Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:29, 13 April 2021

Latest revision as of 00:25, 29 June 2025

(46 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)

Line 3:

{{cleanup|reason=incomplete sections, lacking sourcing, etc.|date=February 2019}}

{{cleanup reorganize|date=February 2019}}

{{third-partyindependent sources|date=February 2019}}

}}

The '''Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution''' (also known as '''Gottman's Four Horsemen''') is a relational communications theory that proposes four critically negative behaviors that lead to the breakdown of marital and romantic relationships.<ref name=":02">{{Cite book|title=Handbook of interpersonal communication|last=Knapp, M.L.|first=Daly, John A.|publisher=SAGE Publications|year=2002|isbn=0-7619-2160-5|pages=270}}</ref> ThisThe model is the work of psychological researcher [[John Gottman]], a professor at the [[University of Washington]] and founder of [[The Gottman Institute]], and his research partner, Robert W. Levenson.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gottman.com/about/research/|title=Overview - Research|website=The Gottman Institute|language=en-US|access-date=2019-02-06}}</ref> This theory focuses on the negative influence of [[Linguistics|verbal]] and [[nonverbal communication]] habits on the success and/or failure of marriages and other relationships.<ref name=":02" /> Gottman's model uses a metaphor that compares the four negative communication styles that lead to the breakdown of a relationship's breakdown to the biblical [[Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse]], wherein each behavior, or horseman, compounds the problems of the previous one, leading to the total breakdown of communication in a relationship.<ref name=":02" />

== Background ==

Gottman's and Levenson's research focuses on differentiating failed and successful marriages and notes that nonverbal emotional displays progress in a linear pattern, creating a negativean emotional and physical response that leads to withdrawal.<ref name=":02" /> Prior toUntil the development of the model (1992-1994), little research had been conducted that focused on finding specific interactive behaviors and processes that resultedresult in marital dissatisfaction, separation, and [[divorce]].<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Gottman|first=John M.|date=1993|title=A theory of marital dissolution and stability.|journal=Journal of Family Psychology|volume=7|issue=1|pages=57–75|doi=10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57|issn=0893-3200}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Gottman|first1=John M.|last2=Levenson|first2=Robert W.|date=1992|title=Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=63|issue=2|pages=221–233|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221|pmid=1403613|s2cid=6449722 |issn=0022-3514}}</ref> Additionally, Gottman's and Levenson's research indicated that not all negative interactions, like [[anger]], are predictive of relational separation and divorce.<ref name=":12" /> However,But Gottman's researchit shows a strong correlation between the presence of contempt in a marriage and the couple's likelihood towardsof divorce as a consequence.

Gottman's and Levenson's research notes that the "cascade toward relational dissolution" can be predicted by the regulation, orof non-regulation, ofcouples' positive toand negative interactions of couples, with couples that regulatedregulate their positive-to-negative interactions being significantly less likely to experience the cascade.<ref name=":12" /> This research has been furthered by looking at ways to intervene in the cascade communication process, and on its application to other types and models of relationships, including homosexual marriages.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Garanzini|first1=Salvatore|last2=Yee|first2=Alapaki|last3=Gottman|first3=John|last4=Gottman|first4=Julie|last5=Cole|first5=Carrie|last6=Preciado|first6=Marisa|last7=Jasculca|first7=Carolyn|date=October 2017|title=Results of Gottman Method Couples Therapy with Gay and Lesbian Couples|journal=Journal of Marital and Family Therapy|language=en|volume=43|issue=4|pages=674–684|doi=10.1111/jmft.12276|pmid=28940625}}</ref>

== Four Horsemen of Relational Apocalypse ==

Gottman's and Levenson's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse theory is centeredcenters around the concept that the behaviors below work in a cascade model, in which one leads to the other, creating a continued environment of negativity and hostility. This creates marital dissatisfaction, leadsleading to considerations of marital dissolution, separation, and finally, permanent dissolution.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last1=Fowler|first1=Craig|last2=Dillow|first2=Megan R.|date=2011-02-02|title=Attachment Dimensions and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse|journal=Communication Research Reports|volume=28|issue=1|pages=16–26|doi=10.1080/08824096.2010.518910|s2cid=143729646|issn=0882-4096}}</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":12" /><ref name=":02" />

=== Horseman One: Criticismcriticism ===

[[Criticism]] is the first indication of the Cascade Model and is an attack on the partner's character.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-recognizing-criticism-contempt-defensiveness-and-stonewalling/|title=The Four Horsemen: Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, and Stonewalling|date=2013-04-24|website=The Gottman Institute|language=en-US|access-date=2019-02-07}}</ref> CriticismGottman isdefines defined by Gottmancriticism as a type of complaint that blames or attacks a partner's personality or character.<ref name=":5" /> Critical comments often materialize in chained comments and are communicated throughin broad, absolute statements like ‘‘you"‘you never’’never’" or ‘‘you"you always.’’<ref name=":5" /> ’ Research indicates that non-regulated couples, or couples whose interaction trended more negative, engaged more frequently in criticism and were more likely to begin the Cascade of Dissolution.<ref name=":2" /> Gottman's and Levenson's research found thethat wifewives's criticism correlated to separation and possible dissolution, but this was not so with husbands.<ref name=":12" />

One possible solution to avoiding criticism is to grow the culture in a marriage to include a well-held vulnerability. This means that those in the marriage should feel safe enough to express their opinions and frustrations without the fear of rejection. Criticism does not allow partners to be vulnerable with oneeach anotherother, and their relationship can quickly deteriorate as a result. One may consider using more “I”"I" statements and expressive language in order to overcome criticism. An example of an "I" statement is: "When I am feeling frustrated, I tend to become more irritable and begin to hyper-focus on your flaws to blame someone for my negative feelings." "I" statements allow a spouse to take responsibility for their feelings rather than blaming the other spouse for their perspective and emotional reactions. They build emotional intelligence, self-reflection, and help prevent cycles of criticism and defensiveness.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.gottman.com/blog/types-of-criticism-expressing-concern-or-complaint-without-harm/ | title=Types of Criticism: Expressing Concern or Complaint without Harm | date=3 March 2022 }}</ref>

=== Horseman Two: Defensivenessdefensiveness ===

[[Defensiveness]] is a reaction to pervasive criticism that often results in responding to criticism with more criticism, and sometimes [[contempt]], and the second level of the Cascade Model.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":3" /> Defensiveness is a protective behavior and is indicated by shifting [[blame]] and avoiding responsibility, often in an attempt to defend against the first two horsemen.<ref name=":3" /> Defensiveness stems from an internal response to protect one’sone's pride and self-worth. The body may go into fight [[Fight-or-flight response|fight-or-flight mode]] to protect against a perceived threat in the defensive stage. Fowler and Dillow also characterize defensiveness as utilizingusing negative counter-attackcounterattack behaviors such as [[Frustration|whining]], making negative assumptions about the other's feelings, and denials of responsibility.<ref name=":5" /> Gottman's and Levenson's research found defensiveness to be strongest amongstamong men.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":12" />

=== Horseman Three: Contemptcontempt ===

[[Contempt]] is the result of repetitive criticism and the third level of the Cascade Model and is driven by a lack of [[admiration]] and mutual respect.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":5" /> It is the third level of the Cascade Model. Contempt is expressed verbally through mocking, [[sarcasm]], and indignation, with an attempt to claim moral- superiority over the otherone's partner.<ref name=":3" /> ContemptIt can also be indicated nonverbally, byas with [[eye-rolling]], and scoffing''.''<ref name=":5" /> Underlying this behavior is Gottman's and Levenson's research which found contempt to be the strongest predictor of relational dissolution, with contempt beingand the strongest overall predictor for women.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":12" />

=== Horseman Four: Stonewallingstonewalling ===

[[Stonewalling]] is the final phase of the model and is a reaction to the previous three behaviors. Stonewalling occurs when parties create mental and physical distance to avoid conflict by appearing busy, responding in grunts, and disengaging from the communication process.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":5" /> Gottman's and Levenson's research found stonewallingit to be most common among men and a very challenging behavior to redirect, once it becamebecomes habitual.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":12" />

== Gottman's research in predicting divorce ==

=== Predicting divorce / couple separation, and how divorce can be avoided ===

Gottman and his team did more extensive research in follow-up to this study, testing whether or not couples who exhibited these “horseman” were more or less likely to divorce. In a longitudinal study, Gottman and his team were able to predict with 93% accuracy<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-08-23|title=How Dr. Gottman Can Predict Divorce with 94% Accuracy|url=https://reallifecounseling.us/predict-divorce-gottman/|access-date=2020-12-09|website=Real Life Counseling|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gottman|first=John M|date=2000|title=The Timing of Divorce: Predicting When a Couple Will Divorce Over a 14-Year Period|url=https://ift-malta.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gottman-predictor-of-divorce.pdf|journal=Journal of Marriage and Family|volume=62|issue=3|pages=737–745|doi=10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x|access-date=2020-12-09|archive-date=2021-07-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210725163046/https://ift-malta.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gottman-predictor-of-divorce.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> how many couples would divorce from their observations.

They found that those couples who ended up separating had the following attributes<ref>{{Cite web|last=Thornton|first=Jesse|date=2017-08-29|title=Why Couples Divorce: Six Predictors|url=https://foundationsfamily.com/couples-divorce-six-predictors/|access-date=2020-12-09|website=Foundations Family Counseling|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-05-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210516124632/https://foundationsfamily.com/couples-divorce-six-predictors/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-12-09|title=6 Predictors of Divorce|url=https://fathers.com.sg/6-predictors-of-divorce/|access-date=2020-12-09|website=Centre for Fathering Ltd|language=en-GB}}</ref> in their marriage:

'* ''Harsh Startup:''' inIn arguments or disagreements, those couples who participated in harsh startups were those who begin an argument with great aggression, refused to see another’sanother's point of view, or brought issues up at inappropriate times.

'* ''The Four Horsemen:''' (as stated previously)above.

* '''[[Emotional flooding|Emotional Flooding]]:''' thisThis condition occurs when one partner feels overwhelmed, and their brain begins to protect itself by shutting down. They physically and mentally cannot process anymoreany more what the other is saying. This may lead to the person who is not flooded to think theythe areflooded person is not listening or dodoes not care, when in fact, their system has been overwhelmed. This may occur when one partner brings up a controversial topic or points out many flaws in another in a short period of time.  

'''The Four Horsemen:''' (as stated previously)

* '''[[Body language|Body Language]]:''' whetherWhether the couple is sending mixed messages, participating in a double-bind kind of thinking, or sending hostile nonverbal cues, destruction occurs.

'* ''Repair Attempts that were not accepted''': A repair attempt is anything that one partner does to trytries to bring the relationship back into control. This could be [[de-escalation]] tactics, bringing up something about which you both stand on common ground about, or even an inside joke. These attempts, when accepted and acted upon, encourage intimacy and affection in a marriage and allow the situation to deescalate. Those who do not participate in this tactic will have a greater likelihood of an argument or fight escalating out of control.

'''Emotional Flooding:''' this condition occurs when one partner feels overwhelmed and their brain begins to protect itself by shutting down. They physically and mentally cannot process anymore what the other is saying. This may lead to the person who is not flooded to think they are not listening or do not care, when in fact, their system has been overwhelmed. This may occur when one partner brings up a controversial topic or points out many flaws in another in a short period of time.  

'* ''A Negative View on their marriage and their overall happiness together:''' Gottman also found that those in the study who ended up divorcing or having low marital satisfaction thought about landmarks in their marriages as negative. The landmark moments that most people think of with fondness, such as their engagement, wedding, reception, birth of a child, etc., were almost all met with criticism from those in unhappy marriages. These people had trained their brain<ref>{{Cite web|title=Marriage and Couples - Research|url=https://www.gottman.com/about/research/couples/|access-date=2020-12-09|website=The Gottman Institute|language=en-US}}</ref> that their partner had not evernever met their needs, and there had never been happiness in their relationship.

* ''[[Belligerent|Belligerence]]'': Bad couples will sometimes try to provoke the other party with statements like "You think you're tough? Then do it!"<ref name="The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work">{{cite book |last1=PhD |first1=John Gottman |last2=Silver |first2=Nan |title=The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country's Foremost Relationship Expert |date=5 May 2015 |___location=New York |isbn=9780553447712}}</ref>

'''Body Language:''' whether the couple is sending mixed messages, participating in a double-bind kind of thinking, or sending hostile nonverbal cues, destruction occurs.

'''Repair Attempts that were not accepted''': A repair attempt is anything that one partner does to try to bring the relationship back into control. This could be de-escalation tactics, bringing up something about which you both stand on common ground about, or even an inside joke. These attempts, when accepted and acted upon, encourage intimacy and affection in a marriage and allow the situation to deescalate. Those who do not participate in this tactic will have a greater likelihood of an argument or fight escalating out of control.

And

'''A Negative View on their marriage and their overall happiness together:''' Gottman also found that those in the study who ended up divorcing or having low marital satisfaction thought about landmarks in their marriages as negative. The landmark moments that most people think of with fondness, such as their engagement, wedding, reception, birth of a child, etc., were almost all met with criticism from those in unhappy marriages. These people had trained their brain<ref>{{Cite web|title=Marriage and Couples - Research|url=https://www.gottman.com/about/research/couples/|access-date=2020-12-09|website=The Gottman Institute|language=en-US}}</ref> that their partner had not ever met their needs and there had never been happiness in their relationship.

== Methodology and regulated vs. non-regulated couples ==

Line 54 ⟶ 48:

=== Behavioral coding systems methodology ===

Gottman and Levenson's primary research for this model, published in the 1990s, centered around utilizing a variety of measures, in combination, to study the conflict interactions amongst married couples.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":2" /> Gottman and Levenson physiological information garnered by [[polygraph]]s, [[Electrocardiography|EKGs]], and pulse monitoring and behavioral information collected via survey and video recording.<ref name=":2" /> Information collected by video was coded using the Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System (RCISS), the Special Affect Coding System (SPAFF), and the Marital Coding Information System (MCIS).<ref name=":2" /> RCISS consists of a thirteen-point speaker behavior and a nine-point listener checklist, which can be broken down into five positive and eight negative codes.<ref name=":2" /> The SPAFF is "a cultural informant coding system" which considers: verbal content, tone, and context, as well as; facial expression, movement, and gestures,; and body movement.<ref name=":2" /> MCIS is the oldest and most widely used affect coding system, but is not as specific as others and is generally used in addition to other methods.<ref name=":2" />

=== Regulated and nonregulated couples ===

Line 60 ⟶ 54:

== The marital typology ==

Gottman's research indicates that there are five types of marriages: three of which are stable and avoid entering the Cascade Model, and two that are volatile.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Cook|first1=Julian|last2=Tyson|first2=Rebecca|last3=White|first3=Jane|last4=Rushe|first4=Regina|s2cid=122029386|display-authors=et al|date=1995|title=Mathematics of marital conflict: Qualitative dynamic mathematical modeling of marital interaction.|journal=Journal of Family Psychology|volume=9|issue=2|pages=110–130|doi=10.1037/0893-3200.9.2.110|issn=0893-3200}}</ref><ref name=":12" /> All of the three stable couple types achieve a similar balance between positive and negative affect; however, this does not mean that negative interactions or communication is completely eliminated.<ref name=":7" />

=== Stable couple typologies ===

==== Validators ====

This couple mixes moderate amounts of positive and negative [[Affect (psychology)|affect]].<ref name=":7" /> This model is the preferred model of marital counselors and is a more intimate approach focused on shared experiences; however, romance may disappear over time.<ref name=":7" /> These couples engage in reduced persuasion attempts and do not attempt to persuade until a third of the conflict has elapsed.<ref name=":7" />

==== Volatiles ====

This couple type mixes high amounts of positive and negative [[Affect (psychology)|affect]].<ref name=":7" /> These marriages tend to be quite "romantic and passionate, but [have] the risk of dissolving into endless bickering."<ref name=":7" /> These couples also engage in high levels of persuasion from the beginning of a conflict.<ref name=":7" />

==== Avoiders ====

This couple type mixes small amounts of positive and negative [[Affect (psychology)|affect]].<ref name=":7" /> This type of marriage avoids the pain associated with conflict, but risks loneliness and emotional distance.<ref name=":7" /> TheeThese couples make very few, if any, attempts to persuade each other.<ref name=":7" />

=== Volatile couple typologies ===

Line 87 ⟶ 81:

=== Proximal change interventions ===

Gottman and Tabres research on proximal change interventions attempts to interrupt the negative communications process by creating chances for positive influence to help alter relational dynamics and alter or repair damage done by the cascade.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=Gottman|first1=John M.|last2=Tabares|first2=Amber|date=2017|title=The Effects of Briefly Interrupting Marital Conflict|journal=Journal of Marital and Family Therapy|language=en|volume=44|issue=1|pages=61–72|doi=10.1111/jmft.12243|pmid=28656613}}</ref> Two interventions were implemented, a "compliments intervention" and a "criticize intervention" design to increase positivity and negativity respectively.<ref name=":4" /> Groups were randomly assigned, withone of the two intervention conditions or a control group,.
{{blockquote|There andwas whileno main effect in affect from the pretest conflict discussion to the posttest conflict discussion between the interventions didor notcontrol havegroup. anHowever, a manipulation check on ''how'' couples acted during either intervention produced a significant interaction effect.<ref name=":4" /> However, the}}
The research indicated that couples determined the effectiveness of the interventions, as many non-regulated couples who have entered the Cascade Model will "construe" interventions by coding them into criticisms and/or by communicating with contempt.<ref name=":4" /> The effectiveness of these interventions is contingent on the continued facilitation and monitoring of interventions by therapists.<ref name=":4" />

=== Avoidance and anxiety attachment ===

Researchers Fowler and Dillow note that avoidance attachment can be predictive of defensiveness and stonewalling whereby an individual is reluctant to depend on others.<ref name=":5" /> Those with avoidance attachment may also struggle to regulate negative emotions and be prone to lashing out at partners.<ref name=":5" /> Fowler and Dillow hypothesized that avoidance attachment can be predictive through self-reports of criticism, contempt and defensiveness; however, research finding indicated that avoidance attachment was only predictive of stonewalling.<ref name=":5" /> Additionally,

Fowler and Dillow noted that anxiety attachment, characterized by over-dependence, flooding, and fear of rejection, will also predict criticism, contempt, and defensiveness as those who exhibit anxiety attachment tend to become [[self-fulfilling prophecies]].<ref name=":5" />

=== Flooding ===

Flooding occurs when strong negative emotions are present within exchanges between individuals. It causes individuals to feel overwhelmed and can lead to destructive communication such as name calling and criticism. Often timesOftentimes, individuals express that their partner’spartner's negative emotions come out of nowhere and therefore they will do what they feel is necessary to retreat from the negativity.

Individuals may begin to adopt behaviors that discourage effective communication such as becoming defensive and generating negative qualities for their partner’spartner's behavior. Further, marital satisfaction has been shown to decrease over time as couples are more aroused during conflict. This in turn causes a destructive loop of higher frequencies of flooding as well as an increase in self-isolation and destructive communication patterns.

To combat flooding, couples could try to take breaks during conflict. Doing this has proved to reduce heart rates, which in turn, reduces negative behaviors. Another way to reduce flooding is to resolve conflicts through text-based or voice communication instead of face to face. This may allow individuals to regulate their emotions with more control.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kashian|first=Nicole|date=2019-11-24|title=The Influence of Channel, Flooding, and Repair on Effective Couple Conflict Communication|url=https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/12445|journal=International Journal of Communication|language=en|volume=13|pages=20|issn=1932-8036}}</ref>

Line 101 ⟶ 99:

=== Gottman method couples therapy ===

Research into Gottman method couples therapy has been of poor quality and is insufficient to consider the therapy as evidence-based, despite its popularity.<ref name=pseudo>{{cite book |title=Pseudoscience in Therapy: A Skeptical Field Guide |veditors=Hupp S, Santa Maria CL |chapter=Chapter 20: Couples Discord |vauthors=Alexander EF, Johnson MD |pages=332–333 |year=2023 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781009000611 |doi=10.1017/9781009000611.021 }}</ref>

==== Homosexual couples ====

Research from 2017 indicates that while the study of the Gottman Method's application to homosexual couples is relatively new, that most same-sex couples are not inherently different from their heterosexual counterparts.<ref name=":6" /> Garanzini, et al.'s research indicated that the length of treatment for homosexual couples was not statistically different from the comparable national averages for heterosexual couples.<ref name=":6" /> There was a significant increase in effect noted, which can be attributed to the idea that "same-sex couples generally function better than heterosexual couples due to smaller gender-role and inequality."<ref name=":6" /> This is due to more equality within homosexual relationships, as equality of support plays a larger role within same-sex relationships than heterosexual relationships.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Garanzini|first1=Salvatore|last2=Yee|first2=Alapaki|last3=Gottman|first3=John|last4=Gottman|first4=Julie|last5=Cole|first5=Carrie|last6=Preciado|first6=Marisa|last7=Jasculca|first7=Carolyn|date=2017|title=Results of Gottman Method Couples Therapy with Gay and Lesbian Couples|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jmft.12276|journal=Journal of Marital and Family Therapy|language=en|volume=43|issue=4|pages=674–684|doi=10.1111/jmft.12276|pmid=28940625|issn=1752-0606}}</ref> It is also noted that the Gottman Model of Therapy created a better platform for the discussion of relationship equality preferences.<ref name=":6" /> Studies have shown that homosexual partners tend to share similar communication styles and opinions about gender roles. Further, they are more positive when engaging in disagreements, which fosters the ability to talk about equality preferences within their relationships.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Garanzini|first1=Salvatore|last2=Yee|first2=Alapaki|last3=Gottman|first3=John|last4=Gottman|first4=Julie|last5=Cole|first5=Carrie|last6=Preciado|first6=Marisa|last7=Jasculca|first7=Carolyn|date=2017|title=Results of Gottman Method Couples Therapy with Gay and Lesbian Couples|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jmft.12276|journal=Journal of Marital and Family Therapy|language=en|volume=43|issue=4|pages=674–684|doi=10.1111/jmft.12276|pmid=28940625|issn=1752-0606}}</ref>

== Criticisms ==

[[John Gottman|Gottman]] has been criticized for claiming that his Cascade Model can predict divorce with over a 90% accuracy.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last1=Stanley|first1=Scott M.|last2=Bradbury|first2=Thomas N.|last3=Markman|first3=Howard J.|date=February 2000|title=Structural Flaws in the Bridge From Basic Research on Marriage to Interventions for Couples|journal=Journal of Marriage and Family|volume=62|issue=1|pages=256–264|doi=10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00256.x|issn=0022-2445|doi-access=free}}</ref> Additionally, researchresearcher Stanley Scott and his colleagues noted that Gottman's highly publicized research findings from 1998, which recommended significant shifts in focus and application for marital educators and therapists, including the de-emphasis of anger management and active listening, has several flaws.<ref name=":8" /> Among the concerns raised, the most significant are methodological, including Gottman and his fellow researchers not providing justification for the nonrandom selection of participants, not controlling for cultural impacts, and flaws in physiological impact analysis.<ref name=":8" /> Concerns were also raised about the methods for observational data collection and the ambiguity of statistics tests used.<ref name=":8" /> Stanley's findings indicate that, while Gottman's findings are interesting, there are too many unexplained methods and that additional research is needed before the overhauling Gottman's suggested.<ref name=":8" />

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

[[Category:CommunicationHuman communication]]

[[Category:Relationship breakup]]