This Behavior Is The #1 Predictor Of Divorce, And You’re Guilty Of It

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasiy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously, not everyone does it or it would have no predictive value, would it?

John Gottman has done research in which he gets the consent of couples to film their interactions with each other. (I think they have a vacation home with cameras, something like that.) They document the kinds of interactions the couples have, then find out later whether the couple stayed together or not. This helps explain why some couples who get into disputes on a regular basis stay together while others don’t. Expressions of contempt are one of four predictors of divorce, which he calls the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

One predictor that a relationship will turn out to be lasting, in contrast, is what he calls a pattern of repair attempts, which he defines as "any statement or action – silly or otherwise – that prevents negativity from escalating out of control.” It is not that the couple never steps over the line of negativity, but that they keep an eye on that line and try to bring things back into a more positive realm when things start going from testy to downright nasty.

I think he is also the researcher who found that couples that would later stay together tend to have vastly more positive comments made than negative ones. His ideal is in the neighborhood of four or five positive comments per negative one. Again: he gets this from actually watching couples, tallying up what kinds of conversations they have, and then contrasting the behaviors of couples that stay together with those who don’t
 
EasterJoy said:
Obviously, not everyone does it or it would have no predictive value, would it?
Click to expand...
Yes it would, based on say the number of different ways contempt is expressed and/or the degree of these behaviours. ie those who show more contempt are more likely to divorce than those who minimise contempt in their communications.
 
I agree that contempt is a nasty one. It used to exist in my relationship, but we’ve both pretty much grown up.
 
I’m guilty of it? I thought you meant spending too much time online. :compcoff:
 
I thought it was going to say that the #1 risk factor for divorce is marriage.
 
for believers who are strong in faith, this article does not apply.🙂
if in a marriage in the first place you are looking for Christ and not the flesh, then you are not afraid of any challenges.
 
underacloud said:
Yes it would, based on say the number of different ways contempt is expressed and/or the degree of these behaviours. ie those who show more contempt are more likely to divorce than those who minimise contempt in their communications.
Click to expand...
If I do a quick review of the human interactions I’ve had in the last week, I’d say that few and quite possibly none of them involved expressions of personal contempt. If you don’t count contempt expressed for public figures (such as people running for President), I can’t think of any. I don’t just mean myself. I mean anyone I talked to in person or any 1 on 1 conversations I overheard. The only exception I can think of has been a few over-frustrated coaches who got a bit snarky. (Even they weren’t indulging in divorce-provoking expressions of contempt.)
 
EasterJoy said:
If I do a quick review of the human interactions I’ve had in the last week, I’d say that few and quite possibly none of them involved expressions of personal contempt. If you don’t count contempt expressed for public figures (such as people running for President), I can’t think of any. I don’t just mean myself. I mean anyone I talked to in person or any 1 on 1 conversations I overheard. The only exception I can think of has been a few over-frustrated coaches who got a bit snarky. (Even they weren’t indulging in divorce-provoking expressions of contempt.)
Click to expand...
I was addressing your comment purely from a statistical perspective - that a zero contempt level is not required for such an analysis/prediction.

But I will also comment on the above - the article addresses the more subtle ways we might show contempt. We need to be mindful of them and vigilant. I would suggest that just about every relationship, even the very best, has a few subtle imperfections that need working on.
 
underacloud said:
I was addressing your comment purely from a statistical perspective - that a zero contempt level is not required for such an analysis/prediction.

But I will also comment on the above - the article addresses the more subtle ways we might show contempt. We need to be mindful of them and vigilant. I would suggest that just about every relationship, even the very best, has a few subtle imperfections that need working on.
Click to expand...
To quote John Gottman’s web site (gottman.com/about/research/faq/)
Contempt: statements that come from a relative position of superiority. Contempt is the greatest predictor of divorce and must be eliminated. Example: “You’re an idiot.”

Note: He does not say minimized. The word used is eliminated. Expressions of contempt are that bad and that strong as a predictor of divorce. This is coming from a researcher who used these markers to predict divorce with over 90% accuracy. The average elapsed time to divorce due to his “Four Horsemen” markers was 5.6 years after the wedding. (In contrast, the web sites states: “Emotional withdrawal and anger predict later divorcing – an average of 16.2 years after the wedding.”)

Eliminating expressions of contempt entirely is not only a realistic and measurable goal, but a very important one.
 
EasterJoy said:
To quote John Gottman’s web site (gottman.com/about/research/faq/)
Contempt: statements that come from a relative position of superiority. Contempt is the greatest predictor of divorce and must be eliminated. Example: “You’re an idiot.”
Click to expand...
This definition is narrower (specifying “statements”) than the examples given in the article posted, which include body language, tone, etc, and focus on the more subtle examples and less on the clear-as-day exemplars. I expect we are talking across each other. Whether contempt is eliminated or minimised might depend on exactly how such things are defined and I’m not too interested in arguing the finer details of it.

Anyway, as I said, I really just wanted to touch on the statistical angle of it, noting that zero contempt values are not necessary in the data set for a predictive analysis.
 
underacloud said:
This definition is narrower (specifying “statements”) than the examples given in the article posted, which include body language, tone, etc, and focus on the more subtle examples and less on the clear-as-day exemplars. I expect we are talking across each other. Whether contempt is eliminated or minimised might depend on exactly how such things are defined and I’m not too interested in arguing the finer details of it.

Anyway, as I said, I really just wanted to touch on the statistical angle of it, noting that zero contempt values are not necessary in the data set for a predictive analysis.
Click to expand...
Yes. My point was that the research is based on a strict definitions, because they have to look at film and count a “yes” or a “no” for the purposes of establishing the predictive value of their definitions. The researcher looked into why some couples who fight stay together and others who seem to fight just as strenuously don’t. His data indicate it has to do with how the complaint department is run in a marriage. It is not so much that there are specific points of contention that predict collapse, but rather that specific behaviors used in complaining and counter-complaining which are very predictive of relatively fast marital erosion and collapse.

You are right: the article doesn’t do a great job of relating how the research was done or how specific behaviors need to change in order to avoid the damage the article talks about. It isn’t enough to say “don’t do this,” especially since (as you point out) it isn’t entirely clear what is meant by “this.” John Gottman’s books have more of a “instead of that, which erodes, do this, which builds up” message. He gives many examples, too.
 
EasterJoy said:
It is not so much that there are specific points of contention that predict collapse, but rather that specific behaviors used in complaining and counter-complaining which are very predictive of relatively fast marital erosion and collapse.
Click to expand...
I’m curious, how have his studies taken into consideration alternate explanations for the correlation between divorce and the behaviors you allude to? How were those specific behaviors isolated from any number of other correlations that might have been present? How are they determined to be causally linked to divorce?

Edit: In fact, maybe you could just give a link to some of his studies, and I could look for myself. 👍
 
Exsultet said:
I’m curious, how have his studies taken into consideration alternate explanations for the correlation between divorce and the behaviors you allude to? How were those specific behaviors isolated from any number of other correlations that might have been present? How are they determined to be causally linked to divorce?

Edit: In fact, maybe you could just give a link to some of his studies, and I could look for myself. 👍
Click to expand...
gottman.com/about/research/
 
EasterJoy said:
Yes. My point was that the research is based on a strict definitions, because they have to look at film and count a “yes” or a “no” for the purposes of establishing the predictive value of their definitions. The researcher looked into why some couples who fight stay together and others who seem to fight just as strenuously don’t. His data indicate it has to do with how the complaint department is run in a marriage. It is not so much that there are specific points of contention that predict collapse, but rather that specific behaviors used in complaining and counter-complaining which are very predictive of relatively fast marital erosion and collapse.

You are right: the article doesn’t do a great job of relating how the research was done or how specific behaviors need to change in order to avoid the damage the article talks about. It isn’t enough to say “don’t do this,” especially since (as you point out) it isn’t entirely clear what is meant by “this.” John Gottman’s books have more of a “instead of that, which erodes, do this, which builds up” message. He gives many examples, too.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see what you’re saying now - I’m not too familiar with the research beyond what the article vaguely touched on. Might have a closer look into it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top