The Other 50%
PSYC 404: Psychological Perspectives on Romantic Relationships, Wendy Morris
April 24, 2004
Part I. Introduction
Marriage is ubiquitous. The relationship between spouses is a matter of great interest and debate in modern society. It is a topic of choice for television, radio, books, newspapers, and magazines alike, not to mention individual conversation. This is because marriage has great relevance. Millions of people are married and those who aren’t generally have aspirations toward that end. The pair bond that marriage represents is the fundamental basis of the family structure and human social organization. As such, marital health is a subject of paramount importance.
It is unfortunate, then, that the keys to marital health are so hotly debated. Between Oprah and Jerry Springer, popular culture would claim that marriage is dysfunctional by definition. It would seem that scientists share this view. According to one source, “Conflict is king” in the realm of marital research (Bradbury, 2001). With such a dire outlook, American society seems to be focused on how to prevent marriages from failing, as if every marriage has a terminal illness that can be treated but never cured.
This paper is intended to take the opposite view of marriage. Rather than focusing on why marriages fail, the topic of interest here is why marriages succeed. Conflict may be the inevitable byproduct of marriage (or more likely of relating in general), but how is it that happy, long-term couples properly manage it? What differentiates their relational and communicative styles from those of couples who suffer negative marital outcomes? While the lifetime divorce rates soars to around 50%, what is it that the other 50% are doing right?
Part II. Literature Review
In answering these questions, it is important to distinguish what can be considered a good versus a bad marital outcome. Obviously, society as a whole is interested in stable, long-term family units, and so at least half of the definition of a good or successful marriage must be longevity. More important to the individuals in the marriage, however, is the prospect of happiness. Few people would want to be in a long-term but joyless partnership. Thus, it is also important to consider the role of satisfaction in marriage.
As it turns out, these two variables, marital longevity and marital satisfaction, are predicted by separate variables. Specifically, levels of hostility and negativity have been shown to forecast marital longevity, whereas communication behaviors are tied to marital satisfaction (Rogge, 1999). According to one study, between 68% and 95% of marriages can be accurately classified into their respective outcome groups using these variables (Rogge, 1999).
Hostility & Negativity
As stated previously, conflict predominates marital research. This comes as no surprise, given that aggressive behaviors and attitudes can predict marital longevity so well. Physical aggression seems to be particularly destructive. In one study, physical aggression at the beginning of a marriage predicted early marital dissolution (Bradbury, 2001). It would seem that minimizing such hostility is one of the keys to a good marriage.
More important, however, is the negativity that seems to underlie such overt conflict. Couples in distress are more negative and less positive in their relations with one another (Walsh, 1993). This contributes to a cycle of negative reciprocity, in which the negative affect of each spouse contributes to the negative affect of the other (Gottman, 1998). This pattern is particularly predictive of couples headed for divorce.
It is important to note that negativity of the variety that preludes marital deterioration can and often does occur in the absence of overt conflict (Bradbury, 2001). Some couples may appear externally stable only to suffer from rampant negativity behind closed doors.
Of course, one must also distinguish between negativity which threatens a marriage and negativity which appears as a healthy part of marital development. As mentioned earlier, the popular media love to espouse the idea that marriages deteriorate and grow more and more negative over time (e.g. “You two sound like an old married couple”). This is partly true. Negative communication has been shown to increase as marriages progress. However, this occurs in the context of increases in positive communication as well as decreases in withdrawal, verbal aggression, and unresolved conflict (Lindahl, 1998). The picture here appears to be that couples become increasingly willing to voice problems to one another as time goes by, which facilitates resolution and ultimately enhances the health of the relationship.
Given this finding, it is difficult to say how much negativity is healthy versus unhealthy. The best advice to be given along these lines is that couples should try to minimize the hostility and moderate the negativity of their interactions. Negative affect in particular should be kept in check to avoid the destructive cycle of negative reciprocity. These practices should contribute to the overall longevity of the marriage.
Communication
Poor communication is considered by therapists to be the most frequent and serious problem in ailing marriages (Walsh, 1993). This is because of the strong bi-directional relationship between communication and marital satisfaction. It has been found that communication behaviors at the beginning of a marriage are able to predict satisfaction regardless of such confounding factors as a couple’s initial level of satisfaction (Rogge, 1999). However, it has also been discovered that levels of satisfaction predict a couple’s later communication behaviors (Noller, 1994). For example, spouses in happy marriages tend to develop healthy conflict management skills. Thus, while it is difficult to draw causal attributions between the two, the relationship between communication and satisfaction is nonetheless important to consider.
One study of particular interest examined the effects of one spouse’s communications on the other spouse’s responses in distressed marriages. The study examined such variables as the negativity and relational focus of these communications. The researchers found that negative communications generally beget negative responses in both expressive and problem-solving discourse (Walsh, 1993). They also discovered that, when the speaker focused on the listener or the relationship, the response tended to be negative regardless of whether the speaker’s valence was negative or nonnegative (Walsh, 1993).
This brings up a rather crucial consideration for the maintenance of good communications in marriage. It is important to listen carefully to any communication from one’s spouse without becoming defensive solely because of that communication’s focus (Walsh, 1993). Doing so will help regulate negativity and prevent needless conflict in the marriage.
Walsh et al. also made an interesting finding regarding subjectivity in communication. Subjective or “I” statements in a therapeutic context are used in order to make negative feelings and opinions seem less threatening to the listener. They are widely used in marital therapy despite the fact that they lack any empirically-proven benefit to communication. The study found that subjectivity has no measurable influence on the listener’s response (Walsh, 1993). This led researchers to conclude that content is more important than style in marital communication (Walsh, 1993).
There was only one caveat to this finding. The researchers noted that empathy is related to marital adjustment and that a pattern of expression featuring subjective negativity and declarative positivity is related to empathy (Walsh, 1993). Thus, it may be that this style of communication tends to enhance marital outcomes, although more research is necessary to verify this relationship.
Another study of relevance to the topic of communication looked into the communicative styles used in marriages. Few people would argue that communicative styles used in relationships are different from those used in general, which this study confirms (Honeycutt, 1993). Participants were rated on various scales to determine what traits differentiate good communicators, good marital communicators, and communicators in happy marriages.
The study found that good communicators in general shared the traits impression leaving, dominant, relaxed, and attentive (Honeycutt, 1993). Thus, it appears that being a good communicator in general situations involves actively listening and directing the conversation in calm but effective manner.
This did not appear to be the same within the marital context. A good communicator in marriage was found to have the traits friendly, attentive, precise, and expressive (Honeycutt, 1993). The friendly style alone accounted for 58% of the variance, leading to the conclusion that effective marital communication primarily requires intimate, caring expression (Honeycutt, 1993). Augmenting this with careful listening and a lack of ambiguity in communication appears to be most effective.
However, the researchers did not find effective marital communication to coincide perfectly with marital communication within happier marriages. They found that happy couple shared the traits of friendly and attentive, but were also relaxed, open, and dramatic (Honeycutt, 1993). Thus, happy couples tend to be more animated, free from tension, and self-disclosing and less precise in their communications with one another. This reflects the greater degree of flexibility and spontaneity that is often associated with a happy marriage (Honeycutt, 1993).
One additional gender-related finding showed that an expressive communicator style in males was a particularly good predictor of effective communication within a happy marriage (Honeycutt, 1993). This seems to fit well with popular culture, in which women often complain that men fail to express their emotions adequately.
The take-home message from these findings appears to be that communication within a happy marriage is less structured, more intimate, and highly personable compared to general communication. These findings, of course, are not in any way prescriptive. However, such a picture of satisfying marital communication can help couples determine how their own communication might be improved.
Demand/Withdraw Pattern
The Demand/Withdraw pattern of marital interaction is well-represented in both research and the media. It describes a style of interaction in which one partner (generally the wife) engages in frequent complaining while the other partner (generally the husband) tries his or her best to ignore and/or avoid the first partner. This pattern has been heavily implicated as a risk for divorce, and thus attention must be given toward curbing its development (Gottman, 1998).
It has been shown that individual differences as well as communicative behaviors help contribute to demand/withdraw (Caughlin, 2000). This comes as little surprise, as some personality traits predispose an individual toward either aspect of this pattern. High satisfaction has been shown to mitigate or even eliminate demand/withdraw in established couples, as it makes spouses less likely to avoid dealing with conflict (Noller, 1994). Additionally, withdrawal and verbal aggression, two key components of this pattern, tend to decrease as marriages mature (Lindahl, 1998). Thus, despite popular opinion, couples that have been together longer will tend to display less demand/withdraw than others.
Problem-solving Behavior
Problem-solving behavior can be regarded as a subset of communication and has received a great deal of individual attention. Like communication, good problem-solving is associated with marital satisfaction (Bradbury, 2001). However, this trend appears to develop as a marriage progresses. This makes sense conceptually, as newlyweds may not have had enough time together to develop enough problems to affect satisfaction. As time goes by, however, the necessity for problem-solving becomes more and more evident.
Good problem-solving will quite naturally depend on the nature of the specific problem. Problems of sexuality, emotional expression, finances, and the like all have their own unique strategies and literature. However, there are a few general guidelines presented in research. For example, many findings suggest that a focus on the positive can aid in successful problem-solving. A problem might arise from the erosion of positive relationship features (e.g. self-disclosure, support, sexuality, etc.) just as easily as from the appearance of negative relationship features (e.g. conflict), and so some consideration as to the exact nature of the problem can help resolve it (Bradbury, 2001).
One important consideration for marital problem-solving is the presence of positive behaviors outside of the problem. For example, expression of affection has been shown to moderate the longitudinal effects of negative behavior (Bradbury, 2001). Essentially, doing something nice for one’s spouse regardless of the current climate of the relationship can help foster good communication which can lead to problem resolution.
Conflict Management
Conceptually, conflict management stands in the middle ground between aggression and communication. As such, it has implications for marital longevity and marital satisfaction alike. And while some researchers postulate that marital deterioration might be the result of a more basic failure of communication than bad conflict management, it is nonetheless useful to consider the case in which a couple who communicates well still has difficulties with conflict management (Bradbury, 2001).
Individual risk factors have been implicated in the effects of conflict on a marriage. Such characteristics as neuroticism, parental divorce, psychopathology, and attachment history can have a strong influence both on how conflict is received and on how it is managed (Bradbury, 2001). There are some controllable elements, however. For example, it has been shown that individuals who hold certain romantic beliefs receive and manage conflict in a maladaptive fashion (Brehm, 2002). Such beliefs include the idea that disagreement is inherently destructive to a relationship and that mind-reading is essential. Adopting more realistic beliefs (e.g. conflict is normal in marriage, communication is essential, etc.) can help establish a firm basis for good conflict management.
Other Factors
Obviously, this short list is hardly exhaustive. There are numerous other factors that can influence marital relations in a positive way. For example, approximately 90% of married couples in America eventually have children (Lindahl, 1998). In a nine-year longitudinal study, couples who became parents did not suffer increases in conflict or declines in romance or satisfaction (Lindahl, 1998). Thus, despite the popular view that parenthood is a traumatic experience, it may very well be that the transition has no substantial effect on marital satisfaction.
Another set of variables to consider is the ecological context of the couple. Ecological and sociocultural variables have a very real and measurable impact on marital relations. For example, occupational status is associated with the level of negativity in a marriage such that spouses in lower-paying occupations tend to have rockier marriages (Bradbury, 2001). It has also been found that economic pressure predicts overt marital conflict (Bradbury, 2001). Realizing that these external factors have an influence can help mitigate their negative impact.
Part III. Conclusion
So what is the take-home message from all of this research? It should come as no surprise that all of these findings amount to a few tips that should ideally come across as common sense.
First and foremost, pervasive negativity is destructive to a marriage. It is important to realize that some negativity is a natural, healthy part of marital development, and that this will probably increase as time goes by and spouses grow more comfortable in expressing it. However, don’t let negativity get out of control. Minimize the amount of hostility in a marriage and especially try to eliminate physical aggression. If an argument develops, try to take a cognitive step back and not get drawn into the vicious cycle of negative reciprocity.
Of course, negativity isn’t the only consideration. Communication is essential for a happy marriage. Talk about problems, feelings, daily occurrences… in a word, everything. Don’t force the issue; just let the conversation develop naturally. Remember that the happiest married couples are friendly with one another, too.
It is also important to be a good listener, since your spouse will no doubt want to talk as well. Don’t get defensive just because the focus of the conversation turns toward you or the relationship. It might also be helpful to try and state negative thoughts and feelings subjectively and positive thoughts and feelings declaratively. This can help foster empathy. If communication isn’t perfect at first, give it time; it tends to improve as marriages develop.
Practice random acts of affection. This can help decrease conflict and aid in positive communication. Try not to let external pressures bring down your marriage. And lastly, try to adopt a realistic view of marriage. Nothing is perfect, and marriage is no exception.
References
Bradbury, Thomas, Rogge, Ronald, & Lawrence, Erika. (2001). Reconsidering the role of conflict in marriage (chapter). In Couples in conflict (pp. 59-81). Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
Brehm, S. S., Miller, R. S., Perlman, D., & Campbell, S. M. (2002). Attraction (chapter). In Intimate Relationships (3rd ed., pp. 67-94). New York: McGraw Hill.
Caughlin, John P & Vangelisti, Anista L. (2000, August). An individual difference explanation of why married couples engage in the demand/withdraw pattern of conflict. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 523-551.
Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of the marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169-197.
Honeycutt, James M., Woods, Barbara L., & Fontenot, Karen. (1993, May). The endorsement of communication conflict rules as a function of engagement, marriage and marital ideology. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 285-304.
Lindahl, Kristin, Clements, Mari, & Markman, Howard. (1998). The development of marriage: A 9-year perspective (chapter). In The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 205-236). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami.
Noller, Patricia, Feeney, Judith A, Bonnell, Denise, & Callan, Victor J. (1994, May). A longitudinal study of conflict in early marriage. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 233-252.
Rogge, Ronald D & Bradbury, Thomas N. (1999, June). Till violence does us part: The differing roles of communication and aggression in predicting adverse marital outcomes. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 340-351.
Walsh, Virginia L., Baucom, Donald H., Tyler, Susan, & Sayers, Steven L. (1993, September). Impact of Message Valence, Focus, Expressive Style, and Gender on Communication Patterns Among Maritally Distressed Couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 163-175.