Gottman’s Cascade Model

Research related to the cascade model (Gottman, 1993a, 1993b, 1994) illustrates the centrality of emotion in conflict as well as the critical role that emotional experience and expression plays in determining whether con­flict will be productive or damaging within the context of marital relationships.

Early work by Gottman et al. (1977) set the stage for the cascade model. In this study, facial cues such as smiling, having an empathic facial expression, and nodding to show agree­ment were coded as nonverbal expressions of positive affect, whereas facial cues such as frowning, sneering, crying, or looking angry were coded as expressions of negative affect. Gottman et al. (1977) found that nonverbal indicators of affect were a better discrimina­tor of distressed versus nondistressed couples than were verbal behaviors; couples who were satisfied with their relationships expressed less negative affect during conflict interaction than did those who were dissatisfied. Their data also suggested that distressed couples were more likely to reciprocate one anoth­er’s expressions of negative affect, leading to cycles of negativity during conflict episodes. Later studies further specified how emotion is related to conflict outcomes by demonstrating that defensiveness, stubbornness, and with­drawal from the interaction were more predic­tive of marital satisfaction and stability than anger (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989).

Gottman’s later work expanded on both of the main ideas from this early study, first, by showing that the ratio of expressions of positive to negative affect is important and, second, by specifying the pattern of emotion and behavior that predicts divorce.

In contrast, the two unstable couple types, which Gottman (1993a) labeled hostile and hostile/detached, are marked by ratios of about 0.8:1. In other words, on average, people in unstable relationships use about as many negative expressions as positive expres­sions. Given that negative expressions, which may occur in the form of complaints, criti­cisms, contemptuous remarks, or defensive­ness, can lead to emotional flooding, it is no surprise that a 0.8:1 ratio would be unhealthy in a marriage.

The conflict patterns associated with each of the couple types are theorized to be habitual although they can change over time. For the unstable couples, the pattern is described by the cascade model, which is sometimes referred to as the model of the “four horse­men of the Apocalypse” (Gottman, 1994). There are two interrelated cascades. The first of these, the outcome cascade, involves the fol­lowing sequence: becoming dissatisfied with the relationship, thinking about separation or divorce, separating, and then divorcing. According to Gottman (1994), “There is a cascade of process variables that are related to the outcome cascade” (p. 110). These process variables include behavior (e.g., com­plaining or withdrawing) as well as emotion. Specifically, Gottman posited that couples who are heading for divorce tend to exhibit the following four-part sequence (a.k.a. the four horsemen) during conflict episodes: (1) complaining and criticizing, (2) which leads to contempt, (3) which leads to defensiveness, (4) which eventually leads to withdrawal or “stonewalling” (p. 110). Of course, not all sequences that begin with complaints or criti­cism ultimately lead to stonewalling, but when this pattern becomes habitual, and problem solving is replaced by stonewalling, Gottman predicts that couples will divorce unless the unlikely happens and they somehow break the cycle of the four horsemen.

In addition to the key roles played by dis­gust and contempt, emotion is also featured in the cascade model through the inclusion of a concept called emotional flooding. Emotional flooding occurs when people become “sur­prised, overwhelmed, and disorganized” by their partner’s negative behavior, leading to a state of diffused physiological arousal that is often marked by increased heart rate, per­spiration, warm temperature, and heightened blood pressure (Gottman, 1994, p. 21). As such, emotional flooding makes it difficult for people to listen to their partners and pro­cess information accurately. Instead, people who are emotionally flooded tend to focus on alleviating their negative emotions, often through destructive means such as using per­sonal attacks (e.g., personal criticism, sarcasm, or contemptuous looks), becoming defensive (including using behaviors such as whining), or withdrawing from the situation (stonewall­ing). Fortunately, expressions of positive affect can act as buffers against emotional flooding. So if Kevin tells Kate, “You mean so much to me that I hate it when we fight like this,” this type of expression could prevent or alleviate emotional flooding.

Kevin and Kate could also benefit by under­standing some of the other practical implica­tions of Gottman’s theory. Five implications, in particular, are related to the experience and expression of emotion during conflict as noted next.

1. Couples need to recognize that conflict is an emotion-laden process. Thus, partners should expect one another to display some negative affect when discussing conten­tious issues. They should remember that the amount of negative affect expressed is not as important as the ratio of negative to positive affect. If the balance is tipped toward too much negativity, couples can compensate by injecting affection, agree­ment, or humor into the mix.

2. When emotions become intense, postpon­ing the discussion may be a good option. As Gottman’s research demonstrates, emo­tional flooding leads to less productive communication and more negative spirals of behavior.

3. Couples should be aware of the four horse­men of the apocalypse—criticism/com- plaints, disgust/contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. Teaching couples how to express complaints without personally attacking one another may help prevent the cascade from developing, especially since contempt and defensiveness are often reactions to insults. Gottman, Gottman, and DeClaire (2006) explained that one difference between “marriage masters” and “marriage disasters” is that marriage mas­ters know how to complain respectfully without criticizing one another. Avoiding particularly destructive behaviors, such as whining and rolling one’s eyes, can also be helpful.

4. Gottman et al. (2006) also noted that partners need to accept and respond posi­tively to one another’s emotional bids. This may be especially true during conflict when people have a tendency to notice and respond to negative behaviors more than positive behaviors (Gaelick, Brodenshauser, & Wyer, 1985). So if Kevin tells Kate that he has felt a need to relax at home lately because he has been under extra pressure at work, Kate should respond positively to his emotional bid, perhaps by touching Kevin’s arm and saying she understands.

5. Finally, being able to decode neutral and positive emotions accurately (rather than mistaking them for negative expressions) appears to be a particularly critical skill. Fruzzetti and Iverson (2006) found that accuracy in decoding one another’s emo­tions during conflict was positively related to high-quality communication and the ability to reach a resolution for married couples. Gottman’s (1994) work also sug­gests that it is imperative that partners be able to put themselves in the other’s position by creating mental maps of the partner’s thoughts and feelings and then verifying why the partner feels a particular way. Too often, relational partners think that they know one another’s thoughts and feelings when in truth they are mak­ing misattributions. For example, if Kevin understands that Kate is yelling because she is frustrated rather than because she thinks he is lazy, he might be less defensive and display more supportiveness.