Dyadic Patterns
Negative Reciprocity
Numerous studies, using a wide variety of coding systems and definitions, have established that exchanging negative behaviors (e.g., complaints, defensiveness, and expressions of negative affect) is associated with dissatisfaction (Margolin & Wampold, 1981) and diminished closeness (Campbell et al., 2008).
The link between negative reciprocity and dissatisfaction has been observed with measures focusing primarily on nonverbal behaviors (Levenson & Gottman, 1983), ones focusing mainly on verbal behaviors (Ting-Toomey, 1983), and schemes mixing verbal and nonverbal assessments (Margolin & Wampold, 1981). Negative reciprocity also presages declines in satisfaction and relational dissolution (Filsinger & Thoma, 1988; Gottman, 1994).Demand/Withdraw
Demand/withdraw involves one partner nagging, complaining, or criticizing and the other partner avoiding. The label does not imply a particular order; in fact, sequential analyses have shown that withdrawal can lead to demands, just as demands can lead to withdrawal (Klinetob & Smith, 1996). However, the person initiating an overt conflict sequence is more likely to take the role of demander than withdrawer (Papp, Kouros, & Cummings, 2009).
Despite variations in the specific measures of demand/withdraw, both observations and participant reports have indicated that demand/withdraw is associated inversely with concurrent relational satisfaction (Caughlin & Huston, 2002; Heavey et al., 1993; Papp, Kouros, & Cummings, 2009). The prospective outcomes associated with demand/withdraw are less clear. Some studies indicate that demand/withdraw (especially woman-demand/man-withdraw) predicts declining satisfaction (Heavey et al., 1995) and dissolution (Gottman & Levenson, 2000). Other studies have failed to replicate such findings (Heavey et al., 1993; Noller et al., 1994), and still others suggest that demand/withdraw can foreshadow increasing relational satisfaction (Caughlin, 2002; Heavey et al., 1995).
There is evidence that a rigid pattern of husbands demanding while wives withdraw may be associated with spouses’ depression (Papp, Kouros, & Cummings, 2009) and with spousal abuse (Eldridge & Christensen, 2002). Gottman, Driver, Yoshimoto, and Rushe (2002) suggested that violent husbands sometimes use coercive verbal tactics to gain short-term compliance, even if they cannot actually influence their wife’s beliefs. Gottman et al.’s (2002) explanation is consistent with Johnson’s (2001) contention that battered wives are often subjected to verbal and physical coercion that is part of a coherent pattern of control.