Why The Gottman Method Works 1

Couples Therapy as the Key to Relationship Longevity:

Why The Gottman Method Works

Community College of Vermont

Natalie Badawy
Why The Gottman Method Works 2

Abstract

This research paper explores the use of Dr. John Gottman’s “Four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse” and “The Sound Relationship House” in relation to couple’s therapy. The

history of couples therapy will be reviewed alongside the Gottman method. Dr. Gottman

popularized the role that negative communication patterns can have in romantic

relationships (Gottman, 2001). Specifically, the presence of his "Four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse" has been found to predict relationship satisfaction and divorce in couples

(Gottman, 1999). The "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" refer to criticism,

defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling Gottman (1999), and Gottman suggests that

certain skills like turning towards your partner can be used by couples to enhance

communication and guard against the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”. In accordance

with the research, Gottman showed that 80% of those who made and retained gains over

two years and 100% of those who relapsed said that marital therapy had a positive impact

on them (Gottman, 1999). Results indicate the earlier a conflict is resolved with therapy

the less impact it will have on a relationship and family.

Keywords: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The Sound Relationship House,

stonewalling
Why The Gottman Method Works 3

Couples Therapy as the Key to Relationship Longevity:

Why The Gottman Method Works

Most forms of couples therapy has undergone an evolution over time. Many

popular types of couples therapy grew out of existing family therapies and evolved into

their own distinct types of theoretical frameworks and interventions (Lute, 2015). Nathan

Ackerman (1970) one of the most important pioneers of the field of family therapy

believed early assertion that therapeutic work involving marital conflicts was at the core

of family change. Couples therapy was slow to distance itself from family therapy and

gain recognition as its own type of therapeutic work (Lute, 2015). This is even more

surprising given that family therapists often work more with couples-related problems

than with issues involving entire families (Doherty & Simmons, 1996).

John Gottman was born in 1942 in the Dominican Republic to Orthodox Jewish

parents (The Gottman Institute, "John & Julie Gottman - About"). He received his PhD in

psychology from the University of Wisconsin in Madison and did his postdoctoral work

at the University of Colorado in 1971 and 1972 (The Gottman Institute, "John & Julie

Gottman - About"). He is the Co-founder of the Gottman Institute with his wife, Dr. Julie

Schwartz Gottman, and was also the Executive Director of the Relationship Research

Institute. He is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Washington and

has been working with couples for over 40 years. Beginning with the creation of The

Family Research Laboratory (Levenson & Gottman, 1983), Gottman was not only one of

the first researchers to study couples in a laboratory setting, but he also was one of the

first to utilize a longitudinal design in several studies of couples and marriages (The

Gottman Institute, "John & Julie Gottman - About").

Why The Gottman Method Works 4

Dr. John Gottman and his colleague Robert Levenson formed The Family

Research Laboratory, or “Love Lab” at the University of Washington in 1986 (Gottman,

1999). The “Love Lab” was created to resemble an apartment and observed 677 different

couples over 30 years. Couples lived in the apartment and were videotaped from 9am to

9pm, allowing researchers to observe their interactions over a 12-hour period. Data were

obtained on “respiration, electrocardiogram, blood velocity to the ear and finger of the

nondominant hand, skin conductance, and gross motor movements using a device

attached to the base of chairs” (Gottman, 1999, p 26). Couples used a rating dial while

viewing their videotapes and would respond either extremely positive to extremely

negative, relating to how they were feeling while observing video of a conversation or

interaction with their partner. They were then asked to identify how their partner was

feeling in return. Gottman and colleagues also “played specific parts of the videos,

chosen on the basis of some salient dimension like the individual’s behavior, physiology,

or rating, and then asked the subjects how they were thinking or feeling, what their

partner was thinking or feeling, and what their goals were during that moment” (Lute,

2015, p.8). Using the videotapes, behaviors were coded using an “objective coding

system with trained observers who describe facial expressions, voice tone, gestures, body

positions and movements, the distance between them, and so on” (Gottman, 1999, p.27).

Using the “Love Lab,” Gottman and colleagues conducted seven longitudinal

studies with over 677 couples over the past 30 years. The studies were meant to look at

marriages in various stages ranging from the newlywed stage through transitional periods

and into retirement. Follow-up data were collected at different intervals in each of the
Why The Gottman Method Works 5

studies, the longest of which was 15 years after initial observation (Gottman, 1999). In

addition to longitudinal studies in the “Love Lab”, Gottman and colleagues have

conducted studies involving brief interventions on marital interactions as well as

weekend workshops with over 900 couples (Gottman, 1999). Gottman’s longitudinal

studies, interventions, and weekend workshops form the center of his love for the success

of relationships.

Viewing the years of data from the “Love Lab,” Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and

Swanson (1998) focused on the ratio of positive to negative exchanges when assessing

couples. They hypothesized the ratio of negativity over positivity would predict future

relationship happiness (Lute, 2015). Gottman et al. “found that couples who had a high

ratio of negativity-to-positivity in their interactions involving conflict resolution were

significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their relationships both at the time the

study was conducted and at follow-up four years later” (Lute, 2015, p.14). “Couples who

had a high negativity-to-positivity ratio were more likely to be divorced at follow-up four

years later than couples who had Dow-Jones ratios with higher positivity to negativity”

(Lute, 2015, p.14). Additionally, Gottman (1994) stated that successful marriages contain

at least a ratio of five positive interactions to every one negative interaction, enabling

Gottman to predict divorce with 93% accuracy in his later writings (Gottman, 1999).

Through further analysis, Gottman found “Not all negatives are equally corrosive. Four

behaviors, which I call The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, are most corrosive:

criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling” (Gottman, 1999, p.41).

The longitudinal studies from Gottman’s “Love Lab” focused on three different

aspects. These three aspects made up the Core Triad of Balance, which Gottman coined
Why The Gottman Method Works 6

with the idea being that each marriage has a steady state of balance within each of the

three domains, that the system of the relationship is drawn to this state in order to

maintain homeostasis, and that every relationship is capable of repair (Lute, 2015). For a

happy relationship, Gottman wrote that there needed to be a balance of positive to

negative interactions within a relationship. These aspects included steady states of

perceptions, physiology, and behavior, with more physical feelings of calmness and well-

being versus anxiety or physiological discomfort (Lute, 2015). Gottman (1993) stressed

that it is not the expression of positive or negative affect that predicts relationship

success, but the ratio. A high level of negative affect expression is perfectly acceptable in

a relationship provided there is at least five times as much positive affect expression

occurring (Lute 2015, p.20).

Murray Bowen (1978) a pioneer of family therapy and a professor of psychiatry

believed a couple did not progress during a heightened emotional state. Gottman (1999)

came to the conclusion that these difficult negative emotional conversations needed to be

worked out and that the time for individuals to work on difficult emotions like anger,

sadness, disappointment, or contempt is when they are experiencing those very emotions

(Lute, 2015). “Gottman’s Sound Marital House Theory is predicated on the idea that

interventions should work to increase positive affect and help couples develop strategies

for reducing negative affect during conflicts” (Lute, 2015, p 21). From Bowen he learned

the importance of progress through negative emotions and “contended that this type of

state dependent learning is applicable to working with couples in that teaching them to

self-soothe and soothe each other during times of physiological distress can significantly

improve the couple’s ability to cope with distress during conflict, thereby improving the
Why The Gottman Method Works 7

relationship” (Lute, 2015, p.12). Gottman stated the fight or flight response we feel

during an emergency is the same response that is activated during a relationship conflict

“If not addressed through repair attempts, taking a break from arguing, or self-soothing,

the resulting physiological distress will have a negative effect on the relationship” (Lute,

2015, p.13). Gottman’s notes the overall level of positive affect, and the ability to reduce

negative affect during conflict resolution are the two most important pieces of a

relationship (Lute, 2015). He discussed that “these two empirical facts give us the basis

for marital therapy” (Gottman, 1999, p.105).

A study done by Ekman, Schwartz, and Friesen (1978) focusing on facial

movements allowed Gottman to come up with a method of coding couples within the

“Love Lab” videotapes. The study resulted in concluding that there is a culturally

universal expression for contempt that occurs when the dimple muscle pulls the lip

corners to the sides and forms a dimple in the cheek, which is often accompanied with an

eye roll or upward glance (Lute, 2015). “Gottman (1994) found these contemptuous

facial expressions to be particularly damaging to a relationship. After turning off the

sound of the video tapes and focusing solely on these contemptuous facial expressions,

Gottman found that contemptuous facial expressions by husbands were predictive of

wives’ infectious illnesses over the following four-year period” (Lute, 2015, p.17).

“Gottman suggests that contemptuous interactions can be healed by fostering a sense of

fondness and admiration that involves expressing positive appreciation for one’s partner”

(Lute, 2015, p.18).

The "Four Horsemen of Apocalypse" refer to criticism, defensiveness, contempt,

and stonewalling Gottman (1999), and suggest that certain word choices and reactions
Why The Gottman Method Works 8

cause negative partner feedback. The first of the Four Horsemen Gottman defines

criticism as “any statement that implies that there is something globally wrong with one’s

partner aimed at their character not their behavior” (Gottman, 1999, p. 41). “These types

of statements often begin with “you always” or “you never,” and they are differentiated

from a simple complaint due to their non-specific, global accusation”(Lute, 2015, p.16).

Gottman’s notes pointed out that “complaints are not predictive of marital outcomes, but

adding the words ‘always’ or ‘never’ effectively turns a complaint into a criticism” (Lute,

2015, p.16). Responding to criticism with “I statements” instead of “you never” shifts the

person's view to a good introspective look, in this case, at their own inclination toward

violence. In response to Gottman’s notes the first of the Four Horsemen complaints are

often retaliated by a partner with Defensiveness.

Being on the defense within an argument is challenging because one partner is

criticizing the other and not taking responsibility for their own actions. Gottman writes,

“It is not both of you who have the problem, but the mean bully you happen to be married

to” (Gottman, 1999, p.44). Contempt Gottman’s Third Horsemen of the Apocalypse,

which he described as “any statement or nonverbal behavior that puts oneself on a higher

plane than one’s partner” is the most poisonous of all relationship killers (Gottman, 1999,

p.44). “Contempt may often take the form of mockery, which can be especially damaging

to the relationship when it occurs in a public setting” (Lute, 2015, p.16). Contemptuous

arguments can be healed by describing one's feelings, needs, and building back fondness

and admiration for a partner (Gottman, 1999). “The last of the Four Horsemen is

stonewalling, which Gottman (1999) defined as withdrawing from the interaction, which

typically involves one partner leaving or storming out of the room” (Lute, 2015, p.16).
Why The Gottman Method Works 9

This is often repaired by taking a 20-minute break to calm down, deepen perspective, and

have a successful “do-over” with a partner (Gottman, 1999).

Couples therapy has a positive effect on relationships. In 1991 a study paralleled

the outcomes of two types of therapy on 55 couples (Marriage Guardian, 2011-2018).

Between 58% and 61% of the couples improved from the beginning of treatment to

follow-up six months after treatment finished (Marriage Guardian, 2011-2018). Statistics

also showed “After 4 years, of those who had received behavioral marital therapy, 38%

were divorced. But only 3% who received insight-oriented marital therapy divorced”

(Marriage Guardian, 2011-2018). In another study in 2010 of 134 “chronically and

seriously distressed” married couples, 48% showed clinically significant improvement at

five years after receiving 26 weekly therapy sessions, and 27% were separated or

divorced (Marriage Guardian, 2011-2018). These two studies show the importance of

continuing therapy with the key point that couples attending therapy with less distress

would have better odds of success when compared to couples that wait and attend therapy

with high stress. “Couples are better off at the conclusion of treatment than 70-80% of

those who do not get counseling” (Marriage Guardian, 2011-2018). Gottman reports that

only 35% of couples in marital therapy get clinically significant immediate improvements

(Gottman, 1999). In the best university studies that maintained close supervision of

participating therapists, he says that between 11% and 18% of couples made meaningful

gains that lasted more than a year (Gottman, 1999).

Gottman described three different types of happy relationships, which he refers to

as volatile, validating, and conflict-avoiding (Gottman, 1993). Gottman pointed out that

although these relationships have different qualities, all are similar in that they have at
Why The Gottman Method Works 10

least a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. Using “The Sound Marital House” in

therapy John Gottman says that just 35% of couples in marital therapy get clinically

significant immediate improvements (Gottman, 1999). In the best university studies that

maintained close supervision of participating therapists, he says that between 11% and

18% of couples made meaningful gains that lasted more than a year (Gottman, 1999).

Gottman also showed that 80% of those who made and retained gains over two years and

100% of those who relapsed said that marital therapy had a positive impact on them

(Gottman, 1999). In conclusion, Gottman’s Method allows us to have a better

understanding of our ability to control the health and longevity of our intimate

relationships. This understanding can lead to greater health, wealth, resilience to disease,

faster recovery from illness and greater longevity (Gottman, 1999).

Why The Gottman Method Works 11

References 

Ackerman, N. W. (1970). Family psychotherapy today. Family Process, 9, 123­126. 

Andrew Christensen, Ph.D., et al., "Marital Status and Satisfaction Five Years Following 

a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Traditional Versus Integrative Behavioral 

Couple Therapy," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 78 (2), 2010.

Douglas K. Snyder, Ph.D., et al., "Long­Term Effectiveness of Behavioral Versus 

Insight­Oriented Marital Therapy: A 4­Year Follow­Up Study," Journal of Consulting 

and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 59 (1), Feb. 1991.

Ekman, P., Schwartz, G., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Electrical and visible signs of facial 

action. 

San Francisco, CA: Human Interaction Laboratory, University of California San 

Francisco.

Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of 

FamilyPsychology, 7(1), 57­75.

Gottman, J.M., (1994). An agenda for marital therapy. In S. Johnson & L. Greenberg 

(Eds.), The heart of the matter: Perspectives on emotion in marital therapy, (pp. 256­293).

New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting Marital 

Happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions, Journal of Marriage and the 

Family, 60(1), 5­22. 
Why The Gottman Method Works 12

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). How stable is marital interaction over time? 

Family Process, 38(2), 159­165.

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New 

York, NY: Norton.

Gottman, J. M. (2001). Meta­emotion, children’s emotional intelligence, and buffering 

children from marital conflict. In C. Ryff & B. Singer (Eds.), Emotion, social 

relationships and health, Series in affective science, (pp. 23­40). New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press.

John Gottman, Ph.D., The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy 

(Norton Professional Books), WW Norton & Company, Inc., 1999. P. 6. 

John & Julie Gottman ­ About. (n.d.). Retrieved from 

https://www.gottman.com/about/john­julie­gottman/.

Lute, Michael, "The Relationship Between Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, 

Mindfulness, and Relationship Satisfaction" (2015). Theses and Dissertations (All). 511. 

Marriage Counseling Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved from 

https://www.marriageguardian.com/marriage­counseling­statistics.html.

Stanger, M. (n.d.). 20 Women Share How Couples Therapy Saved Their Relationship. 

Retrieved from https://thestir.cafemom.com/love/214872/how­couples­counseling­saved­

relationship/253230/_having_an_impartial_third_party_can_help_identify_areas_where_

we_can_improve/1.
Why The Gottman Method Works 13

William Shadish, et al., “Meta­Analysis of MFT Interventions,” Journal of Marital and 

Family Therapy, Vol. 29, Oct. 2003.