When we look closely at what happens between partners when they interfere with each other’s goals, we learn a lot about the choices they tend to make and how those choices can steer them toward agreement or disagreement, perhaps even magnifying their differences. We also learn that when two partners are thriving together, they manage to address their conflicts constructively, finding ways to remain open to each other’s points of view, to respond thoughtfully even when they dislike what they’re hearing, and to put aside their own personal needs for the greater good of their partnership. But just because good relationships are routinely characterized by good communication in the face of conflict, it does not necessarily follow that such strong interpersonal habits are the means by which relationships stay healthy. In fact, the opposite might be true: Because partners feel good about their relationship, they might be more inclined to compromise, or less inclined to defend their own point of view. Figuring out the “what causes what” puzzle is not a trivial matter; if communication is not that important in determining which couples falter and which ones thrive, then the use of therapeutic interventions to improve communication would not be of much value. But if specific principles of communication during conflict do prove beneficial to the couples who follow them, we have a stronger foundation for helping those who want to address their differences more constructively.
Relationship scientists have tried to find this piece of the puzzle by following couples over time in longitudinal studies. Couples first participate in an observational assessment, and later, if the partners are still together, they then complete questionnaires measuring their relationship satisfaction. First-time newlywed couples are particularly valuable for this type of study because they are usually happy with their relationship early on, and then tend to grow less satisfied with the passing of time. Newlyweds are also interesting because they are often raising young children during this time, and because census data show that divorce is most common in the first few years of marriage (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002). So change is clearly happening—for some couples more than others—and the question is whether these changes are somehow a consequence of the ways they discuss their conflicts. Some newlyweds are quite good at resolving differences, while others struggle mightily with this important task. Does it matter?
Couples who express a lot of really strong negativity during their arguments—hostility, name-calling, verbal abuse, angry accusations—do have unhappy and unstable relationships, especially if they do these things regularly (Rogge, Bradbury, Hahlweg, Engl, & Thurmaier, 2006). (Hostility and aggression are discussed fully in Chapter 11.) But the effects of more ordinary bad communication—such as listening poorly; being defensive, disagreeable, or stubborn; not being willing or able to come up with reasonable solutions—are usually weaker and a bit more subtle (e.g., Ha, Overbeek, Lichtwarck-Aschoff, & Engels, 2013; Lavner, Karney, & Bradbury, 2016). In fact, anger and poorer problem-solving skills have been shown to predict both lower levels of satisfaction (Gill, Christensen, & Fincham, 1999) and higher levels of satisfaction (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Karney & Bradbury, 1997). How could this be?
One possibility is that some unskilled forms of communication are relatively direct and clear while others are ambiguous, and only the direct expressions bring about the desired change in the relationship. Consider the following two statements; assume they are delivered with an identical tone of voice and emotional expression, and that they are intended to achieve the exact same change in the partner:
“Look, I’m going to have to insist that you start cleaning up the kitchen right after dinner. I’m exhausted when I come home from work, and you have to pitch in. Wrap up the leftovers, wipe down the table, and load the dishwasher. I am not asking much, but I’m not giving you a choice in the matter, either. Are you with me on this?”
“Look, after work I’m stressed, and you know that. You should be ashamed of yourself for not helping me out more. Can you see that I’m stressed, and that I’m already doing more around the house than you?”
Both approaches are pretty negative; which one is going to work?
Carefully distinguishing between direct and indirect approaches, and between positive and negative ones, allowed social psychologists Nickola Overall and her colleagues (2009) to show that direct statements work best, even if they are negative. Negative messages may be painful to deliver and to hear, but if they are direct, specific, and reasonable, they can be beneficial over time—in part because they convey that the partner delivering them is committed to the relationship and to making it better (Overall, 2017; Overall & McNulty, 2017). In contrast, negative but vague statements can trigger defensiveness or counterattacks. In the example above, the first statement represents the direct approach, whereas the second statement is nonspecific and is less likely to lead to the desired change.
The expression of positive emotions—such as gentle humor, interest, and affection—is another factor that can influence whether negative communication is harmful for relationships. We might expect that showing warm, positive feelings during an important discussion could soften any negative statements partners make, while the absence of warmth and positivity would allow those negative statements to register with a painful sting. Longitudinal research supports this claim. When newlywed spouses display high levels of positive emotion, poor communication skills appear to have little effect on how much the marriage changes over the next 4 years. But when levels of positive emotion are low, weak communication skills become potent predictors of rapid declines in relationship happiness (Huston & Vangelisti, 1994; Johnson et al., 2005; Smith, Vivian, & O’Leary, 1990). As findings from this line of research became clearer, relationship scientists naturally wondered whether they could predict the fate of marriages by observing how couples discuss disagreements. Box 10.2 introduces some of the complexities that arose when they attempted to do so.
Box 10.2
Spotlight on . . .
Predicting Relationship Outcomes
Is it possible, in 9 cases out of 10, to predict the state a marriage will be in several years later? Researchers have observed the behavior of couples when resolving conflicts, and then linked the behaviors with subsequent divorces, or with spouses’ later judgments of how satisfied they are in their relationship. In a series of studies using different groups of couples and several ways of measuring couple communication, researchers report surprisingly high levels of accuracy in predicting these results: 95% accuracy over 15 years (Hill & Peplau, 1998), 94% over three years (Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992), 92.7% over 4 years (Gottman & Levenson, 1999b), 84% over 2 years (Gottman, 1994; Larson & Olson, 1989). These findings received a great deal of attention in the popular media, because they held out the promise that couples at risk for divorce might be identified long before problems become apparent. Could it be true that a detailed analysis of a brief conversation can predict the fate of relationship commitment with this degree of precision?
Strong claims require strong data, and these study results have attracted scrutiny by other relationship scientists (Heyman & Slep, 2001; Rogge & Bradbury, 1999). Several factors suggest that prediction studies overestimate the amount of information the observed behaviors contain, and that the reported levels of prediction were inflated. For example:
Some studies involve couples who have been married several years. We might expect that if higher levels of anger predict dissatisfaction or divorce, the anger spouses are expressing could partly result from existing dissatisfaction rather than be a cause.
Some studies involve only couples who are extremely high or extremely low in relationship satisfaction. Use of extreme groups makes prediction appear stronger than it might be. By analogy, we might be successful in predicting very hot and very cold days according to the month of the year, but prediction will suffer when we add in all the remaining days of medium temperatures. Most couples fall in the middle range of satisfaction, rather than at either extreme.
The statistical methods used to analyze the data are designed to extract as much predictive information as possible from the independent variables. This has advantages, but when a high number of variables is collected from small samples of couples (of which few go on to divorce), applying this approach results in different information being extracted from the samples. High levels of prediction are achieved, but the specific nature of this prediction can differ from study to study. Sometimes, researchers take the predictive solution they discover in one data set and then apply the same solution to another similar data set. This is known as cross-validation. In principle, if a prediction is valid, it should work just as well across the different data sets. But when attempts cross-validate one set of predictive results on a new sample of couples, the prediction levels drop dramatically (Heyman & Slep, 2001).
A true prediction study has not yet been done. This would require collecting data, making a prediction based on those data, then waiting a certain amount of time to see whether the prediction was correct. Instead, relationship outcomes are already known at the time the “prediction” is made, thus allowing investigators to revise their predictions depending on the results they obtain. Research typically proceeds in this fashion, though several independent studies are needed to conclude that prediction has been achieved.
Can relationship outcomes be predicted with greater than 90% accuracy? The answer is yes, but this is not the most essential point. Here’s the important question: Can the outcomes be predicted with greater than 90% accuracy, with identical procedures, across diverse samples of couples? The answer is no, at least not yet. As you read about these issues in the popular media, bear in mind that reporting and science are often odd bedfellows: Reporting tends to emphasize one-night stands (provocative findings perceived to be breakthroughs, reported once, without much context or analysis), whereas science tends to emphasize long-term, committed relationships (repeated tests of trustworthiness, daily attention to mundane details, and consistency).
Observing couples’ emotional expressions during problem-solving discussions has been valuable for describing and predicting relationship distress. To explore this issue further, researchers have collected biological measures presumed to reflect the emotional processes of partners who are discussing a problem together. In one study by clinical psychologist Janice Kiecolt-Glaser and her colleagues, married couples checked into a special hospital wing for a 24-hour stay (Kiecolt-Glaser, Bane, Glaser, & Malarkey, 2003). With permission, blood samples were taken at regular intervals. The samples were analyzed for the presence of stress hormones—epinephrine (or adrenaline), norepinephrine, cortisol, and adrenocorticotropic hormone—that indicate stress levels and how the body responds to stress, including stress caused by the conflict itself. Following a 90-minute baseline observation period, the couples began a 30-minute discussion with instructions to work toward resolving two or three important relationship problems. Their stress hormone levels were then monitored for several hours.
The negative behaviors in these discussions were important for predicting the status and quality of the relationship 10 years later, but higher levels of the stress hormones were far more useful in predicting which newlywed couples would divorce and which marriages would become distressed (Figure 10.8). Conflict may well be a factor in marriage duration, but perhaps not for the reasons we expect. Observable features of conflict behavior may reveal only a few clues for understanding why a relationship can start to falter. However, discussions that stir up couples biologically may take a significant toll on the well-being of relationships, despite evidence that stress hormone responses are generally not consciously noticeable. Chronic exposure to stress, including relationship conflict, produces biological changes that gradually have a negative effect on health and well-being.
FIGURE 10.8Stress hormones and marital satisfaction. Epinephrine, the fight-or-flight hormone, is released from the brain into the bloodstream when danger threatens, thus preparing the body for action by boosting the supply of oxygen and glucose to the muscles. In this study, the epinephrine levels of newlywed couples discussing relationship problems were compared; 10 years later they were either divorced, unhappily married, or happily married. Stress hormone levels were higher in couples who went on to divorce or have unhappy marriages, compared to those who went on to have happy marriages. (Source: Adapted from Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2003.)
Here’s a good way to summarize all the findings we have covered in this section. When discussing their differences of opinion, couples will thrive by communicating that the relationship is a safe, nurturing place, and by eliminating any sense that they might threaten each other or their partnership. Social learning theory helps identify some strategies people use to create feelings of security and minimize threat. This goal itself is actually not within the boundaries of social learning theory, but it may sound familiar because it is part of another major theoretical framework we discussed in Chapter 2 and again in Chapter 6. We now find ourselves at the doorstep of attachment theory, which offers a different explanation for why couples vary in how they mismanage conflicts.
Attachment Theory and Couple Conflict
Because children receive different kinds of care, they develop internal working models of attachment. As you know from Chapter 2, these models come to be organized along two basic dimensions: anxiety, reflecting positive versus negative views of one’s self; and avoidance, reflecting positive versus negative views of others. These working models guide our attachment styles, and our relationships, well into adulthood. When applied to the subject of couple conflict, attachment theory makes some specific predictions about how people with various attachment styles will behave (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016):
Secure people, confident in the knowledge that they are worthwhile and that others are generally trustworthy and well-intentioned, are skilled problem solvers; they are not likely to be threatened much by the partner’s emotions or by the idea of having to discuss problems, nor will they be a threat to the partner.
People high in attachment-related anxiety, with a negative view of themselves in relationships, are threatened by conflict because it can get in the way of the approval and support they need from a close partner. They will assume the worst about their conflicts, obsess about them, and express their feelings of anxiety and hostility because they feel threatened.
People high in attachment-related avoidance see others as unreliable, unavailable, and uncaring. Conflict threatens their need to minimize emotion and intimacy, because it calls attention to the unpleasant possibility that they are vulnerable or need something from another person. As a result, they strive to regulate their emotions by keeping the conflict and the partner at a distance; to avoid arguments, they deflect the concerns the partner might raise. When conflict cannot be avoided, they do all they can to defend themselves instead of cooperating with their partner.
Are aspects of the early caregiving environment actually related to how we manage problems and conflicts with intimate partners in adulthood? Are there observable differences between securely and insecurely attached couples? The answer to both questions is yes. For example, longitudinal data show that a mother’s sensitivity and emotional responsiveness to her children throughout childhood predict later levels of physiological arousal when they are adults (Raby, Roisman, Simpson, Collins, & Steele, 2015). Individuals exposed to less sensitive caregiving showed greater physiological arousal during arguments with their partners, regardless of the quality of the relationship (Raby et al., 2015). Similarly, adolescents who describe themselves as having secure and supportive relationships with their caregivers through age 14 are observed, at ages 18 and 21, to be more constructive when discussing disagreements with a relationship partner (Tan et al., 2016).
Generally speaking, compared to secure individuals, insecure people tend to be poorer problem solvers, and they show less positive emotion and more negative emotion. While secure people are good at fostering security in their closest relationships, insecure individuals seem to create friction in a variety of ways, such as by expressing less empathy and affection, escalating conflicts, neglecting to compromise, or disengaging (Alexandrov, Cowan, & Cowan, 2005; Campbell et al., 2005; Crowell et al., 2002; Feeney, 1998; Feeney & Karantzas, 2017). Are there observable differences among insecure individuals? For the most part, no, although evidence from a few studies indicates that avoidant people are more disengaged, closed off emotionally, and contemptuous compared to those with other insecure attachment styles (Creasey & Ladd, 2005).
Early social learning theorists were probably justified in rejecting prevailing models of personality and marriage in the 1970s, but it is now clear that attachment insecurity, and the early family relationships that give rise to it, shape the manner in which intimate partners approach, manage, and recover from conflict. From this large body of evidence we can draw a somewhat surprising conclusion: Factors that seem to be far removed from a couple’s current relationship—whether their parents divorced, whether their parents pushed and shoved each other in the heat of arguing, how their parents treated them, and their sense of how they were cared for as children—may well shape how they think, feel, and act when confronting daily problems in their relationship. In sum, whereas research conducted from the social learning theory perspective points to evaluating couple conflict on the basis of rewards, costs, and the way partners create security and minimize threat; attachment theory traces the roots of conflict behavior back to the working models the partners acquired early in life. Of course, neither perspective is entirely right or wrong, yet it is significant that both draw attention to the powerful need committed partners have for interpersonal bonds that provide safety, comfort, and protection.
MAIN POINTS
Although harsh negative expressions during arguments contribute to the weakening of relationships, some forms of negative communication can be constructive, especially when accompanied by positive emotions like humor and affection.
Hostility and negativity during quarrels cause the release of stress hormones, but when partners argue in constructive ways, feelings of threat are eliminated and they gain a sense of security about the relationship.
The way people respond to interpersonal conflicts in adulthood has roots in their earliest relationships with caregivers, consistent with attachment theory.
