John Gottman can predict which couples will divorce with extremely high accuracy
the verdict
CONTESTED
contested - evenly split
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
4 sources for · 1 against
While some studies suggest high accuracy in predicting divorce from marital interactions, other methodological evaluations argue that these predictive claims drop significantly during cross-validation.
This article examines 14‐year longitudinal data and attempts to create a post hoc model that uses Time‐1 data to “predict” the length of time the marriage will last. The sample consists of the 21 couples (of 79 studied) who divorced over a 14‐year period. A two‐factor model is proposed. One factor is the amount of unregulated volatile positive and negative affect in the marriage, and this factor predicts a short marriage length for the divorcing couples. A second factor is called “neutral affective style,” and this factor predicts a long marriage length for the divorcing couples. This model is compared to a Time‐1 model of ailing marriage in which Time‐1 marital satisfaction is used to predict the timing of divorce.
Divorce prediction studies (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998) suggest that couples' eventual divorce can be very accurately predicted from a number of different variables. Recent attention to these studies has failed to consider the need to crossvalidate prediction equations and to consider the prevalence of divorce in the population. We analyze archival data to demonstrate that accuracy and predictive value drops precipitously during crossvalidation. We conclude that results of studies without crossvalidation analyses should be interpreted with extreme caution, no matter how impressive the initial results appear to be.
Marital interaction has primarily been examined in the context of conflict resolution. This study investigated the predictive ability of couples to rebound from marital conflict in a subsequent positive conversation. Results showed that there was a great deal of consistency in affect across both conversations. Also examined was the ability of affective interaction to predict divorce over a 4‐year period, separately in each of the two conversations. It was possible to predict divorce using affective variables from each conversation, with 82.6% accuracy from the conflict conversation and with 92.7% accuracy from the positive rebound conversation.
John Mordechai Gottman (born April 26, 1942) is an American psychologist and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington. His research focuses on divorce prediction and marital stability through relationship analyses. Gottman's work is centered on the field of relationship counseling: enhanced relationship functioning and mitigation of behaviors detrimental to human relationsh
John Mordechai Gottman (born April 26, 1942) is an American psychologist and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington. His research focuses on divorce prediction and marital stability through relationship analyses. Gottman's work is centered on the field of relationship counseling: enhanced relationship functioning and mitigation of behaviors detrimental to human relationships. Gottman's work has also contributed to the development of important concepts on social sequence analysis.
In 1996, Gottman co-founded and led The Gottman Institute alongside his wife, psychologist Julie Schwartz Gottman. Together, they are the co-founders of Affective Software Inc., a program seeking to make marriage and relationship counseling procedures more accessible to a broader audience.
Nan Silver; Gottman, John (1994). Why Marriages Succeed or Fail: What You Can Learn from the Breakthrough Research to Make Your Marriage Last. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-86748-5.
Joan Declaire; Gottman, John (1997). The Heart of Parenting: How to Raise an Emotionally Intelligent Child. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-80130-8.
The Marriage Clinic (W.W. Norton, 1999), W W Norton page
Nan Silver; Gottman, John (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-609-80579-4. – a New York Times bestseller
Gottman, John; Joan Declaire (2001). The Relationship Cure: A Five-Step Guide for Building Better Connections with Family, Friends, and Lovers. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0-609-60809-8.
Anne Gartlan; Julie Schwartz Gottman; Joan Declaire (2006). Ten Lessons to Transform Your Marriage: America's Love Lab Experts Share Their Strategies for Strengthening Your Relationship. Random…
The Gottman Institute website
The Mathematics of Love - An interview (Edge)
An Interview with John Gottman (Psychotherapy.net)
Gottman's Seven Principles For Making Marriage Work - Commentary from 50 Psychology Classics (2007)
John Gottman: Raising an Emotionally Intelligent Child Archived 2017-08-29 at the Wayback Machine KUOW-FM Speaker Forum
John Gottman : Couples workshop training first time in London United Kingdom in 2013
Following a brief overview of the history of the study of relationships and marital problems, the author challenges the widespread conclusion from prior research that partners in a distressed marriage are simply more negative toward one another than partners in non-distressed relationships (as well as the implication that it is sufficient to encourage couples in conflictual relationships to be more positive to each other). The author summarizes a large amount of work from his laboratory (conducted in collaboration with Robert Levenson, and using observational methods as well as psychophysiological recording) that shows that the sequential patterns of affective interchange partners show in non-conflict contexts may regulate affect in conflict contexts. The data show that these stable affective interaction patterns predict marital happiness and stability or divorce. Based on these empirical research findings, the author suggests that only a proper “relationship science” can do justice to the complexity of the issues and generate plausible suggestions for policy implementations in the future.
Everything we examined (5)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.