please answer the following: 

1. Comprehension: In your own words, and in a few sentences, reference the reading and share your thoughts on research discussed. What is one thing the chapter mentioned that peaked your interest or taught you something new? Be sure to include a direct quote and reference the page. 

2. Reflective: Choose three of the love types discussed in the lecture, and reference an example, either fictional or non-fictional, in television, movies, novels, stories of any kind, etc. for each love type you choose. Again, you only have to choose three but if you would like to discuss more, you are more than welcome to! 

3. Think Critically: How does our society make it hard to maintain relationships? How does it make it easy? Reference at least three relational maintenance behaviors mentioned in the lecture.

Please remember your initial post should be a minimum of 250 words 

easy to understandinggood grammar

Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora
19 Marital communication

Abstract: For many people marriage is the most consequential relationship of their
adult lives, yet the high divorce rate suggests that it can be a relationship laden
with difficulties. This chapter presents several conceptual models designed to
explain changes in marital quality and skill-based models of marital quality. The
maintenance of positive affect and reduction or management of negative affect
are key processes associated with long-term martial outcomes that are strongly
influenced by marital communication behaviors. These behaviors include disclo-
sure, expressing positive affect and provision of social support on the positive
side, and anger, demand-withdrawal, and emotional and verbal aggression on the
negative side. Many of these negative behaviors have proven to be useful indica-
tors of a couple’s risk for divorce. Finally, researchers have been able to reliably
classify marriages into distinct types, based in part on their communication behav-
iors, particularly how the couple handles marital conflicts. Collectively, these finding
illustrate the major role of communication processes in marital success and failure.

Key Words: marital satisfaction, emotion, conflict, social support, divorce, couple
types

1 Introduction
Although most people get married at some point in their lives, a large portion of
these marriages end in divorce. For example, in the United States about 45 % of
all recently initiated marriages are predicted to end in divorce, with about 5 %
more ending in permanent separation (Amato 2010). The highest divorce rates in
the world can be found in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the United States, Cuba, Lithu-
ania, and the Czech Republic (United Nations 2011). In the United States the crude
divorce rate (number of divorces per 1,000 people in the population) has decreased
slightly in the past 10 years; however, the marriage rate has as well. Therefore,
what appears to be a slight drop in the divorce rate is at least partly an artifact of
having fewer people in the population eligible for divorce. Other industrialized
nations such as Germany, Japan, Denmark and the United Kingdom have experi-
enced either stable or slightly increasing divorce rates between 1980 and 2000
(Martin and Kats 2003).

Most people who marry expect their union to be a lifelong commitment rich
in companionship, intimacy, and romance (Thornton and Young-DeMarco 2001).
In reality, these expectations often go unfulfilled. Many marriages end in divorce
and a substantial number of other marriages remain intact but lack the emotional

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

2
0
1
4
.

D
e

G
r
u
y
t
e
r

M
o
u
t
o
n
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

M
a
y

n
o
t

b
e

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

i
n

a
n
y

f
o
r
m

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
,

e
x
c
e
p
t

f
a
i
r

u
s
e
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

U
.
S
.

o
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

l
a
w
.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Comprehensive Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
AN: 809492 ; Berger, Charles R..; Interpersonal Communication
Account: s8859992.main.ehost

444 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

fulfillment expected by spouses when they began their union. Social scientists
have devoted considerable research attention to the processes that lead to marital
dissatisfaction and dissolution and the processes that are associated with marital
satisfaction. Although interrelated, both sets of processes deserve attention in their
own right because creating a good marriage requires more than simply avoiding
negative actions (Segrin 2006).

This chapter is devoted to understanding the communication processes that
affect marital quality. The pursuit of this understanding has led to conceptual
models of marital quality and marital change, as well as skill-based models of
relationship maintenance. This chapter opens with a review of some prominent
conceptual and skill-based models. Next, we focus attention on two challenges in
marital interaction that have been identified by Gottman (1993) as most vital for
the success of a marriage: maintaining positive affect and reducing negative affect.
In doing so, we highlight work that shows how specific communication behaviors
influence marital quality. Without question, marital quality and longevity are influ-
enced by other perceptual and contextual processes such as changing societal
attitudes toward divorce, economic independence of women, and increases in pre-
marital cohabitation, but the scope of this chapter is restricted to communication
processes in marriage. Toward the end of the chapter, we examine the unique
ways that different types of couples regulate marital quality.

2 Models of marital quality

2.1 Conceptual models of marital quality

The term “marital satisfaction” refers to a subjective and global appraisal of how
happy and content people are with their marriage. “Marital quality” is often used
in a more general sense and includes constructs such as marital satisfaction, as
well as related indicators of marital quality such as commitment, attachment, and
trust. Family scientists have developed several theoretical models designed to
explain marital quality and why satisfaction changes for so many married couples.
There is no single model that is useful for explaining all or even most cases of
marital stability, but some models enjoy more empirical support than others
(Caughlin and Huston 2006).

The relational bank account model of marital satisfaction and erosion posits
that satisfied couples maintain a positive balance in their relational bank account
by making more deposits to the relationship than withdrawals (Clements et al.
1997; Markman 1984). Making a deposit requires expressing positive relational
behaviors (e.g., affection, intimacy, compliments, agreements). Withdrawals result
from negative relational behaviors (e.g., put downs, criticisms, defensiveness).
Using a similar analogy of an emotional bank account in marriage, Gottman (1994)
explains that the relationships of stable, happy couples are defined by a balance

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 445

of positivity that overpowers the negativity. According to Gottman (1994), most
stable, happy couples maintain a 5 : 1 ratio of positive to negative behaviors even
during conflict discussions, as compared with unstable, dissatisfied couples who
express as much or more negativity than positivity. When discussing non-conflict
topics such as the events of the day, the account balance of satisfied couples is
boosted with a ratio of positive to negative behaviors even larger than 5 : 1.

Gottman (1999) articulated a more expansive model of marital quality that he
termed the core triad of balance. This model proposes that marital interaction can
be understood from three domains of human experience: behavior, perception,
and physiology. Although the focus of this chapter is on communication behaviors,
the core triad of balance expands on the relational or emotional bank account
models that focus primarily on verbal and nonverbal behaviors. The core triad of
balance acknowledges that stable, happy couples are defined by positivity in their
perceptions and physiology as well. By perceptions, Gottman refers to the idiosyn-
cratic ways people cognitively process behaviors and events. Physiology refers to
the way one’s body feels and functions (e.g., heart rate, breathing) as a result of
behaviors and perceptions in the relationship. The three domains are interrelated.
For example, negative perceptions may stem from or, in turn, prompt certain nega-
tive behaviors. Negative behaviors or perceptions can also trigger negative physio-
logical arousal. The challenge for couples is to regulate each domain at a “stable,
steady state,” or to maintain a pervasive culture of positivity (Gottman 1999: 33).
Marital quality becomes threatened when the negative threshold of any domain in
the triad is exceeded (Carrère et al. 2000).

The vast majority of marriages experience changes in satisfaction over time.
For some marriages, declines in satisfaction are so severe that the couple divorces.
For others, changes in satisfaction over time merely represent a recalibration from
the idealistic and perhaps euphoric honeymoon phase of the marriage to a more
realistic appraisal of the marriage’s quality. Attempting to explain the source of
change in marital satisfaction over time, Huston and his associates have tested
several models of marital change after following newlywed couples for over 13
years into their marriage.

According to the disillusionment model, couples enter marriage with idealized
views of each other (Huston, Caughlin, et al. 2001). This idealization is the result
of part imagination by one spouse and part impression management by the other.
The erosion of love and the eventual appearance of ambivalent feelings toward the
marriage explain the development of marital distress and divorce. The difficulty of
sustaining idealized images of each other, along with decreased motivation to
enact positive behaviors to impress each other, is thought to cultivate feelings of
disillusionment. Consistent with the disillusionment model, the emergent distress
model also assumes that marriages start out with high levels of satisfaction. How-
ever, eventually problems surface and antagonistic behaviors, particularly during
conflict, erode the positive aspects of marriage over time. In the emergent distress

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

446 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

model, it is the expression of negativity that is the presumed cause of declining
marital satisfaction, whereas in the disillusionment model it is the deconstruction
of positive illusions and an increasingly accurate view of reality that causes marital
satisfaction to decline. A third perspective, called the enduring dynamics model,
departs from the prior models by assuming that courtship is not a period of ideali-
zation and extreme impression management. Rather, would-be spouses come to
marriage with some awareness of each others’ shortcomings. This model postu-
lates that patterns of interpersonal interaction are established in courtship and
persevere into marriage, largely unchanged.

In most Western cultures the lay perception of marital decline is most consis-
tent with the emergent distress model: Marriages generally start out fine and then
negative events occur (e.g., conflict, infidelity, other destructive behaviors) that
cause marriages to deteriorate. However, most of the research that has explicitly
examined different models of changing marital satisfaction provides far more sup-
port for the enduring dynamics model than for either of the other two. For exam-
ple, the expression of negativity during marital interactions that occurred within
the first two months of marriage was found to be predictive of marital satisfaction
and stability measured 13 years later (Huston, Caughlin, et al. 2001). Also, trait
anxiety (a stable personality trait assessed at the time of marriage) has been found
to be associated with increased levels of negativity (e.g., complaining, criticizing,
yelling), that in turn predict declines in the partner’s satisfaction years later
(Caughlin, Huston, and Houts 2000). Such findings indicate that the roots of even-
tual marital distress are often evident at the time of marriage, if not before. In
other words, among currently married couples, those who report that they are
happy were probably happy at the time of their marriage, and those who report
being unhappy were probably relatively unhappy at the time of their marriage.
Research showing that the happiest couples 13 years into their marriage were also
the most in love at the time of their marriage support this contention (Huston,
Caughlin, et al. 2001). Huston, Niehuis, and Smith (2001) observed that the disillu-
sionment model is a better explanation for couples that eventually divorced. Many
of the couples in their study who went on to divorce showed sharp drops in affec-
tion and responsiveness, and increases in ambivalence toward the marriage in the
first two years of marriage.

Research on couples before and after initiation of their marriage shows that
although marital satisfaction may change over time, couples’ communication pat-
terns are relatively stable (e.g., Noller and Feeney 1998; Prado and Markman 1999).
Many of the problematic communication behaviors such as negativity, criticism,
conflict, and poor perceptual and sending skills can be identified before a couple
marries (Huston and Houts 1998). These findings lead to an undeniable conclu-
sion. The communication behaviors that will ultimately lead to the demise of mar-
riage are already in place before the husband and wife marry. The fact of the matter
is that “irreconcilable differences” that are commonly cited as a cause for divorce

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 447

may well be in place before the wedding day. According to Gottman and Mark-
man’s bank account model, most couples start out with a positive balance that
causes them to be content with their relationship. Even though negative behaviors,
or “withdrawals,” may be evident at the time of marriage, it takes some time for
couples to accumulate enough of these to actually distress their marriage. Huston
and his associates (e.g., Huston, Niehuis, and Smith 2001) use the term “enduring-
dynamics” to characterize the hypothesis that patterns established early in the
relationship persevere and lead to later declines in marital happiness. Although
there is sound evidence for the enduring dynamics model, negative changes in
feelings and behaviors can also be identified in couples headed for divorce (Hus-
ton, Caughlin et al. 2001). Consequently, many marriages end up on the rocks
because of both enduring patterns of interaction that predate the marriage as well
as changes in the marriage that lead to disillusion, and perhaps even the interac-
tion between the two.

2.2 Skill based models of marital quality

Alongside conceptual models of marital quality are equally important skill-based
tactics and principles for sustaining marital quality. Two of the most well-known
are Gottman’s principles for making marriage work along with Stafford and
Canary’s relationship maintenance behaviors. Gottman developed his principles
after years of observing successful and unsuccessful married couples interact in
the laboratory. Stafford and Canary originally identified their list of behaviors by
asking couples what they do to maintain their relationship. Neither is meant to be
an exhaustive list of principles. Both rest on the premise that marital satisfaction
is high when marriages begin, but that satisfaction must be nurtured and main-
tained in a preemptive way, rather than waiting until the health of the marriage
has deteriorated. Both also acknowledge that a majority of relationship mainte-
nance behaviors are the small and even routine behaviors that keep a healthy
marriage going. Upon examining each, it becomes apparent that there is consider-
able overlap between the two lists.

Canary and Stafford (1992) originally presented a list of five primary relation-
ship maintenance behaviors, but the typology has been expanded in other
research (Stafford, Dainton, and Haas, 2000), and most recently refined in a 7-
factor measure (Stafford 2011). Stafford’s (2011) relationship maintenance behav-
iors include: (1) positivity (i.e., acting upbeat, cheerful, optimistic, or having a
global positive demeanor), (2) understanding (i.e., expressing understanding rather
than judgment, and offering forgiveness or an apology), (3) self-disclosure (i.e.,
self-disclosing general feelings and fears and encouraging the partner to share
thoughts and feelings), (4) assurances (i.e., showing and telling a partner how
much s/he means and talking about a future together), (5) tasks (i.e., helping with
household tasks and other responsibilities that face the couple), (6) networks (i.e.,

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

448 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

relying on a joint family and/or friend network for activities and aid), and a final
type of self-disclosure that Stafford found to be negatively related to relational
quality, (7) relational talk (i.e., discussing the quality and state of the relationship).
Stafford’s (2011) recent work shows that not all forms of self-disclosure (e.g., com-
pare relational talk with self-disclosure) function to maintain relationships. Rela-
tional talk is a type of self-disclosure partners use to discuss relational problems
and evaluate the relationship. For many couples, the outcome of this kind of talk
may be more negative than positive.

Gottman bases his approach on seven principles. As described by Gottman
and Silver (1999), they include: (1) enhance love maps (i.e., being familiar with the
primary events, feelings, and history in each other’s lives), (2) nurture fondness
and admiration (i.e., expressing genuine liking, respect), (3) turn toward each other
(i.e., acknowledging and responding to a partner’s bids for affection, support,
attention, or humor), (4) accept influence from the partner (i.e., when appropriate,
considering the partner’s feelings and opinions, (5) solve solvable problems (i.e.,
using good conflict resolution tactics to solve situational conflicts), (6) overcome
gridlock (i.e., dealing with persistent or deep-rooted perpetual problems through
dialogue, understanding, and compromise), and (7) create shared meaning (i.e.,
creating relational symbols and rituals that honor the relationship).

Three of Gottman’s principles, “enhancing love maps,” “nurturing fondness
and admiration,” and “creating shared meaning,” are about orienting thoughts
and behaviors so as to appreciate and understand one’s partner and to recognize
the meaning in the relationship. Several of Stafford’s behaviors, “self-disclosure,”
“understanding,” “assurances,” and “positivity,” are grounded in a similar intent.
Both models emphasize that intimacy is grounded not just in self-disclosure, but
also in partner responsiveness, that is, “turning toward,” as Gottman terms it, or
“understanding” one’s partner, as Stafford terms it. In comparison to Stafford’s
list of behaviors, Gottman’s principles are more specific in documenting how suc-
cessful couples deal with a variety of situational and enduring conflicts as well as
influence attempts in marriage. Stafford’s behaviors uniquely highlight the impor-
tance of balancing shared friend and family networks. Of the behaviors and princi-
ples delineated in each model, none is a new, groundbreaking tactic or a tactic
that is only available to trained couples. Rather it is largely the identification of
these tactics that allows couples to become more consciously aware of specific
and tangible ways to maintain a relationship. Most of the behaviors are ones that
spouses simply forget to enact over time or fail to develop in intentional ways, thus
leaving the relationship vulnerable to other less desirable forms of interaction.

3 Positive and negative themes in marital
interaction

Aside from the conceptual and skill-based models, marital communication
researchers have also examined specific aspects of marital interaction that are

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 449

beneficial or deleterious to marital quality. Some scholars have lamented that
much of the research on marital interaction has focused heavily on negative affect,
and namely how spouses handle negative affect in conflict episodes, to the exclu-
sion of positive affect (Fincham and Beach 2010). Even when it is considered,
positive affect is often examined for the role it plays in handling conflict episodes,
with far fewer studies of positive affect in non-conflictual, positive interactions
(Graber et al. 2011). This lacuna is unfortunate, especially after work more than a
decade ago established that fading positive affect in the early years of marriage
means greater likelihood for divorce, above and beyond the effects of conflict (Hus-
ton, Caughlin et al. 2001, see also Markman et al. 2010). In the upcoming section,
skill-based approaches are expanded by highlighting research on positive commu-
nication behaviors, some of which occur in non-conflictual episodes, for example
in interactions that involve expressing affection and offering support, and others
that are effective in navigating conflict episodes, such as positive problem solving.
This discussion is followed by a summary of the negative communication behav-
iors that spark conflict and influence the course of conflict in marriage.

3.1 Positive communication

3.1.1 Expressing positive affect

In comparison to dissatisfied couples, satisfied couples spend more time express-
ing positive affect (e.g., fondness and admiration) toward their partners (Gottman
and Silver 1999). The notion that such expressions boost marital satisfaction has
been corroborated by other researchers. For example, Graber et al. (2011) instructed
newlywed couples to reflect on positive feelings about their partner for a period
of time, followed by an interaction task where they were asked to spend close to
15 min. talking about their positive feelings with their partner. The more positive
affective behavior that spouses expressed in this interaction task, the more marital
satisfaction and less divorce proneness they reported. In addition to direct verbal
expressions of positive affect, indirect and nonverbal expressions are powerful
means of showing positivity, expressing love and interest, complimenting partners,
and even repairing or deescalating conflict. Flirting behaviors, many of which are
indirect or nonverbal, have been found to be critical for married couples, not just
dating couples (Frisby 2009).

3.1.2 Disclosure and Responsiveness

Compared to less satisfied couples, satisfied couples also spend more time
“debriefing” each other about the events of the day (Vangelisti and Banski 1993).
As described earlier in this chapter, Gottman’s principles suggest that successful

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

450 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

couples stay updated on their partners’ feelings, likes, and dislikes as a means of
maintaining intimacy and staying connected as a couple. Nurturing this connec-
tion comes naturally to most dating couples because one primary goal in dating
is to get to know a partner. Such exchanges of self-disclosure remain important
over time as spouses change.

Yet to study spouses’ self-expressions and self-disclosures without investigat-
ing what effect they have on their partners makes little sense in research on marital
interaction. Reis and Patrick (1996) contend that emotional intimacy is as an inter-
active process – one that begins with a spouse’s verbal or nonverbal self-expres-
sion followed by a partner’s response that makes the spouse feel “understood,
validated, and cared for” (p. 536). Self-disclosure alone is not a path to intimacy,
but the right kind of partner responsiveness is critical. Laurenceau, Barrett, and
Rovine (2005) found that partner responsiveness (i.e., expressing understanding,
validation, and care) predicts intimacy, even above the effects of self-disclosure
and partner-disclosure.

3.1.3 Emotional bidding

In line with Reis and Patrick’s interactive view of intimacy, Gottman stresses the
importance of what he terms the emotional bidding process. Self-expressions are
“bids” spouses make for affection and attention (Gottman and DeClaire 2001). “A
bid can be a question, a gesture, a look, a touch – any single expression that says,
‘I want to be connected to you’” (Gottman and DeClaire: 4). Bids can be direct and
explicit (e.g., A husband discloses to a wife, “I wish we could spend more time
together”) or more subtle. As described by Gottman and DeClaire (2001: 31), a
majority of bids are expressed without words, as in the case of vocalizations (e.g.,
laughing, chuckling, grunting, sighing, or groaning in a way that invites interac-
tion or interest), affectionate touching (e.g., a back-slap, a handshake, a pat, a
squeeze, a kiss, a hug, or a back or shoulder rub), or affiliating gestures (e.g.,
opening a door, offering a place to sit, handing over a utensil, or pointing to a
shared activity or interest).

In the emotional bidding process, intimacy depends on whether the partner
responds by accepting the bids (Gottman and DeClaire 2001). Bids are accepted by
figuratively “turning toward” with a response that at least acknowledges the bid
and, better yet, communicates support, expresses positive feelings or agreement,
or indicates that the partner is listening. In our own research, we found that
regardless of whether wives were expressing complaints or compliments during
an interaction, if their husbands gazed at them more while listening, their marital
well-being was higher (Flora and Segrin 2000). If it is the case that husbands’ gaze
communicates “I’m taking the time to be attentive to you,” then such a nonverbal
acknowledgement may be valued by wives because it indicates the very opposite

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 451

of withdrawal – involvement. An alternative to responsiveness is ignoring a bid,
for example, when partners are too preoccupied to notice the bid or too busy to
respond. Worse yet, bids can be denied with disconfirming, defensive, contradic-
tory, critical, or sarcastic responses.

3.1.4 Provision of social support

Well aware of how critical partner responsiveness is to maintaining intimacy and
positive affect, several social support researchers have turned their attention to
the marriage context. Some of this research examines not only social support for
spouses’ negative events, but also supportive acknowledgement of and capitaliza-
tion on spouses’ positive events. Offering supportive responses when spouses share
good things is related to relational well-being (Gable, Gonzaga, and Strachman
2006). Unfortunately, some spouses fail to acknowledge their partner’s disclosures
of positive events, missing an opportunity to capitalize on positivity. Responding
to good events with active enthusiasm can demonstrate acknowledgement, pride,
validation, and admiration of a partner’s strengths (Gable et al. 2006).

When responding to negative events, it appears that some types of social sup-
port are more beneficial to marriages than others. Comparing different types of
support offered in marriage (e.g., informational, emotional, esteem, or tangible
support), esteem support and emotional support are most consistently linked with
marital satisfaction (Brock and Lawrence, 2009; Xu and Burleson 2004). Brock and
Lawrence found that any level of esteem support is positively related to marital
quality for both husbands and wives. In the Brock and Lawrence study, it was as
if spouses could not get too much support of the type that boosted their self-
esteem. However, husbands who received more informational support (i.e., infor-
mative tips or advice) than they desired from their wives experienced poorer mari-
tal quality. For wives, marital quality was negatively affected by too much support
from husbands in the following forms: informational, tangible, and emotional sup-
port. Thus it may be possible to offer too much support, especially if it is of the
wrong type. Clearly unwanted advice and directives can do more harm than good
to relationships.

Being supportive toward a partner’s positive and negative events appears to
rest on what Gordon and Baucom (2009) call positive affectivity. Although there
are several components, one major component in Gordon and Baucom’s definition
of positive affectivity is optimism. Optimism refers to being globally optimistic
about the relationship and partner, including sharing the partner’s good fortune
and positive disclosures. Another major component is adaptive coping skills,
whereby a partner helps positively reframe negative stressors, rebuild a partner’s
esteem, and take active steps toward coping. Positive affectivity is especially
important because it is related to higher marital satisfaction for both spouses (Gor-
don and Baucom 2009).

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

452 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

3.1.5 Forgiveness

Recently there has been a major surge in research concerning the perceptual and
communicative process of forgiveness in marriage. Forgiveness occurs when one
spouse communicates undeserved sympathy or absolution toward the other
spouse, most commonly in the face of some significant relational transgression.
Forgiveness is as much of an interpersonal communication process as it is an
individual decision, and it is deeply rooted in the communication exchanges of
spouses (Waldron and Kelly 2008). When couples enact forgiveness with benevo-
lence (e.g., accepting their partners’ humanness, flaws, and failures) they tend to
experience better conflict resolution both concurrently (Fincham, Beach, and Da-
vila 2004) and prospectively (Fincham, Beach, and Davila 2007). People who
explicitly forgive their partners and who couple their forgiving communication
with nonverbal behaviors that signify genuineness tend to experience improve-
ment in their relationship after a transgression (Waldron and Kelly 2005). Unfortu-
nately, the effects of forgiveness are not uniformly positive as some evidence
shows that forgiveness from one spouse may promote continuation of negative
behaviors by the other spouse (McNulty 2010).

To this point, we have presented positive communication behaviors in mostly
non-conflictual interactions, but the discussion of forgiveness naturally leads to
addressing other positive problem solving tactics used during conflictual interac-
tions. Although it is not possible to address all positive problem solving behaviors
in this chapter, some critical tactics include compromise and accepting influence
(vs. defensiveness), soothing oneself physiologically (vs. becoming emotionally
flooded), and initiating conflict in gentle ways (vs. starting up conflict with harsh
criticisms). Some these positive tactics are covered in upcoming sections on nega-
tive behaviors because they represent the constructive foil to that negative behav-
ior.

3.2. Negative communication

There is no communication behavior that has been the focus of more attention in
marriage than conflict. In fact, it has been argued that “Nearly all communication-
based research and theory on marriage has been focused on how couples contend
with conflicts and disagreements” (Sullivan et al. 2010: 631). The tacit assumption
underwriting this line of research is that problems with managing and resolving
conflicts presage the deterioration of marital satisfaction and ultimately marital
stability. As will become evident, certain patterns of marital conflict can be detri-
mental to marital well-being. Research on marital conflict has also focused on the
experience and expression of negative affective states during conflict interactions.
These too can foreshadow impending marital doom. Before we briefly examine
findings on marital conflict and negative affect, two points must be stressed. First,

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 453

it is the specific form and nature of marital conflicts, not the sheer frequency, that
predict declines in marriage. Second, even though conflict and negative affect are
useful predictors of marital well-being, it is now evident that the expression of
support and positivity is also an important indicator of marital outcomes (e.g.,
Flora and Segrin 2000; Ledermann et al. 2012). Clearly, there is more to a “good
marriage” than the mere absence of destructive patterns of marital conflict and
corrosive negative emotions.

3.2.1 Behavioral cascade toward divorce

John Gottman and his colleagues have identified a series of destructive marital
conflict behaviors that reliably signal risk for divorce (Gottman 1993, 1994; Gott-
man and Krokoff 1989). These conflict behaviors have been identified through
laboratory-based observations of married couples’ interactions, coupled with lon-
gitudinal follow-up assessments. Gottman characterized the pattern of these con-
flict behaviors as elements of a behavioral process cascade toward marital dissolu-
tion. Once the cascade is set in motion, subsequent stages or elements of the
process become inevitable and non-reversible. The cascade conceptualization
comes from demonstration that elements in the behavioral cascade form a Gutt-
man-like progression whereby enactment of behaviors at one stage of the model
only occurs in marriages where spouses also enacted earlier processes in the
model.

The first of these dysfunctional conflict behaviors is known as complain/criti-
cize. Although some aspects of this behavior are common in virtually all marriages,
couples headed for divorce have a tendency to comingle criticism with the expres-
sion of dissatisfaction. For example, a statement such as “We never seem to have
enough money to afford a nice vacation together, but you always seem to spend
plenty on the things that you want” has two clear elements. There is the complaint
(we never have enough money) and the criticism (you spend money on things for
yourself). What elevates complaint to the level of criticism is the addition of blame,
often executed with terms such as “you always” and “you never” (Gottman 1999).

The next step in the behavioral cascade is defensiveness. When people get
defensive in marital interactions they try to protect themselves from criticism and
avoid blame. In so doing they deny any responsibility for wrongdoing. Usually,
people become defensive when they perceive that they are under attack and being
victimized in some way. This is often manifested in whining during disagreements,
underwritten by an innocent victim demeanor (Gottman 1994). Defensiveness is
dysfunctional for marriage because the denial of any wrongdoing forecloses oppor-
tunities for conflict resolution.

The third component of the behavioral cascade model is contempt. Contemptu-
ous communication sends the message that “you are stupid” or “you are incompe-

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

454 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

tent.” In extreme forms it expresses hatred of the listener by the speaker. In labora-
tory interactions contempt is often expressed as hostile humor, mockery, or
sarcasm (Gottman 1994). Contempt is also communicated through a particular
facial expression that involves pulling back one corner of the mouth and perhaps
rolling the eyes. By the time couples are expressing contempt in their conflicts,
irrevocable damage is being done to the relationship. The predictive value of con-
tempt during marital interactions on divorce proneness has been replicated in a
sample of newlyweds followed for the first two years of their marriage (Graber et
al. 2011).

The final stage in the behavioral cascade is stonewalling or the absence of
marital communication. Spouses who stonewall show no signs of receiving mes-
sages from their partner. Their facial expressions are often blank and they may
not even make eye contact with their spouse. Stonewalling prevents any possibility
of conflict resolution and the symbolic validation of the partner. By sending the
message “I’m not listening to you,” or “you’re not even here” the stonewalling
spouse does not acknowledge much less respect the partner’s concerns. The fact
that stonewalling is the final stage of the behavioral process cascade toward mari-
tal dissolution reflects the fact that marriages rarely end in a fit of intense conflict,
but rather after the passion has dissipated and spouses no longer care or feel that
the bother to try to work things out is worth it. Despite being the least dramatic
communication behavior in the cascade, it is the most ominous because it indi-
cates that spouses have given up on the relationship. Stonewalling during marital
conflict has been found to be a significant but not perfect predictor of subsequent
marital dissolution (r = .29) indicating that stonewalling is best conceptualized as
a risk factor for divorce (Gottman 1993).

3.2.2 Demand-withdrawal

There is perhaps no single pattern of marital conflict that has received more
research attention that the demand-withdrawal pattern. In the demand-withdrawal
pattern, one spouse (usually the wife) presents a complaint, demand, or criticism.
The other spouse (usually the husband) responds by withdrawal and defensive-
ness (Christensen 1988). This is a corrosive conflict pattern that is associated with
marital distress and that can foreshadow eventual divorce when particularly perva-
sive and rigidly enacted. This dysfunctional interaction pattern appears to reflect
an unresolved discrepancy within the couple over desires for closeness versus
distance. The tendency for either husbands or wives to be in the demand role is
associated with their desire for change in their partner (Caughlin and Vangelisti
1999). Caughlin and Vangelisti noted that in some cases, the desire for change
might be over a couple-level issue that will occasionally put both spouses in the
demanding role, with the attendant partner withdrawal.

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 455

One reason why the demand-withdrawal pattern of marital interaction is asso-
ciated with low marital quality is because it causes most conflicts to go unresolved.
In some cases, the demand-withdrawal pattern could also be a symptom of unre-
solved conflict. Couples characterized by high levels of demand-withdrawal report
lower levels of conflict resolution, more negative conflict tactics such as threat,
verbal hostility, and verbal aggression, and fewer constructive conflict manage-
ment tactics such as problem solving, compromise, and expressing support or
affection (Papp, Kouros, and Cummings 2009). Because expressions of conflict
may not even raise a response from the withdrawing partner, much less a move
toward resolution, spouses in such marriages tend to feel less understood by their
partner than spouses in marriages with lower levels of demand-withdrawal (Weger
2005).

Just as husbands and wives may enact the demand and withdrawal roles dif-
ferentially, they also appear to react differently to them. In one study of newly-
weds, partner hostility proved to be the strongest predictor of decreases in marital
satisfaction at the third anniversary for wives, but partner withdrawal was the
strongest predictor of declines in satisfaction for husbands (Roberts 2000). Stereo-
typically, people think of the nagging wife and the withdrawn husband. However,
it is when these roles are reversed that marital satisfaction is harmed the most.
Wives’ marital satisfaction is damaged far more by their husbands’ hostility than
their husbands’ withdrawal. Even though husbands’ marital satisfaction is also
negatively affected by wives’ hostility, their wives’ withdrawal harms marital satis-
faction even further (Roberts 2000). Wife withdrawal is also very detrimental to
the subjective well-being (e.g., depression, self-esteem, satisfaction with life) of
their husbands, much more so than husbands’ withdrawal affects their wives’ well-
being (Siffert and Schwarz 2010). Nevertheless, frequent demand-withdrawal in
marital conflicts is often a marker of marital dissatisfaction regardless of who is
in the demand and who is in the withdrawal mode (Caughlin 2002). Also, with-
drawal from conflict is deleterious to the marital satisfaction of both the person
withdrawing as well as his or her spouse (Segrin, Hanzal, and Domschke 2009).
Fortunately for some marriages, when the demand-withdrawal pattern is accompa-
nied by other more positive communication behaviors such as physical affection,
approval, compliments, and demands framed with “we” versus “you” terms,
demands and even occasional withdrawals are not significantly associated with
marital dissatisfaction (Caughlin and Huston 2002; Mitnick et al. 2009).

3.2.3 Verbal aggression

One communication behavior that is harmful to relationships, marriage being no
exception, is verbal aggression. Verbal aggression involves attacking another per-
son’s self-concept, ordinarily with the intent to make the target feel bad. Verbal

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

456 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

aggressiveness is the characteristic tendency to engage in such behavior. Verbal
aggression is an expression of an argumentative skill deficiency because instead
of arguing with a person’s opinion or position on a point of contention, verbal
aggressiveness is simply attacking the person, not the argument (Infante, Chander,
and Rudd 1989; Payne and Sabourin 1990). Verbal aggression is particularly likely
when spouses are faced with stressors but otherwise possess and enact ineffective
coping skills (Bodenmann et al. 2010). In a marital context, verbal aggressiveness
and verbal aggression are consistently associated with relational problems. For
example, spouses’ verbal aggression is negatively associated with their partner’s
marital satisfaction (Gavazzi et al. 2000; Payne and Sabourin 1990) and their part-
ner’s depression (Segrin and Fitzpatrick 1992). Verbal aggression is also a risk
factor for marital violence (Infante et al. 1989) especially when it is reciprocated
(Sabourin, Infante, and Rudd 1993). Related evidence shows that verbal aggression
predicts subsequent physical aggression over the first two years of marriage (Schu-
macher and Leonard 2005). Consistent with the enduring dynamics model dis-
cussed previously in this chapter, symptoms of personality disorders (e.g., border-
line, antisocial) are substantial predictors of both increased verbal aggression and
decreased marital satisfaction (South, Turkheimer, and Oltmanns 2008). South et
al.’s findings suggest that the traits that may fuel verbal aggression and subse-
quent marital dissatisfaction are likely to be in place well before the initiation of
marriage, as the personality disorder symptoms that they studied tend to be rather
stable. Verbal aggression research highlights the importance of keeping conflicts
focused on issues without attacking the participants in the conflict. Findings on
verbal aggressiveness reveal that this trait is exceptionally threatening to marital
well-being and may foreshadow danger in the marriage by being a precursor to
marital violence.

3.2.4 “I” vs. “we.”

During conflicts, or virtually any other type of marital interaction, spouses’ pro-
noun usage can reflect a shared identity or ownership of problems (e.g., “we”) or
an accusatory blame (e.g., “you”). The frequency of uttering “you” during problem
solving interactions is predictive of negatively toned interaction behaviors such as
criticism, disagreement, and justification, and negatively associated with spouses’
marital satisfaction (Simmons, Gordon, and Chambless 2005). In contrast, the fre-
quency of uttering “we” is associated with more positive marital problem solving
behaviors such as constructive solutions and compromises (Simmons et al.). “We-
ness” is conceptualized in the marital interaction literature as an expression of
unification in the marriage (Carrere et al. 2000). It is part of a larger latent variable
referred to as perceived marital bond and has proved to be an effective predictor
of marital outcomes. A strong marital bond, expressed in part through higher use

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 457

of “we” and lower use of “I” or “you” during marital interactions discriminates
remaining married or getting divorced over a 5-year period with 87 % accuracy
(Carrere et al.). Strong marital bonds also predict high levels of marital satisfaction
and low levels of loneliness among spouses (Doohan, Carrere, and Riggs 2010;
Segrin and Flora 2001).

3.2.5 Emotional flooding and self-soothing

One of the major warning signs of impending doom in a marriage is the character-
istic experience of emotional flooding during marital conflict. In Gottman’s (1993)
theory of marital dissolution and stability, flooding is characterized as a bewilder-
ing and overwhelming feeling when confronted with the spouse’s expression of
negative affect. Spouses who experience flooding feel that their partner’s negative
emotions (e.g., anger, criticism, hostility) came from out of nowhere, were unpro-
voked, disorganized, and highly aversive. Flooding motivates an urgent desire to
escape the situation rather than confront and resolve the conflict. According to
Gottman, people who experience flooding subsequently experience hypervigilance
to any of their partner’s cues (e.g., yelling, complaining) that triggered the flood-
ing. People who experience flooding ultimately start to see their marital problems
as severe, believe that it is better to work things out on their own, and eventually
structure their marriage such that the spouses live parallel, rather than interde-
pendent, lives (Gottman, 1994). As one might expect, couples where at least one
spouse often experiences flooding tend to have low levels of marital quality (Gub-
bins, Perosa, and Bartle-Haring 2010; Holman and Jarvis 2003). In the context of
a marital conflict, flooding represents an emotional oversensitivity or overreactive-
ness that puts the marriage at risk, because the flooded person is so overwhelmed
by his or her emotional response to the partner that rational communication is
abandoned in favor of escape and withdrawal.

Fortunately, there appears to be an antidote to flooding and that is self-sooth-
ing and soothing of the partner. Gottman and Silver (1999) argue that soothing the
self and partner during moments of overwhelming emotion in conflict interactions
is a key ingredient to a successful marriage. They suggest that when people experi-
ence emotional flooding, they are no longer able to process information and that
this is the time to momentarily step away from the conflict to allow for dissipation
of the physiological arousal that accompanies emotional flooding. Ideally, the
now-calm spouse who engaged in self-soothing would turn his or her attention to
soothing the partner. In one of the rare empirical investigations of soothing during
conflict newlywed couples were brought into the laboratory and observed in a
conflict resolution interaction (Gottman et al. 1998). Soothing was defined as an
episode in which a negative emotional utterance was made by one spouse, fol-
lowed by a sustained expression of neutral affect by the other, resulting in a lower

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

458 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

heart rate in his or her partner. Gottman et al. followed their newlywed couples
for six years and found that one of the hallmark signs of those couples who would
go on to divorce was a failure of husbands to soothe their wives during the labora-
tory conflict interaction (the effect of wives’ soothing of their husbands on martial
stability was marginally significant). Gottman teaches self-soothing and soothing
of each other as a key skill to be mastered by couples seeking to improve their
marriage. There is some promising evidence of the effectiveness of this technique
(Johnstone 2004), but how easily it can be taught and enacted in the heat of
conflict awaits further research.

3.2.6 Anger and negative affectivity

The experience and expression of strong negative emotions during conflicts is
ordinarily an indicator of marital distress. For example, in the laboratory, the expe-
rience of anger and irritation, as well as its perception by a spouse or even a third
party observer, during a conflict resolution discussion strongly correlates with hus-
bands’ and wives’ marital distress (Sanford 2012). Spouses who score high on trait
anger tend to report lower martial satisfaction and higher conflict, and wives’ trait
anger predicts decreasing martial satisfaction over time (Baron et al. 2006). How-
ever, the experience and expression of anger during marital conflict may not be
dysfunctional for all couples. For spouses who typically avoid conflict, the expres-
sion of anger can sometimes foretell improvements in marital satisfaction (Krokoff
1991). For such couples, perpetually containing and suppressing their anger might
do more harm than good, and at least occasionally expressing it may be beneficial
to the long term health of the marriage. In contrast, Krokoff found anger to predict
a subsequent deterioration in marital satisfaction; suggesting that perhaps spouses
have a certain tolerance for the processing of their partner’s anger. However, habit-
ual expressions of anger may be harbingers of trouble for the marriage.

Although all people experience negative emotions from time to time, some are
more prone to these experiences than others. The characteristic or trait-like tend-
ency to experience feelings such as sadness, anxiety, and hostility is known as
neuroticism or negative affectivity. Negative affectivity has deleterious consequen-
ces for both the encoding and decoding of marital communication, and not surpris-
ingly, to marital satisfaction (Karney and Bradbury 1997). For example, negative
affectivity is associated with greater tendencies to engage in negative marital com-
munication behaviors such as yelling, criticizing, complaining, and snapping at
the partner (Caughlin, Huston, and Houts 2000). Negative affectivity may also
corrupt spouses’ desires or tendencies to engage in mutual problem solving when
confronted with conflicts. Woszidlo and Segrin (in press) found that newlyweds’
negative affectivity was negatively associated with both their own mutual problem
solving, assessed with Gottman’s (1999) Distance and Isolation Questionnaire (e.g.,

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 459

“I have given up trying to talk things out,” “Our conversations about our problems
never seem to get anywhere”) and their partner’s mutual problem solving. It is now
evident that destructive conflict behaviors can explain the often-noted association
between negative affectivity and low marital satisfaction. The negative affectivity-
marital distress association is mediated by lower levels of positive problem solving,
and higher levels of aggressive and hostile as well as withdrawing marital conflict
behaviors (Hanzal and Segrin 2009).

With regard to decoding, spouses who score high on measures of negative
affectivity have a bias toward seeing their spouse as more hostile and dominant,
and less friendly during a disagreement discussion, compared to the perceptions
of independent observers (Traupman et al. 2011). Not only does negative affectivity
generate more corrosive marital communication behaviors, but it also tends to
make spouses biased toward overly harsh evaluations of their partner’s behavior.
It is therefore understandable why this trait is so deleterious to marital well-being.

4 Couple types
Much in the same way that biologists find that animals can be usefully and reliably
classified based on certain functional characteristics that they possess (e.g., flying
in the air, living in water), family scientists find that marriages also exist in certain
identifiable forms. To describe these forms, taxonomies of marriage have been
developed and marital communication figures prominently in the classification of
different marital couple types.

4.1 Fitzpatrick’s couples types

Early research by Fitzpatrick and her colleagues (Fitzpatrick 1984; Fitzpatrick and
Indvik 1982) suggested that there are patterns of beliefs and behaviors in marriage
that differentiate one type of couple from others. This work revealed that marriages
can be classified as a function of three bipolar dimensions that include a conven-
tional versus nonconventional relationship ideology, interdependence versus auton-
omy, and conflict avoidance versus conflict engagement.

The ideology dimension describes the extent to which the couple adheres to
and endorses what could be considered historically conventional beliefs about
marriage (e.g., a married woman should take her husband’s last name) versus
nonconventional beliefs about the marriage (e.g., spontaneity and novelty are
more important than adhering to norms). The interdependence/autonomy dimen-
sion reflects the extent to which married couples structure their lives around each
other, sharing maximal time and space (interdependent), versus pursuing their
own goals and activities without as much regard for their partners’ whereabouts
(autonomous). Finally, the conflict avoidance dimension describes the extent to

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

460 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

which the spouses assert their point of view with each other, even in cases of
disagreement, versus valuing harmony.

Crossing the three dimensions, Fitzpatrick found that there are three different
couple types, each reasonably able to maintain marital satisfaction and stability.
In traditional type marriages, husbands and wives value stability and adhere to
conventional relational ideologies, customs, and gender roles; that is, they adhere
to a traditional marital ideology. Traditionals are also highly interdependent, as
evident by their frequent sharing, companionship, and regulated time together
(e.g., scheduled meal times). They tend to be expressive and engage in conflict
over serious issues. By contrast, independent couples hold nonconventional values
about relationships (e.g., believing the relationship should not constrain individ-
ual freedom and should have novelty). They are highly interdependent in their
emotional connection, though they may maintain separate physical spaces and
lack the timed routines that characterize Traditionals. Independents are very
expressive, report some assertiveness, and willingly engage in conflict. Separate
couples, the third type, have ambivalent relational ideologies, often holding tradi-
tional values toward marriage and family while also endorsing the individual free-
dom and ideology of change and uncertainty that Independents uphold. Some-
times Separates enact different public and private behaviors (e.g., they may
publicly support conventional relationship values, but privately behave in an
unconventional way). Separates are not very expressive in their interactions and
maintain emotional and physical space apart from their spouses as they find emo-
tional support outside the marriage. As might be expected, Separates generally
tend to avoid marital conflict. In sum, about 60 % of married couples can be classi-
fied as “pure” types where both the husband and wife are the same type, with the
other 40 % being “mixed types” (Fitzpatrick 1988; Kelley 1999).

4.2 Gottman’s couple types

About a decade after Fitzpatrick (1984) advanced her typology, Gottman intro-
duced his typology of marital couples. Gottman (1994) describes three functional
couple types that he terms Volatile, Validating, and Conflict-avoiding couples
(1994), each of which differs from dysfunctional couple types, most notably the
Hostile couple type. What is similar about the interaction of the three functional
couple types is that they each maintain a climate rich in positivity, even during
conflict interactions. Gottman (1994) describes the three functional couples types
as regulated couples, namely because they are able to regulate their interactions
to maintain a 5 : 1 ratio of positive interactional behaviors to negative ones. The
Hostile couple type suffers from nonregulated interactions characterized by as
much or more negativity as positivity.

The three functional couple types differ according to the way they exert influ-
ence, resolve conflict, and communicate about emotions. Volatile couples are more

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 461

emotionally expressive than spouses in the other couple types (Gottman 1994).
Even when spouses disagree with strong emotion, passion, and involvement, their
negative expressions are soothed by positive expressions such as relational affir-
mations, affection, and humor. They regulate the 5 : 1 ratio of positive to negative
behaviors, even though this requires frequent positive expressions to offset their
tendency to assert their individual agendas and deal with differences openly as
they engage in conflict. In contrast to Volatile couples, Validating couples are
moderate in emotional expression (Gottman 1994). These couples carefully choose
which issues to bring up, initiate conflict in gentle ways, and consider the timing
of conflict. Using a great deal of positive affect and a careful approach to conflict,
partners are able to maintain the sense of togetherness and companionship that
they cherish. Validating couples value cooperation, respect for the other’s opinion,
and work hard to achieve outcomes that are best for them as a team, not just
as individuals. Conflict-avoiding couples are characterized by low, even levels of
emotional expression (Gottman, 1994). They prefer to avoid or minimize conflict
and instead focus on compromising, accepting their partners as they are, and
turning their attention instead on the areas of agreement in the relationship. Gott-
man (1994) expresses concern about marital quality when partners in a marriage
are “mismatched” (e.g., a Volatile spouse with a Conflict-avoiding partner).

5 Conclusion
Persistently robust divorce rates and countless dissatisfied spouses fuel the need
for knowledge of those processes that explain and predict both positive and nega-
tive marital outcomes. Some efforts to identify such processes have focused on
skills that promote relational maintenance and an emotional bond between
spouses. Possession and enactment of such skills are commonly found in spouses
who report high levels of marital satisfaction. Over the past 3 or 4 decades,
researchers have developed an ever-growing catalog of positive and negative com-
munication behaviors that seem to help or hinder marriage. These include such
communication processes as disclosure, support messages, compliments, and for-
giveness on the positive side and demand-withdrawal, verbal aggression, emo-
tional flooding and negative affectivity on the negative side. These communication
behaviors either add depth and strength to the psychosocial foundation of the
marriage, or trauma and erosion to that foundation.

A great deal of marital communication research has focused on the need to
express and manage positive and negative affect in ways that are beneficial, or at
least minimally harmful to the marriage. Although rarely stated, marital dissatis-
faction is presumed to be the most proximal predictor of divorce. Because (dis)sat-
isfaction is an inherently affective phenomenon, the experience and expression of
affect has occupied a prominent position in marital communication research.

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

462 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

Finally, research on marital couple types raises an important caveat. It would be
unwise to view the communication processes highlighted in this chapter as having
uniform effects across all marriages. Students of marital communication must
always remain cognizant of the systems theory concept of equifinality, indicating
that in any social system, different sets of inputs can lead to the same output.

References
Amato, Paul R. 2010. Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of

Marriage and Family 72: 650–666.
Baron, Kelly, Timothy Smith, Jonathan Butner, Jill Nealey-Moore, Melissa Hawkins and Bert

Uchino. 2006. Hostility, anger, and marital adjustment: Concurrent and prospective
associations with psychosocial vulnerability. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 30: 1–10.

Bodenmann, Guy, Nathalie Meuwly, Thomas N. Bradbury, Simone Gmelch and Thomas
Ledermann. 2010. Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships:
Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 27: 408–424.

Brock, Rebecca L. and Erika Lawrence. 2009. Too much of a good thing: Underprovision versus
overprovision of partner support. Journal of Family Psychology 23: 181–192.

Canary, Daniel J. and Laura Stafford. 1992. Relational maintenance strategies and equity in
marriage. Communication Monographs 59: 243–267.

Carrère, Sybil, Kim T. Buehlman, John M. Gottman, James A. Coan and Lionel Ruckstuhl. 2000.
Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology
14: 42–58.

Caughlin, John P. 2002. The demand-withdrawal pattern of communication as a predictor of
marital satisfaction over time: Unresolved issues and future directions. Human
Communication Research 28: 49–85.

Caughlin, John P. and Ted L. Huston. 2002. A contextual analysis of the association between
demand/withdrawal and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships 9: 95–119.

Caughlin, John P. and Ted. L. Huston. 2006. The affective structure of marriage. In: Anita L.
Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships,
131–155. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Caughlin, John P., Ted. L. Huston, T. L. and Renate M. Houts. 2000. How does personality matter
in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78: 326–336.

Caughlin, John P. and Anita L.Vangelisti. 1999. Desire for change in one’s partner as a predictor
of the demand/withdrawal pattern of marital communication. Communication Monographs
66: 66–89.

Christensen, Andrew. 1988. Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In: Patricia Noller and
Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (eds.), Perspectives on Marital Interaction, 31–52. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters LTD.

Clements, Mari L., Allan D. Cordova, Howard J. Markman and Jean Philippe Laurenceau. 1997. The
erosion of marital satisfaction over time and how to prevent it. In: Robert J. Sternberg and
Mahzad Hojjat (eds.), Satisfaction in Close Relationships, 335–355. New York: Guilford.

Doohan, Eve-Anne M., Sybil Carrère and Matt L. Riggs. 2010. Using relational stories to predict
the trajectory toward marital dissolution: The oral history interview and spousal feelings of
flooding, loneliness, and depression. Journal of Family Communication 10: 57–77.

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 463

Fincham, Frank D. and Steven R. H. Beach. 2010. Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in
review. Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 630–649.

Fincham, Frank D., Steven, R. H. Beach and Joanne Davila. 2004. Forgiveness and conflict
resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 18: 72–81.

Fincham, Frank D., Steven R. H. Beach and Joanne Davila. 2007. Longitudinal relations between
forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 21: 542–545.

Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne. 1984. A typological approach to marital interaction: Recent theory and
research. In: Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume
18: 1–47. New York: Academic Press.

Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne. 1988. Between Husbands and Wives. Newbury Park: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne and Julie Indvik. 1982. The instrumental and expressive domains of
marital communication. Human Communication Research 8: 195–213.

Flora, Jeanne and Chris Segrin. 2000. Affect and behavioral involvement in spousal complaints
and compliments. Journal of Family Psychology 14: 641–657.

Frisby, Brandi N. 2009. “Without flirting, it wouldn’t be a marriage”: Flirtatious communication
between relational partners. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 10: 55–60.

Gable, Shelly L., Gian C. Gonzaga and Amy Strachman. 2006. Will you be there for me when
things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 91: 904–917.

Gavazzi, Stephen M., Patrick C. McKenry, Jill A. Jacobson, Teresa W. Julian and Brenda Lohman.
2000. Modeling the effects of expressed emotional, psychiatric symptomology, and marital
quality levels on male and female verbal aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:
669–682.

Gordon, Cameron L. and Donald H. Baucom. 2009. Examining the individual within marriage:
Personal strengths and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships 16: 421–435.

Gottman, John M. 1993. A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family
Psychology 7: 57–75.

Gottman, John M. 1994. What Predicts Divorce: The Relationship between Marital Processes and
Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale., NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gottman, John M. 1999. The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy. New York:
W. W. Norton.

Gottman, John M., James Coan, Sybil Carrere and Catherine Swanson. 1998. Predicting marital
happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:
5–22.

Gottman, John M. and Joan DeClaire. 2001. The Relationship Cure. New York: Crown.
Gottman, John M. and Lowell J. Krokoff. 1989. Marital interaction and marital satisfaction:

A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57: 47–52.
Gottman, John M. and Nan Silver. 1999. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New

York: Crown.
Graber, Elana C., Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, Erin Miga, Joanna Chango and James Coan. 2011.

Conflict and love: Predicting newlywed marital outcomes from two interaction contexts.
Journal of Family Psychology 25: 541–550.

Gubbins, Christine A., Linda M. Perosa and Suzanne Bartle-Haring. 2010. Relationships between
married couples’ self-differentiation/individuation and Gottman’s model of marital
interactions. Contemporary Family Therapy 32: 383–395.

Hanzal, Alesia and Chris Segrin. 2009. The role of conflict resolution styles in mediating the
relationship between enduring vulnerabilities and marital quality. Journal of Family
Communication 9: 150–169.

Huston, Ted L., John P. Caughlin, Renate M. Houts, Shanna E. Smith and Laura J. George. 2001.
The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and
divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80: 237–252.

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

464 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

Huston, Ted L. and Renate M. Houts. 1998. The psychological infrastructure of courtship and
marriage: The role of personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. In: Thomas N.
Bradbury (ed.), The Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction, 114–151. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.

Huston, Ted L., Sylvia Niehuis and Shanna E. Smith. 2001. The early marital roots of conjugal
distress and divorce. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10: 116–119.

Infante, Dominic A., Teresa A. Chandler and Jill E. Rudd. 1989. Test of an argumentative skill
deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs 56: 163–177.

Johnstone, Barbara. 2004. Working with a couple with borderline qualities. In: Julie S. Gottman
(ed.), The Marriage Clinic Casebook, 89–100. New York, NY: W W Norton and Co.

Karney, Benjamin R. and Thomas Bradbury. 1997. Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the
trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 1075–
1092.

Kelley, Douglas L. 1999. Relational expectancy fulfillment as an explanatory variable for
distinguishing couple types. Human Communication Research 25: 420–442.

Krokoff, Lowell J. 1991. Communication orientation as a moderator between strong negative affect
and marital satisfaction. Behavioral Assessment 13: 51–65.

Laurenceau, Jean-Philippe, Lisa Feldman Barrett and Michael J. Rovine. 2005. The interpersonal
process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach.
Journal of Family Psychology 19: 314–323.

Ledermann, Thomas, Guy Bodenmann, Myriam Rudaz and Thomas N. Bradbury. 2010. Stress,
communication, and marital quality in couples. Family Relations 59: 195–206.

Manning, Wendy D., Monica A. Longmore and Peggy C. Giordano. 2007. The changing institution
of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and
Family 69: 559–575.

Markman, Howard J. 1984. The longitudinal study of couples’ interactions: Implications for
understanding and predicting the development of marital distress. In: Kurt Hahlweg and Neil
S. Jacobson (eds.), Marital Interaction: Analysis and Modification, 253–281. New York:
Guilford.

Markman, Howard. J., Galena K. Rhoades, Scott S. Stanley, Erica P. Ragan and Sarah W. Whitton.
2010. The premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five
years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 289–298.

Martin, Gary and Vladimir Kats. 2003. Families and work in transition in 12 countries, 1980–
2001. Monthly Labor Review, September: 3–31.

McNulty, James K. 2010. Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner
transgressions in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 787–790.

Mitnick, Danielle M., Richard E. Heyman, Jill Malik and Amy M. S. Slep. 2009. The differential
association between change request qualities and resistance, problem resolution, and
relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology 23: 464–473.

Noller, Patricia and Judith A. Feeney. 1998. Communication in early marriage: Responses to
conflict, nonverbal accuracy, and conversational patterns. In: Thomas N. Bradbury (ed.), The
Developmental Course of Marital Dysfunction, 11–43. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Papp, Lauren M., Chrystyna D. Kouros and E. Mark Cummings, E. M. 2009. Demand-withdraw
patterns in marital conflict in the home. Personal Relationships 16: 285–300.

Payne, Michael J. and Teresa Chandler Sabourin. 1990. Argumentative skill deficiency and its
relationship to quality of marriage. Communication Research Reports 7: 121–124.

Prado, Lydia M. and Howard J. Markman. 1999. Unearthing the seeds of marital distress: What
we have learned from married and remarried couples. In: Martha J. Cox and Jeanne Brooks-
Gunn (eds.), Conflict and Cohesion in Families: Causes and Consequences, 51–85. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Marital communication 465

Reis, Harry T. and Brian C. Patrick. 1996. Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In: E.
Tory Higgins and Arie W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles,
523–563. New York: Guilford Press.

Roberts, Linda J. 2000. Fire and ice in marital communication: Hostile and distancing behaviors
as predictors of marital distress. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 693–707.

Sabourin, Teresa Chandler, Dominic A. Infante and Jill E. Rudd. 1993. Verbal aggression in
marriages: A comparison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and nondistressed couples.
Human Communication Research 20: 245–267.

Sanford, Keith. 2012. The communication of emotion during conflict in married couples. Journal
of Family Psychology 26: 297–307.

Schumacher, Julie A. and Kenneth E. Leonard. 2005. Husbands’ and wives’ martial adjustment,
verbal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression
in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73: 28–37.

Segrin, Chris. 2006. Family interactions and well-being: Integrative perspectives. Journal of
Family Communication 6: 3–21.

Segrin, Chris and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick. 1992. Depression and verbal aggressiveness in different
marital couple types. Communication Studies 43: 79–91.

Segrin, Chris and Jeanne Flora. 2001. Perceptions of relational histories, marital quality, and
loneliness when communication is limited: An examination of prison inmates. Journal of
Family Communication 3: 151–173.

Segrin, Chris, Alesia D. Hanzal and Tricia J. Domschke. 2009. Accuracy and bias in newlywed
couples’ perceptions of conflict styles and their associations with marital satisfaction.
Communication Monographs 76: 207–233.

Siffert, Andrea and Beate Schwarz. 2010. Spouses’ demand and withdrawal during marital
conflict in relation to their subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 28: 262–277.

Simmons, Rachael A., Peter C. Gordon and Dianne L. Chambless. 2005. Pronouns in marital
interactions: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health? Psychological Science 16:
932–936.

South, Susan C., Eric Turkheimer and Thomas F. Oltmanns. 2008. Personality disorder symptoms
and marital functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 76: 769–780.

Stafford, Laura. 2011. Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development
of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 28: 278–30.

Stafford, Laura, Marianne Dainton and Stephan Haas. 2000. Measuring routine and strategic
relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of
relational characteristics. Communication Monographs 37: 306–323.

Sullivan, Kieran, Lauri A. Pasch, Matthew D. Johnson and Thomas Bradbury. 2010. Social
support, problem solving, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 98: 631–644.

Thornton, Arland and Linda Young-DeMarco. 2001. Four decades of trends in attitudes toward
family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and
the Family 63: 1009–1037.

Traupman, Emily, Timothy Smith, Paul Florsheim, Cynthia A. Berg and Bert A. Uchino. 2011.
Appraisals of spouse affiliation and control during marital conflict: Common and specific
cognitive correlates among facets of negative affectivity. Cognitive Therapy and Research 35:
187–198.

United Nations. 2011. Demographic Yearbook 2009–2010. New York: United Nations.
Waldron, Vincent L. and Douglas L. Kelley. 2005. Forgiving communication as a response to

relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 723–742.

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

466 Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

Waldron, Vincent L. and Douglas L. Kelley. 2008. Communicating Forgiveness. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Weger, Harry. 2005. Disconfirming communication and self-verification in marriage: Associations
among the demand-withdraw interaction pattern, feeling understood, and marital
satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 19–31.

Vangelisti, Anita L. and Mary A. Banski. 1993. Couples’ debriefing conversations: The impact of
gender, occupation, and demographic characteristics. Family Relations 42: 149–157.

Woszidlo, Alesia and Chris Segrin. In press. Negative affectivity and educational attainment as
predictors of newlyweds’ problem solving communication and marital quality. Journal of
Psychology.

Xu, Yan and Brant R. Burleson. 2004. The association of experienced spousal support with
marital satisfaction: Evaluating the moderating effects of sex, ethnic culture, and type of
support. The Journal of Family Communication 4: 123–145.

EBSCOhost – printed on 7/27/2020 4:37 PM via UNIVERSITY OF DENVER. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use