Decade Review: Observing Marital Interaction

By J. Gottman, C. Notarius. 2000

538 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Health, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c41c6b49d76e3f0e7d2f7d41f1b2fda2d8350021

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Health

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Linguistic Style Matching and Negotiation Outcome (2005, unknown): “Of particular interest here is that speakers’ dominance was not found to be universal across all facets of dialogue, as is often conceptualized by theory (Gottman & Notarius, 2000).”
Contexts, functions, forms, and processes of collaborative everyday problem solving in older adulthood (2002, background): “Dominance and control within interpersonal communications have long been examined in the marital literature (see Gottman & Notarius, 2000) and associated with poor marital quality, physiological arousal, and dissatisfaction with the interaction (Smith & Brown, 1991; Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman,…”
A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. (2007, unknown): “Spouses in marriages of better quality benefit in their psychosocial adjustment (Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001), survival from debilitating illnesses (Coyne et al., 2001), and illness management (Trief, Ploutz-Snyder, Britton, & Weinstock, 2004).”
Structure and Culture in African American Adolescent Violence: A Partial Test of the “Code of the Street” Thesis (2006, methodology): “Further, the observational rating scales used in the current analyses are based in part on observational scales used by John Gottman (for a review see Gottman & Notarius, 2000).”
Social Support in Couples: An Examination of Gender Differences Using Self-report and Observational Methods (2007, background): “Apart from a few notable exceptions (e.g., Carels and Baucom 1999), spouses’ perception of support during marital interaction has received inadequate research attention ( Gottman and Notarius 2000 ).”
Social dynamics in the preschool (2005, background): “Examples of attractors in human systems include depression (e.g., Johnson & Nowak, 2002) and entrenched patterns of interaction in parent–child dyads (e.g., Granic & Lamey, 2002), marital couples (e.g., Gottman & Notarius, 2000), and peer dyads (e.g., Granic & Dishion, 2003).”
Partner Reactions to Work-to-Family Conflict: Cognitive Appraisal and Indirect Crossover in Couples (2011, background): “Such a view is consistent with cognitive-behavioral models of marital interactions that argue that cognitions are key influences on the behavior of couples during such interactions (see e.g., Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Miller & Bradbury, 1995; Neff & Karney, 2004).”
Am “I” more important than “we”? Couples’ word use in instant messages (2008, background): “Previous research has demonstrated robust links between negative emotions expressed during couples’ interactions and relationship dissatisfaction and instability (Gottman & Levenson, 2000; Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995; Johnson et al., 2005).”
Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of gender-role ideology and individualism—collectivism (2008, background): “For one, greater knowledge about cultural differences in intimacy might be gained by directly observing couple interactions (Gottman & Notarius, 2000).”
Responsive behaviors in good times and in bad (2008, background): “…has led to great strides in understanding conflict resolution in marriage, demand–withdrawal patterns in interactions, the role of positive and negative affectivity in relationships, constructive responses to positive event disclosures, and much more (Gable et al., 2006; Gottman & Notarius, 2000).”