Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:22:03.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Approaches to the Study of Power in Violent and Nonviolent Marriages, and in Gay Male and Lesbian Cohabiting Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2009

By
John M. Gottman ,
Janice Driver ,
Dan Yoshimoto  and
Regina Rushe
Edited by
Patricia Noller  and
Judith A. Feeney
John M. Gottman
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Janice Driver
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Dan Yoshimoto
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Regina Rushe
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Patricia Noller
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Judith A. Feeney
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

To the outsider, mathematics is a strange, abstract world of horrendous technicality, full of symbols and complicated procedures, an impenetrable language and a black art. To the scientist, mathematics is the guarantor of precision and objectivity. It is also, astonishingly, the language of nature itself. No one who is closed off from mathematics can ever grasp the full significance of the natural order that is woven so deeply into the fabric of physical reality.

—Paul Davies, The Mind of God, 1992, p. 93

THE STUDY OF POWER

In the 1950s Fred Strodtbeck's research on marriages in three cultures made the study of power look easy (Strodtbeck, 1951). He drove a van through the Western United States and asked Mormon (patriarchal), Navajo (matriarchal), and Anglo Texan (supposedly egalitarian) married couples to go into the back of his van, and gossip about families the couple thought were raising their kids poorly or well (something that couples in all three cultures found it easy and natural to discuss) and have some structured marital disputes. The marital disputes involved having each spouse fill out a questionnaire indicating personal preferences (like what kind of car to buy, what to order for dinner), and then the couple doing this task again by discussion. The more powerful person was defined as the person who was closer to the joint decision on his or her personal preferences.

Type
Chapter
Information
Understanding Marriage
Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction
 , pp. 323 - 347
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns power discrepancies and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press
Ball, F. L. J., Cowan, P., & Cowan, C. P. (1995). Who's got the power? Gender differences in partner's perception of influence during marital problem-solving discussions. Family Process, 34, 303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioural Science, 1, 251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: William Morrow and Co
Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother-infant interaction. In M. Lewis & L. Rosenbum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 49–76). New York: Wiley
Broderick, C. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Brown, P. C., & Smith, T. W. (1992). Social influence, marriage, and the heart: Cardiovascular consequences of interpersonal control in husbands and wives. Health Psychology, 11, 88–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand&withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coan, J., Gottman, J. M., Babcock, J., & Jacobson, N. S. (1997). Battering and the male rejection of influence from women. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 375–3883.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, J., Tyson, R., White, J., Rushe, R., Gottman, J. M., & Murray, J. (1995). Mathematics of marital conflict: Qualitative dynamic modeling of marital interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 110–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Coie, L., & Coie, J. D. (1978). Becoming a family: The impact of the first child's birth on the couple's relationship. In W. B. Miller & L. F. Newman (Eds.), The first child and family formation. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (l978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Gianino, A., & Tronick, E. Z. (1988). The mutual regulation model: The infant's self and interactive regulation and coping and defensive capacities. In T. M. Field, P. M. McCabe, & N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress and coping across development (pp. 47–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Gottman, J. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press
Gottman, J., Murray, J., Swanson, C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. (in press). The mathematics of marriage: Formal models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, or avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Gottman, J. M. (Ed.). (1996). What predicts divorce: The measures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, issociates
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic. New York: W. W. Norton
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, 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221–233CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottman, J. M., McCoy, K., Coan, J., & Collier, H. (1996). The specific affect coding system (SPAFF) for observing emotional communication in marital and family interaction. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), What predicts divorce? The measures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Gottman, J. M., Swanson, C., & Murray, J. (1999). The mathematics of marital conflict: Dynamic mathematical nonlinear modeling of newlywed marital interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray-Little, B. (1982). Marital quality and power processes among black couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray-Little, B., Baucom, D. H., & Hamby, S. L. (1996). Marital power, marital adjustment, and therapy outcome. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray-Little, B., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 513–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Stuart, G. L., Sandin, E., Smutzler, N., & McLaughlin, W. (1997). Comparing the social support behaviors of violent and non-violent husbands during discussions of wife personal problems. Personal Relationships, 4, 395–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women. New York: Simon & Schuster
Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Gortner, E., Berns, S., & Shortt, J. W. (1996). Psychological factors in the longitudinal course of battering: When do the couples split up? When does the abuse decrease? Violence and Victims, 11, 371–392Google ScholarPubMed
Krokoff, L. J., Gottman, J. M., & Haas, S. D. (1989). Validation of a rapid couples interaction scoring system. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 65–79Google Scholar
Kurdek, L. A. (1992). Relationship stability and relationship satisfaction in cohabiting gay and lesbian couples: A prospective longitudinal test of the contextual and interdependence models. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehan, J. C., Holtzworth-Munoroe, A., & Herron, K. (2001). Maritally violent men's heart rate reactivity to marital interactions: A failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 394–408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, J. D. (1989). Mathematical biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Oggins, J., Veroff, J., & Leber, D. (1993). Perceptions of marital interactions among black and white newlyweds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 494–511CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olson, D. H., & Ryder, R. G. (1970). Inventory of marital conflicts (IMC): And experimental interaction procedure. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 443–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 219–230CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rapoport, A. (1960). Fights, games, and debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Rapoport, A. (1972). The uses of mathematical isomorphism in general systems theory. In G. J. Klir (Ed.), Trends in general systems theory (pp. 42–77). New York: Wiley Interscience
Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, conflict, and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Raven, B. (1992) A power&interactional model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217–244Google Scholar
Robinson, E. A., & Price, M. G. (1980). Pleasurable behavior in marital interaction: An observational study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 117–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblatt, P. C. (1994). Metaphors of family systems theory. New York: Guilford
Rushe, R. H. (1995). Tactics of power and influence in violent marriages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington
Straus, M. (1979). Measuring interfamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, M., & Tallman, I. (1971). SIMFAM: A technique for observational measurement and experimental study of families. In J. Aldous, T. Condon, R. Hill, M. Straus, & I. Tallman (Eds.), Family problem solving (pp. 379–438). Himsdale, IL: Dryden
Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Husband-wife interaction over revealed differences. American Sociological Review, 16, 468–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szinovacz, M. E. (1987). Family power. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 651–694). New York: PlenumCrossRef
Waite, L. (2000). The case for marriage. New York: Doubleday
Weiss, R. L., Hops, H., & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualizing marital conflict. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Marsh (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice (pp. 309–342). Champaign, IL: Research Press
White, B. B. (1989). Gender differences in marital communication patterns. Family Process, 28, 89–106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×