USING WHAT PREMARITAL COUPLES ALREADY KNOW TO INFORM MARRIAGE EDUCATION: INTEGRATION OF A GOTTMAN MODEL PERSPECTIVE Mary W. Hicks Lenore M. McWey Kristen E. Benson Stacy Hernandez West ABSTRACT:TheMarriagePreparationandPreservationActofFlorida stimulatedastudyofpremaritalcouples.“Whatarethebestthingsthat you do in your relationship” wasasked in a survey of persons seeking marriagelicenses.Thesampleconsistedof962participants.Responses wereexaminedusingGottman’s“SoundMaritalHouse”(1999)asathe- oreticalframework.Resultsindicatethatpremaritalparticipantsview specific aspects of the Sound Marital House as the best things they contribute to their relationship. Responses can be used as a guide to thedevelopmentofaGottman-basedmarriagepreparationcurriculum. KEYWORDS: marriageeducation;marriagepreparation;soundmaritalhouse;Mar- riagePreparationandPreservationAct. A recent study that asked “Who are the marital experts?” found that either newlyweds, those who were in long-term marriages, or MaryW.Hicks,PhD,wastheprogramdirectorofthemarriageandfamilytherapy programatFloridaStateUniversity.LenoreM.McWey,PhD,isanassistantprofessor inmarriageandfamilytherapyatVirginiaPolytechnicandStateUniversity.Kristen Benson,MA,isadoctoralstudentinthemarriageandfamilytherapyprogramatVirginia Tech.StacyHernandezWestisadoctoralcandidateinthemarriageandfamilytherapy programatFloridaStateUniversity.CorrespondencecanbedirectedtoLenoreMcWey, VirginiaTech,FamilyTherapyCenter,840UniversityCityBlvd.,Blacksburg,VA24061- 0515([email protected]). Appreciation is expressed to all members of the MPREP team including Jeannie Bertoli, Jim Devlin, Kathleen Mills, and David Moran for their efforts on the larger project,andtoJohnGottmanandDavidOlsonfortheirhelpintheconstructionofthe premaritalsurvey. ContemporaryFamilyTherapy26(1),March20042004HumanSciencesPress,Inc. 97 98 CONTEMPORARYFAMILYTHERAPY recentdivorceesmadethemostaccuratepredictionsofmaritalsatisfac- tion. These groups of non-professionals were more accurate in their predictions than trained professionals and students in the profession ofpsychotherapyandfamilytherapy(Ebling&Levenson,2003,p.130). Although it has been asserted that engaged couples may be idealistic about their marital future (Olson, 1983), couple’s knowledge about ele- mentsofsuccessfulmarriagesisanuntappedresource(Ebling&Leven- son, 2003; Williams, 1992). Separation and divorce are common occurrences in the United States.Althoughthedivorceratemayhavereachedaplateau,research indicatesthatmaritalqualitymaybedeclining(Amato,Johnson,Booth, & Rogers, 2003). Concerns about the stability of today’s marriages are being addressed through statewide initiatives promoting marital educationinstatessuchasLouisiana,Arizona,Texas,andFlorida(Stan- ley,2001).Theintentofmanymarriageeducationprogramsistodimin- ishthenegativeeffectsofmaritaldistressanddivorce(Williams,Riley, Risch & Van Dyke, 1999; Silliman & Schumm, 2000; Stanley, 2001). Research has revealed that marital distress can be a significant health hazard for adults and children. Studies have linked marital distressand/ordissolutiontoasignificantnumberofmentalandphysi- cal problems (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994; Coie, Watt, West, et al., 1993; Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1993), physical health difficulties, impairedparent-childrelationships(Erel&Burman,1995),decreased workproductivity (Forthofer,Markman,Cox,Stanley,&Kessler,1996), poverty, and juvenile delinquency (Houseknecht & Sastry, 1996). In addition, findings from a number of studies demonstrate that the quality of interaction between spouses appears to be associated with marital dissolution (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Markman, 1981; Markman,Renick,Floyd,Stanley,&Celments,1993;Matthews,Wick- rama &Conger, 1996).The more negativitypresent in arelationship, thelowertheamountofpositiveinteractionbetweenthecouple.When thereare higherlevels ofnegativity thereis lessempathy andcaring, less smiling and laughter. Mathews and colleagues (1996) assert that “the weight of the evidence, then, suggests that the quality of the maritalinteractionwhetherwarmandsupportiveorhostileandnega- tive, relates to risk for marital distress and even dissolution of the relationship”(p.643).Despitethecontinuedgrowthofresearchpredict- ing marital stability and dissolution, “with few exceptions, the theory base in marriage preparation remains underdeveloped and inade- quately tested” (Silliman & Schumm, 2000, p. 137). 99 M.W.HICKS,L.M.MCWEY,K.E.BENSON,ANDS.H.WEST GOTTMAN’S WORK AS A THEORETICAL FOUNDATION Gottmanandassociatesdelineatestagesofdivorce(Gottman&Kro- koff, 1989; Gottman, 1993). They conclude that couples who eventually divorcefirstremainunhappilymarriedforatime,thenseriouslyconsider dissolution, separate, and finally divorce. They assert that the cascade towarddivorceisdrawnfromtheinteractionofthreeinterrelateddomains (the perceptual, the behavioral, and the physiological domains), each of which has the potential for balance. Data show that in each of these domains,theratiobetweennegativeandpositiveisthebestdiscriminator ofmaritaldissolution,leadingtotheconclusionthatsuccessfulmarriages depend on a balance between positive and negative interactions. Gottman’sresearchhasdemonstratedthatthebestandmostcon- sistent predictor of marital satisfaction is negative affect reciprocity. Innegativeaffectreciprocity,aspouse’sresponsetoapartner’snegativ- itywilllikelybemetwithnegativeaffect(Gottman,1999).Butallnegativ- ityisnotequal.Severalaffect-ladencommunicationsinparticularare especiallycorrosivetorelationalsatisfactionandstability.Thesepartic- ularly detrimental communication patterns are criticism, contempt, defensivenessand stonewalling,termedtheFour HorsemenofApoca- lypse (Gottman, 1999). Physiology is a predictor variable of marital stability (Gottman, 1999). Diffuse physiological arousal (DPA) is the body’s response to perceiveddanger.Inthisresponse,couplesexperienceareducedability toprocessinformation,makingitextremelyhardtolistenduringDPA- laden circumstances. There is less access to new learning and greater accesstohabitualbehaviorsandcognitions.Inthisprocess,fight-flight responses become more accessible and “creative problem solving goes out the window” (p. 75). According to Gottman (1999), it is vital for married partners to be able to ameliorate the “fight-flight” response. They must learn how to “slow things down, restore calm, and refocus attention” (p. 77). They must discover how to regulate “strong blends of emotion.” Not only will this “soothing” of self and other facilitate morefruitful dialogue;it willalso contributeto thephysical andemo- tionalhealthofeachmaritalpartner.Insum,thecoretriadofalliance (behaviorflow,perception,andphysiology)hasabi-directionalrelation- ship. This triaddetermines flooding which leads tothe distance isola- tion cascade (mediated by the Four Horseman), which, in turn leads to distress and frequently dissolution. 100 CONTEMPORARYFAMILYTHERAPY AccordingtoGottman(1993),therearetwo“staples”ofmarriages thatwork:overalllevelofpositiveaffectandanabilitytoreducenega- tiveaffectduringconflictresolution.Thesetwoqualitiesareexpanded in Gottman’s theory of the Sound Marital House (1999). The Sound Marital House, comprised of seven floors, rests on the foundation of marital friendship (the first three floors). The next level is positive sentimentoverride,followedbyregulationofconflictthroughproblem solving, then supporting one another’s dreams. The top level consists ofcreatingsharedmeaning.UsingtheSoundMaritalHouse,strengths andareas forimprovementin couple’srelationshipscan beidentified. THE PRESENT STUDY SillimanandSchumm (2000)assertinaliteraturereviewofmar- riage preparation programs that improvements in the assessment of couple’sattitudesandinteractionpatternshaveledtoanenhancement of marital interventions. The trend in marriage education in the past twodecadeshasbeentheenrichmentapproach,whichisaimedtoward enriching couples strengths (Silliman & Schumm, 2000), but what do couples say are the strengths of their relationship and how can this informationbeusedforpreventionandeducation?“Whatarethebest thingsthatyoudoinyourrelationship”wasaskedofpremaritalpartici- pants. Responses were examined using Gottman’s theoretical frame- work. METHOD Sample The sample of this study consisted of 962 premarital individuals. Oftherespondents,50%werefemale(n=481)and50%(n=481)were male. The mean age of males in the sample was 36.4 years compared to 34.6 years for the females. The mean length of time the couples knew each other, at the time of completion of the premarital survey, was2.5years.Oftherespondents53.6%hadneverbeenmarriedbefore, 28.1%hadonepreviousmarriage,9.4%hadbeenmarriedtwicebefore, 4.8%hadthreepreviousmarriages,2.3%hadfourpreviousmarriages, and 1.9% had been married five or more times prior to their current relationship. 101 M.W.HICKS,L.M.MCWEY,K.E.BENSON,ANDS.H.WEST The average level of education was “some college” for both males andfemales.Personalincomeformalerespondentsrangedfrom$30,000 to $39,999 whereas the range of personal income for females was $20,000 to $29,999. Additional information about the sample is pro- vided in Table 1. Procedure Convenience sampling was utilized and premarital surveys were disseminatedbycountycourtofficerstopersonsapplyingforamarriage licenseinthestateofFlorida.Onespecificquestiononthesurveyasked “What are the best things that you do in your relationship?” At the TABLE 1 Characteristics of the Sample Variable Number % Race White 647 67.3 Black 173 18.0 Hispanic 95 9.9 Asian 34 3.5 Native American 13 1.3 Number of Previous Marriages 0 516 53.6 1 270 28.1 2 90 9.4 3 46 4.8 4 22 2.3 5 or more 18 1.9 Number of Children 0 522 54.3 1 203 21.1 2 131 13.6 3 65 6.8 4 24 2.5 5 10 1.0 6 6 0.6 8 1 0.1 102 CONTEMPORARYFAMILYTHERAPY time ofanalysis, atotal of1,119 surveys hadbeen returned.Of those, 962 participants responded to the open-ended question, and comprise thefinalsampleofthisstudy.Asitwasnotpossibletodeterminehow many people received the survey, it was not possible to calculate a response rate. Thus, the Gottman model was applied only to the re- sponding couples and it is not known how representative the sample is of all persons applying for a marriage license in the state. Data Analyses Premarital individuals were asked to answer the aforementioned open-ended question. This question, with the plentitude of responses, wasacommitmenttoexamine.Theresearchersusedagroundedtheory informed methodology for coding the responses. In grounded theory, themesemergeasdataareanalyzed(Rafuls&Moon,1996,p.64).Apply- inggroundedtheorymethods,aresearchapproachthatallowssubstan- tial meaning and formal theory to be extracted directly from the data (Strauss& Corbin,1994), wecritically reviewedrespondents’ phrases andsentencestodefinecategoriesthatcapturetheperspectiveofpre- marital respondents’ strengths as they self-identified them. The authors met to discuss the emerging categories and to deter- minetheultimateprocesstouseduringtheopencodingprocess.After theresponsesweresortedintothemes,aconstantcomparativemethod was employed and themes were continually identified until there was a saturation of categories. Using the constant comparative method, going back and forth from the raw data and comparing it to the open coding,wecreatedcategoriesandlinkagesinthedata(Banks,Louie,& Einerson, 2000) that reflect overarching themes. Theselectivecodingofthedatawastheresultofcarefulexamina- tionoftheopenandaxialcoding.Itisinthisphaseoftheanalysisthat theauthorsveeredfromthetraditionalgroundedtheorymethodology. Strauss and Corbin (1994) assert that grounded theory is designed to direct researchers to produce theory. Opposed to creating new theory from the data, the authors chose to apply the existing theory of Gott- man’sSoundMartialHousetothedata.Intheselectivecodingprocess, responsesweregroupedbythemeandcomparedtothesevenlevelsof theSoundMaritalHouse.Then,basedontheirsimilaritytothelevels, responsesweresortedintoGottman’smodelandcodedbasedonwhich level of the Sound Marital House was identified. Then, this coding system also became a numeric means of describing the frequencies of responsesforeachfloorofthesoundmaritalhouse.Becausethenumber 103 M.W.HICKS,L.M.MCWEY,K.E.BENSON,ANDS.H.WEST ofresponseswassolarge,theemergentquantitativedatawereentered intoSPSS9.0andfrequenciesofresponseswereexaminedforeachlevel oftheSoundMaritalHouse.Sinceindividualscouldreportmorethan one aspect, it was possible for one participant to have multiple levels of the sound marital house represented in one response. RESULTS The researchers wanted to capture the perspective of premarital participants’ self-identified strengths of their relationships. Specific themes discovered through the open and axial coding process include theimportanceof“spendingtimetogether,”“sex,”“love,”aspectsofcom- munication, “respect,” physical affection, “intimacy,” “openness,” “un- derstanding,” church related activities, being “best friends,” “making plansforthefuture,”and“humor.”Thesecategoriesrepresentaspects of relationships that participants found rewarding, or ranked as “the best things” they do in their relationships. Although these responses wererichwithinformation,theresearchersfoundthatthesecategories of responses could be further examined from the perspective of Gott- man’s Sound Marital House. Gottman’s Sound Martial House The Sound Marital House is based on two staples of marriage: overall positive affect and the ability to reduce negative affect during conflict resolution. The seven levels of the Sound Marital House are love maps, fondness and admiration, turning toward versus turning away, positive sentiment override, problem-solving, making dreams and aspirations come true, and creating shared meaning (Gottman, 1999).Weaddedanadditionalcategoryof“other”toincluderesponses that did not fit the existing seven levels of Gottman’s model. Love maps. The foundation of the Sound Martial House is based onthethreecomponentsofpositiveaffectinmaritalfriendship,which make up the first three levels of the Gottman model. The first is love maps, or the ability of each partner to “actively make maps of one’s partner’spsychologicalworld”(p.81)andrecalldetailsoftheirpartner’s lifeaswellasdetailsoftherelationship.Lovemapsincludedimensions of friendship, hope, and aspirations. Respondents cited specific characteristics of love maps as impor- 104 CONTEMPORARYFAMILYTHERAPY tantintheirrelationshipin259instances.Categoriesofresponsesthat emergedwithinthecategoryoflovemapsincludedbeing“bestfriends,” compatibility,and“love.”Respondentsassertedthatfriendshiporbeing “bestfriends”wasanimportantaspectoftheirrelationship.Statements such as “We are each others best friends” and “My partner is my best friend”depicttheprioritygiventofriendship.Someparticipantsseemed toidentifyaparallelbetweenconnectionandcompatibility.Theyhigh- lightedtheimportanceofcompatibilitybystating“Gettingalongwith oneanother”and“Wearecompatibleinallaspects”arethebestaspects of their relationships. Respondents also conveyed that love was an essential element of relationships. Statements such as “We love one another uncondition- ally”and“Weshowoneanotherthatweloveeachotherunconditionally throughouractions”describedtheimportanceofunrestrictedlove.The reciprocalexpressionoflovewasrevealedthroughstatementssuchas “We treat each other with much love” and “Shower each other with love.” Love also serves as the foundation of a relationship as depicted byonerespondentwhoclaimed“Ourrelationshipisbasedonastrong love and friendship.” Fondnessandadmirationsystem. Inthesoundmaritalhouse,the secondlevelofpositiveaffectinmaritalfriendshipfocusesontherate of spontaneous fondness and admiration expressions. Affection and respect in the marriage are encompassed within this level. Thedatarevealedthatfondnessandadmirationwerealsoimpor- tanttothepremaritalrespondents,beingcited538times.Theemphasis onrespectwasdenotedbyparticipantsindirectstatementsaboutthe high esteem they possess for one another. “We respect each other for who we are and (we) respect each other’s opinion” is one example of responses that fell within this category. “Respect the love and friend- shipthatweshare”wasanotherrespondent’sanswer,focusingonthe mutual respect they share as a couple. Caringforoneanother,notincludingphysicalcare,wasillustrated through descriptions of “looking out for each other,” sharing and ap- preciation. Responses included statements such as “I love taking care ofmyfamily(and)care(ing)formypartner,”“Shareourselvesandcare for one another” and “Appreciate how much the other means to each other.”“Attend(ing) tomy partner’sneeds anddesires” and“We want eachother tobehappyas wellasourselves” werealsostated toimply the significance of caring in relationships. “Taking care of my partner” was demonstrated through partners’ 105 M.W.HICKS,L.M.MCWEY,K.E.BENSON,ANDS.H.WEST physicalaffection,whichincludedspecificmentionofactssuchaskiss- ingandhugging.“Beingaffectionateprivatelyandpublicly,”“sex”and “hugandholdeachother”wereaffirmedasstrengtheningrelationships. The ways in which couples physically respond to each other was in- cludedinstatementssuchas“Mywholebodytingleswhenwetouch.” Lastly,intimacysignifiedthroughnon-physicalclosenesswasdescribed by statements such as “Share(ing) those feelings with each other.” Turning toward vs. turning away. Also termed the “Emotional Bank Account,” turning toward versus turning away marks the final component of positive affect and the third level of the Sound Marital House (p. 88). This level focuses on the couple’s positive and negative exchanges in their relationships. When couples spend quality time together, they invest “emotional money in the bank account” (p. 107) that will help them get through more difficulty times. Positive senti- mentoverrideispossiblewhenthecouplehassufficientpositiveaffect in non-conflict situations. Turningtowardversusturningawaywasthemostfrequentlycited aspectofallofthelevelsoftheSoundMaritalHouse,where866respon- dentsattestedthatthiswastheirbestcontributiontotheirrelationship. Respondentsdenotedthatspendingtimewithoneanotherwasaposi- tiveexchange,includinggeneralthingssuchas“spendingqualitytime together,”and“goingout.”Respondentsalsodescribedpositiveexchanges embeddedin“Spend(ing)timewithgoodfriendsandfamily,enjoygoing places and doing things together.” Others replied with references of “simply being together” as strengths in their relationships through assertionssuchas“Spendingtimetogether,justbeingtogetherbrings me happiness and peace” and “We always enjoy being together no matterwhatwedo.”Anotherstated“Thebestthingaregoingoutand doing stuff together, just being together doing stuff.” Positivesentimentoverride. Whenthethreecomponentsofpositive affect in marital friendship are working well, they lead to the forth levelofthehouse,PositiveSentimentOverride.Everydaymaritalinter- actions are important determinants in effective conflict resolution at thislevel (Gottman,1999).NegativeSentimentOverrideoccurswhen thesesamemundanedailyinteractionsareviewednegatively,orwith insufficient positive affect. Thecategorywiththeleastnumberofresponseswithinthesound maritalhousewaspositivesentimentoverride (n=114).Respondents referred to the importance of positive affect through accounts of the 106 CONTEMPORARYFAMILYTHERAPY useofhumor inrelationships.Onerespondentasserted that“Ourhu- mor plays a major role.” Another claimed a strength to be that “We bothtrytomaintainasenseofhumor.”Respondentsalsoemphasized theimportanceofhumorwhendescribinglaughterthroughstatements such as: “We laugh together,” “We are always laughing and joking,” and “We’re always laughing.” Problemsolving.Regulationofconflictratherthanresolutionopens the door to the next level of the house, the problem solving level. The three parts of problem solving include “(1) dialog with perpetual problems, (2) effective problem-solving of solvable problems, and (3) physiological soothing” (p. 105). The importance of problem solving was also denoted by respon- dents (n=175). Participants described communication, compromise, opennessandunderstandingaswaystoproblemsolveintheirrelation- ships.Communicationincludedtalkingtooneanother,sharingthoughts, and listening to one another. Individuals exemplified the value of ex- pression through their responses. Compromisewasstressedthroughstatementssuchas“Wetalkand listentooneanother,ifthereissomethingwedisagreeonwecompro- mise.” Strategies for handling disagreements were described in state- ments like “We never leave an issue open, we talk things out,” “Talk about everything and agree on the proper way to handle situations,” “Wetalkalotanddiscussproblemsinsteadofarguing,”“Trytolisten and not “hit below the belt” when arguing,” and “Try to listen, not be impulsive in the things I say before I say it.” Listening and sharing wereexemplifiedthroughstatementssuchas“Listen(ing)toeachoth- erswantsandneeds,andwehavetimetolistenasfriends,”“Welisten to each other” and “We share our feelings, we talk.” Openness was a quality signified through comments like “We are always open and honest with each other, even if we know the other mightdisagree”and“Showhowwefeelveryopenly.”Someparticipants found understanding pivotal and explained “We always try to under- stand each other so we can work things out” and “Try to understand when we do the things we do.” Makingdreamsandaspirationscometrue. Couplestendtoeither dialogorgridlockperpetualmaritalproblems.Maritalgridlockisavoided in this level of the house by allowing for conversation with positive affectregardingcontinuousproblemsthecouplefacesintheirmarriage. Thisleveltargetstheabilityofthecoupletohonoreachother’sdreams and aspiration and work to make them reality.