09/04 The Destructive Nature of Conflict I & Related Studies

Gottman & Levenson, 1999

• Key objectives
  • Predict which married couples stay together after 4 years from the affect displayed toward each other during two types of interactions:
  • A discussion about a continuing conflict/ relationship problem
  • A pleasant discussion about a topic they would enjoy
• Method
  • Participants: n=79 couples (ages 32 and 29 years old); married average of 5 years
  • Procedure: Each couple engaged in three 15-minute discussions: neutral, conflict, pleasant
  • Coding: Discussions coded using the Specific Affect Coding System (SACS)
  • Follow-up: Re-contacted after 4 years to assess marital status
• Hypotheses
  • Replicate past work: presence of certain types of affect during a conflict discussion would predict divorce
  • Spillover: affect from the conflict conversation would spill over into the pleasant conversation
  • Presence of certain affect during the pleasant conversation would also predict divorce
• Key findings
  • High consistency of affect across the two interactions (e.g., fear, anger, whining) indicating similar emotional patterns across contexts
  • Emotions more prevalent in couples who divorced:
  • Conflict discussion: husband contempt, wife sadness
  • Pleasant discussion: husband anger, wife anger, husband contempt, wife affection
  • Emotions more prevalent in couples who stayed together:
  • Conflict discussion: husband and wife interest
  • Predictive accuracy for divorce using affect variables:
  • Conflict discussion: 82.6\% accuracy
  • Pleasant discussion: 92.7\% accuracy
• Discussion and interpretive questions
  • Why does affect displayed during interactions predict divorce?
  • Does it reflect the overall state of the relationship, the experience of negative emotions, or patterns of conflict management?
  • Why might spillover of affect into the pleasant discussion be a stronger predictor than affect during the conflict discussion?
• Contextual factors and generalizability
  • Participants averaged 5 years of marriage; mean age around 30 years
  • Questions about whether findings would differ for older or longer-married couples and why
• Methodological considerations (prompts in the study group discussion)
  • Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology
  • Suggestions for improvement and future research directions
• Additional notes
  • Employed the Specific Affect Coding System to quantify discrete emotions
  • Findings inform links between everyday affective dynamics and long-term relationship outcomes

Keicolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001

• Key objective
  • To review research examining the health consequences of relationship conflict
• Key findings (summary of physiological impacts)
  • Conflict alters physiological functioning
  • Physiological responses during conflict discussions differ reliably from non-conflict discussions
  • Indicators of arousal and stress during conflict:
  • Heightened blood pressure and heart rate
  • Increased muscular reactivity
  • Altered immune functioning
• Detailed findings on hostility and health
  • Hostile behavior during conflict significantly amplifies physiological changes
  • Blood pressure increases with hostile behavior during conflict; not with neutral or supportive behavior
  • Immune function changes with negative/hostile behavior; not with avoidant, positive, or problem-solving behavior
  • Effects strongest for more negative/hostile couples
  • Greater physiological effects observed in women
  • The hostility-physiology link is stronger for women
  • Physiological changes in women tend to last longer than in men
• Discussion: mechanisms and interpretations
  • How might conflict lead to negative health consequences? Consider mechanisms such as chronic stress responses, autonomic arousal, inflammation, and endocrine pathways
  • Why might women experience greater physiological consequences from conflict? Possible explanations include gender socialization, coping styles, hormonal factors, or social support dynamics
  • Are these health consequences specific to married couples, or would they extend to other types of relationships? Consider generalizability and context
  • Are there characteristics of the conflict discussion task that contribute to observed effects? Task structure, artificial lab setting, observation of conflict, duration
• Beliefs about conflict and conflict management approaches
  • Do beliefs about whether conflict is functional vs. dysfunctional influence health outcomes?
  • How might different conflict management styles (competing, accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, compromising) alter susceptibility to detrimental health effects?
• Real-world implications and applications
  • Relevance for relationship education, couples therapy, and public health
  • Implications for stress-related health interventions and gender-specific considerations
• Notes on scope and limitations
  • The review summarizes across multiple studies; results emphasize robust associations between conflict behaviors and physiological responses, while acknowledging variability in study designs and populations
• Key terms and concepts
  • Conflict discussion: an interactional context where partners express disagreement or problem-related tension
  • Hostile behavior: overt contempt, anger, criticism, defensiveness that signals rejection or antagonism
  • Physiological markers: BP (blood pressure), HR (heart rate), muscular reactivity, immune function
  • Spillover effect: emotional arousal or affect from one interaction influencing another, subsequent interaction
  • Gender differences: differential magnitude and duration of physiological responses between men and women
• Connections to broader themes
  • Links to psychophysiology, health psychology, and relationship science
  • Supports biopsychosocial models of health where social relationships influence physical health outcomes
• Mathematical notes (examples of numerical references)
  • Hostile behavior and its association with stronger physiological responses are reported qualitatively and with effect sizes across studies; specific numerical effect sizes vary by study but the review emphasizes stronger effects for more negative hostility and greater effects in women
• Practical takeaways
  • Reducing hostile exchanges in conflict could have measurable health benefits, especially for women
  • Interventions that promote constructive conflict management (problem-solving, collaboration) may mitigate negative health consequences
  • Awareness of spillover dynamics can inform therapy and relationship education programs
• Synthesis across the two works
  • The Gottman & Levenson study provides fine-grained behavioral indicators linked to long-term relationship stability through affective coding in actual discussions
  • Keicolt-Glaser & Newton connects conflict behaviors to physiological health outcomes, highlighting gender differences and potential mechanisms
  • Together, they illustrate how daily interaction patterns not only shape relationship trajectories but also have tangible health consequences, underscoring the importance of addressing conflict dynamics in both relational and health contexts