Research Paper by Terri Fisher
Abstract
A concise description of Gottman Method Couples Therapy, including therapeutic goals, the change process, main interventions, and ethical and legal considerations will be presented. An evaluation of the strengths and limitations of the approach along with a discussion of cultural applications will follow. The method will be applied to the case of Nora and Sam. A conceptualization of techniques and interventions will be discussed. Finally, Gottman Method Couples Therapy will be briefly applied to two other clients. Concise Description of Gottman Method Couples Therapy.
Gottman Method Couples Therapy
The Gottman Method Couples Therapy is based on over forty years of research observing couples and applying these data to specific techniques and interventions (Gottman and Gottman, 2015). This has led to concepts such as the Sound Relationship House (Gottman (2011), the four horsemen of the apocalypse (Kimberly and Werner-Wilson, 2013), and the seven building blocks of the Sound Relationship House (Gottman, 2011).
These catch phrases provide a way to distinguish Gottman (1999) from other therapy modalities. They are the tip of Gottman’s research iceberg. Gottman’s assumptions create an integrative perspective. It is a combination of observing and quantifying affect and emotions (Driver and Gottman, 2004) along with using specific and tested interventions in order to facilitate change (Gottman and Gottman, 2015). The major goal of the therapy is to properly assess each partner, develop a treatment plan to address each area, and then use specific interventions in order to facilitate healthier interactional patterns between the partners (Gottman and Gottman, 2015). An additional goal is to help the couple develop healthier attachment patterns which create a stronger relationship.
Change comes about as each partner begins to understand the other’s point of view (Madhyastha, Hamaker, and Gottman, 2011). The Gottman/Rappoport intervention provides opportunities for each partner to practice using I statements to describe what he or she wants, needs, or feels. Following this, the other partner reflects this back. The speaking partner then confirms the partner correctly heard the information or repeats back the initial statement and thoughts about the statement. After successful completion, the partners then shift listener/speaker positions and repeat the process (Gottman and Gottman, 2015).
Change also occurs in the dream within conflict intervention (Gottman and Gottman, 2015). During this intervention, the couple discusses a topic in which they are experiencing gridlock. Gridlock occurs when partners are unable to appreciate the aspirations behind specific conflicts. Research has demonstrated that when couples begin to understand each other’s dreams, they are able to more effectively discuss subjects without becoming gridlocked (Gottman, 2011).
Additional change occurs with the aftermath of a fight intervention. Research indicates all couples fight (Gottman and Levenson, 2002). Assisting couples to come back together after a fight provides opportunities for healing and awareness. This promotes the building of the Sound Relationship House. This intervention is similar to the Gottman/Rapoport intervention. It adds the component of identifying triggers, taking responsibility, understanding the feelings, and supporting each other’s perceptions. For other change promoting interventions that are not within the scope of this application, refer to the reference list.
Ethical and legal considerations include knowing when to counsel couples together and when to separate partners. Friend, Bradley, Thatcher, and Gottman (2011) have demonstrated through research the use of situational and characterological types of intimate partner violence (IPV). With situational violence, research has shown it is more helpful to counsel partners together (Gottman and Gottman, 2015; Gottman, 2011, Friend, et al., 2011; and Madhyastha, et al., 2011). With characterological violence, this same research demonstrates that separating the partners provides a safer space for the partner who is the recipient of the violence.
This position is also supported by the ethical code of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists (AAMFT, 2016). Additionally, all therapists who work with couples should be aware of who the client is and adhere to treatment modalities that are congruent with ethical standards of care.
Evaluation of Strengths and Limitations of Gottman Method Couples Therapy
Gottman Method Couples Therapy has been proven to be effective when working with couples from low socio-economic status and low income structures involved in IPV. In a study by Bradley, Drummey, Gottman, and Gottman (2014), a sample of 115 heterosexual couples who met the above criteria participated in a group program based on the Gottman Sound Relationship House program. Couples were randomly assigned to either the control group that used normal couple therapy methods, or to the treatment group that used Gottman Method Couples Therapy. The couples who were in the Gottman group showed fewer aggressive behaviors than the control group. This progress continued through the eighteen month follow-up period.
Another study by Bermudez and Stinson (2011) used the Gottman Marital Conflict Scale to test its effectiveness among the Latino population. Conflict avoidance and unity in a marriage were other areas tested. Gender along with culture was also used as variable in this study. The participants included 191 married couples in the Houston and Dallas Texas area who had lived in the United States for a time periods from one year to fifty-eight years. Sixty-seven percent of the participants were born outside of the United States. The countries of origin included Mexico, Central America, and South America. The findings were that women, whether born in or out of the United States, showed the same style of relationships. Conversely, men born out of the United States demonstrated less unity in couple relationships than men who were born in the United States. These data showed similar findings with other studies conducted with non-Latino populations.
The previous study notes an important limitation with the Gottman Marital Conflict Scale method. Latino men are often stereotyped as being volatile or avoidant. Recognizing the language used in the scale and understanding that culture may provide stability in patterns are important considerations.
Example of Clinical Application
In the case of Nora and Sam, the issues of trust and betrayal are important considerations. The Sound Relationship House provides a strong base for couples who are not in extreme distress (Gottman, 2011). Couples who have experienced betrayal, distrust, and power imbalances require additional assistance to recreate the foundation within the Sound Relationship House. Gottman (2011) describes that loyalty, trust, and balance may be rebuilt by using specific and proven techniques that will rebuild those powerful linking emotions.
First, a specific couple assessment interview is used to obtain information that guides interventions. Following the couple interview, each partner is interviewed separately. This provides each partner an opportunity to tell their story. It also allows for each partner to discuss any issues related to IPV that may be critical to safety and welfare.
The couple’s issues would be conceptualized through the interview and assessment process. Next, Interventions start that are specifically geared to the needs of the couple. One intervention that would be helpful with Nora and Sam is the stress reducing conversation. It is clear there is stress in this relationship. Teaching the couple to manage conversations in a way to reduce this would be helpful. The four horsemen would also be discussed and framed within the context of relationship building. Flooding and self-soothing exercises would be taught, demonstrated, and practiced in order to assist the couple to understand what is happening while also promoting each other in the relationship. This intervention would be used as a way to assist the couple to learn to soothe each other in the process of healing and building trust.
The building rituals of connection intervention would be used to assist the couple to move towards each other instead of away from each other. This helps build connection and healthy attachment. Fondness and admiration interventions would also be used concurrently to promote better ways to connect with each other. This is generally lacking in relationships where there is betrayal.
The dreams within conflict intervention and Gottman/Rapoport interventions would be used to assist each to understand individual pain. Both partners have suffered distance and isolation. Providing opportunities while supporting each member is critical in promoting healing and reconnection (Gottman and Gottman, 2015). Treatment concludes when the goals specified through the assessment process have been completed.
Clinical Applications for Other Clients and Issues
Gottman Method Couple Therapy would be appropriate to assist families who are in discord. Hedenbro, Shapiro, and Gottman (2006) suggest that helping parents come together creates better harmony within family systems. This position is also supported by Minuchin (1974). Aligning parental subsystems promotes healthy boundaries and creates more safety and security with children.
This method would also help individuals who have chronic health issues and who are in long term relationships. Gottman and Gottman (2015) provide case studies related to work and research involving individuals from the gay and lesbian communities. Much of this research has been conducted to determine the efficacy of Gottman Method Couples Therapy related to issues pertinent within that community.
Conclusion
The Gottman Couple Therapy Method provides an ethical base from which to work with Nora and Sam. It is a method that is based on forty years of research. Research continues in order to refine and add to the vast base of empirically proven interventions. Issues such as IPV, parenting, building and rebuilding trust, culturally sensitive practices, low socio economic couples, attachment patterns, and other relevant topics continue to be researched in order to provide a comprehensive and integrative format. This format will continue to evolve in order to represent current findings while providing evidence based practices for couples.
References
AAMFT. (2016). Code of Ethics. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from Web site: http://www.aamft.org/iMIS15/AAMFT/Content/Legal_Ethics/Code_of_Ethics.aspx
Bermudez, J.M., and Stinson, M.A. (2011). Redefining conflict resolution styles for Latino couples: Examining the role of gender and culture. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 23, 71-87.
Bradley, R.P., Drummey, K., Gottman, J.M., and Gottman, J.S. (2014). Treating couples who mutually exhibit violence or aggression: Reducing behaviors that show a susceptibility for violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 549-558.
Driver, J.L., and Gottman, J.M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43(3), 301-314.
Friend, D.J., Bradley, R.P., Thatcher, R., and Gottman, J.M. (2011). Typologies of intimate partner violence: Evaluation of a screening instrument for differentiation. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 551-563.
Gottman, J.S., and Gottman, J.M. (2015). 10 principles for doing effective couples therapy. NY: Norton.
Gottman, J.M. (2011). The science of trust. NY: Norton.
Gottman, J.M., and Levenson, R.W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analyses using a 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41(1), 83-95.
Hedenbro, M., Shapiro, A.F., and Gottman, J.M. (2006). Play with me at my speed: Describing differences in the tempo of parent-infant interactions in the Lausanne triadic play paradigm in two cultures. Family Process, 45(4), 485-300.
Madhyastha, T.M., Hamaker, E.L., and Gottman, J.M. (2011). Investigating spousal influence using moment-to-moment affect data from marital conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(2), 292-300.