Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Knowledge Repository @ IUP

Theses and Dissertations (All)

7-27-2015

The Relationship Between Gottman's Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Mindfulness, and
Relationship Satisfaction
Michael Lute
Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Follow this and additional works at: http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd

Recommended Citation
Lute, Michael, "The Relationship Between Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Mindfulness, and Relationship Satisfaction"
(2015). Theses and Dissertations (All). 511.
http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd/511

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Knowledge Repository @ IUP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and
Dissertations (All) by an authorized administrator of Knowledge Repository @ IUP. For more information, please contact [email protected],
[email protected].
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOTTMAN’S FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE

APOCALYPSE, MINDFULNESS, AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

A Dissertation

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Psychology

Michael Lute

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

August 2015
© 2015 Michael Lute

All Rights Reserved

ii
 Indiana University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Psychology

We hereby approve the dissertation of

Michael Lute

Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Psychology

___________________________ ___________________________________
Derek Hatfield, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology, Chair

___________________________ ___________________________________
Laura Knight, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Psychology

___________________________ ___________________________________
David Myers, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Counseling Center

ACCEPTED

________________________________ _____________________________
Randy L. Martin, Ph.D.
Dean
School of Graduate Studies and Research

iii
Title: The Relationship Between Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Mindfulness,
and Relationship Satisfaction

Author: Michael Lute

Dissertation Chair: Dr. Derek Hatfield

Dissertation Committee Members: Dr. Laura Knight

Dr. David Myers

John Gottman popularized the role that negative communication patterns can have in

romantic relationships (Gottman, 2001). More specifically, the presence of his "Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse" has been found to predict relationship satisfaction and divorce

in couples (Gottman, 1999). The "Four Horsemen" refer to criticism, defensiveness,

contempt, and stonewalling. Gottman (1999) suggests that certain skills like mindfulness can

be used to enhance communication and guard against the Four Horsemen in couples.

Mindfulness refers to the act of intentionally focusing one’s attention on the present moment

in a nonjudgmental, non-comparative, and accepting way that is void of evaluation (Kabat-

Zinn, 1990). Wachs and Cordova (2007) and Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, and

Rogge (2007) suggest that mindfulness may enhance relationships by, among other benefits,

improving communication. The present study aimed to shed light on the possible relationship

between mindfulness and the negative communication patterns described as the Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Additionally, the study aimed to explore the possible

relationship between the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and overall relationship

satisfaction in college student dating relationships. Results indicate that two of the Four

Horsemen, Criticism and Contempt, were significant predictors of relationship satisfaction.

Mindfulness was not a significant predictor, nor was it found to mediate the relationship

between the Four Horsemen and relationship satisfaction.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the empathy, kindness, patience,

assistance, and support of a number of individuals. Along the way I have felt so very

appreciative, often flattered, and I am grateful for this opportunity to say thank you.

To Amanda, my wife, partner, and teammate: I continue to be honored to stand by

your side and am so very appreciative of your willingness to stand by mine. So many times

along our journey together I have been impressed with your patience, your understanding, your

support, and your unwavering desire to have a positive impact on the people around you.

These characteristics were evident as I worked through this project, and I am so very thankful

for all of the encouragement, support, and love you provided along the way. Just as I am

excited for what the next chapters of our life will bring, I am excited to work with you to meet

whatever challenges we should face. You've taught me more about what it means to love and

be loved than I ever thought possible. I love you.

To my mother, Patricia Lute: I thank you for your continued support and reassurances.

You've always had faith in me regardless of the situation, even when you might not have

understood the particular challenge of the moment. This has always been meaningful to me,

and I struggle to thank you as often as I should. As I continue to grow older, I realize more

and more how much your effort, sacrifice, care, and love for me helped to shape the person I

am today, and I am forever grateful. Know that your marriage with Dad and wholehearted

faith in that relationship established a framework and expectation for your son that allows him

to trust, to be vulnerable, and to love wholeheartedly in his own relationships. I cannot thank

you enough for that gift.

To my father, Robert Lute Sr.: This very project cost us our last moments together,

v
and it is one of the few clear regrets I have to live with. I know that you encouraged me not to

come home and to keep working, and I know that is what you would have wanted, but we

made the wrong call. I am sorry. Know that your support along the way meant more to me

than I could ever describe. In addition to your relationship with Mom, your faith in me and the

pride with which you spoke about me always impacted me in such positive ways. Even

though I often disagreed with your methods, I always knew what you had my best interests in

mind, and I have so many memories of you doing what you thought was best for me. I wish I

had the chance to share this with you.

To my chair Dr. Derek Hatfield: I thank you for your willingness to take on this

project despite it not being related to your own research interests. I came to you in a very

vulnerable place asking for a favor, and I am so very appreciative for your support and

guidance along the way. In addition to this project, your contributions inside the classroom

and as a clinical supervisor have contributed significantly to my personal and professional

development. I've enjoyed our conversations along the way, and I thank you for everything.

To my committee members, Dr. Laura Knight and Dr. David Myers: Similarly, I thank

you both for your willingness to serve on my committee, as I also came to the both of you at a

time when I felt particularly vulnerable. Your kind emails and expressions of support meant

more than you know, and I sincerely thank you for them.

To Dan Merson: Your statistical expertise and consultation were greatly appreciated

and contributed to this project in meaningful ways. Additionally, I enjoyed our conversations

unrelated to the project, and I thank you for being kind and personable.

Lastly, to all the friends and family who I've missed over the past few years: I am

done, and I am looking forward to making up for lost time!

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I INTRODUCTION…................................................................................. 1

II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE.............................................. 7

The Work of John Gottman….................................................................... 7

The Core Triad of Balance: Perception.......................................... 11
The Core Triad of Balance: Physiology......................................... 12
The Core Triad of Balance Interactive Behavior............................ 14
The Sound Marital House............................................................... 20
Mindfulness…............................................................................................ 25
Mechanisms of Mindfulness Action.............................................. 27
Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction……………………….......... 31
Mindfulness Based Relationship Enhancement…..………............ 33
Mindfulness and Relationship Satisfaction………………............. 35
Developmental Theories and College-Age Individuals…………….......... 38
Present Study………………..…………………………………................ 40

III METHODS................................................................................................. 42

Data Collection Procedure.......................................................................... 42

Participants…………………………………………………...................... 43
Data Cleaning…….......................………………………….......................46
Measures..................................................................................................... 46
Relationship Assessment Scale...................................................... 47
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire........................................... 47
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire.......................... 49

IV RESULTS................................................................................................... 55

Primary Analyses........................................................................................ 55
Secondary Analyses.................................................................................... 63

V DISCUSSION............................................................................................. 70

Limitations.................................................................................................. 82
Conclusion.................................................................................................. 85

REFERENCES…..........………………................................................................. 89

vii
Chapter Page

APPENDICES........................................................................................................ 101

Appendix A: Demographics Questionnaire................................................ 101

Appendix B: Relationship Assessment Scale............................................. 103
Appendix C: Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire…….......................... 104
Appendix D: The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire......... 107
Appendix E: Informed Consent………………………….......................... 108
Appendix F: Debriefing Form…………………………............................ 109
Appendix G: Referral Resources……………………............................... 110
Appendix H: List of Additional Tables...................................................... 111
Appendix I: List of Figures......................................................................... 115
Appendix J: Permissions............................................................................. 118

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Descriptives of the Sample...................................................................... 44

2 Descriptives of the Sample...................................................................... 45

3 Cronbach’s Alpha’s for Scales................................................................ 49

4 Linear Regression Model Exploring How the Four Horsemen

of the Apocalypse Impact Relationship Satisfaction Controlling
for Demographic Variables...................................................................... 57

5 Linear Regression Model Exploring How the Five Facets of

Mindfulness Impact Relationship Satisfaction Taking
Into Account Demographic Variables..................................................... 59

6 Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How the Five Facets of

Mindfulness Impact Relationship Satisfaction Taking Into
Account the Impact of Demographics and the Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse Negative Communication Patterns............................ 62

7 Results of T-tests Comparing Outcome Measures by

Relationship Status.................................................................................. 65

8 Results of T-tests Comparing the Four Horsemen by Gender................ 66

9 Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How the Five Facets of

Mindfulness Impact Relationship Satisfaction Taking Into
Account the Impact of Demographics and the Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse in Participants' Most Recent Relationships................69

ix
 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Like most forms of therapy, therapeutic work with couples has undergone an evolution

over time. Many popular types of couples therapy originally grew out of existing family

therapies and evolved into their own distinct types of theoretical frameworks and

interventions. Despite Ackerman’s (1970) early assertion that therapeutic work involving

marital conflicts was at the core of family change, couples work was somewhat slow to

distance itself from family work and gain recognition as its own type of therapeutic work.

This is even more surprising given that family therapists often work with more couples-related

problems than issues involving entire families (Doherty & Simmons, 1996). As Gurman and

Messer (2003) pointed out, despite these direct links to family therapy, couples work was

largely marginalized by the popular family therapies of the times, receiving only minor

attention in the family therapy textbooks. The authors also pointed out that over time the

earlier concept of marital therapy has been replaced by couples therapy “because of its

emphasis on the bond between two people, without the judgmental tone of social value implied

by the traditional term” (Gurman & Messer, 2003, p. 464). Therefore, when possible the term

“couples therapy” will be used to refer to marital and couples works throughout the following

manuscript.

One of the earliest forms of family therapy to highlight the importance of the dyadic

relationship between partners was Bowen’s Family Systems Therapy. Considered to be one of

the “transgenerational approaches,” Bowen’s model emphasizes the role of family-of-origin

interaction patterns of each partner in their current relationship. Based on their early

interactions with the family-of-origin, individuals develop different levels of differentiation,

which refers to the separation of one’s intellectual and emotional functioning. A healthy level
 2

of differentiation in an individual allows for autonomy and intimacy, as the individual is able

to resist being overwhelmed by his or her partner’s emotional reactivity. Fusion refers to poor

levels of differentiation, or the fusing of intellectual and emotional aspects of relationships

with others. Individuals are unable to retain a healthy sense of self, which is associated with

defensiveness, externalization, and discrediting one’s partner (Gurman & Messer, 2003).

Bowen (1978) hypothesized that partners seek out mates who are at the same level of

differentiation as they are, and early family-of-origin patterns are then repeated in the current

relationship. Conflict arises when the anxiety level of one partner increases, which may occur

due to both internal and external forces on the relationship system. In Bowen Family Systems

Theory, the therapist takes on the role of a coach, remaining neutral and avoiding taking sides

in the couple's issues. Change occurs through the therapist, who teaches individuals about the

observed interactional patterns and how these patterns relate to the families-of-origin (Bowen,

1978).

Structural-Strategic Marital Therapy (SSMT) is another form of couples therapy that

was derived from family therapies. Although structural and strategic family therapies are

presented as separate and distinct forms of family therapy, Gurman and Messer (2003) point

out that the two approaches share a strong commonality in lineage, as their respective founders

Salvador Minuchin and Jay Haley spent years collaborating together at the Philadelphia Child

Guidance Clinic. These two approaches to family therapy were integrated into one standard

practice and conceptualization of couples therapy, dubbed Structural-Strategic Marital

Therapy, by James Keim (1999, 2000). SSMT focuses on the “here and now” system of the

couple, and if applicable, the entire family. The focus is not on understanding the past, but

instead on the current functioning of the individuals involved in the system, including the

behaviors that maintain that system. Problematic symptoms arise that maintain the system’s
 3

interactions and at the same time reinforce the system’s interactions. “Symptoms serve to

maintain systems (relationships) by serving a protective, homeostatic adaptive function for the

relationship, especially when a couple cannot resolve, or perhaps even overtly identify, their

central difficulties” (Gurman & Messer, 2003, p. 477). In other words, symptoms are not the

actual problem in the relationship and instead develop in response to a problem so that the

relationship system can be maintained. In Haley’s family therapy, power and authority were a

central focus of family therapy. In the more recent integrative SSMT, power is viewed in

terms of the marital hierarchy, with the focus being both on authority in the relationship as

well as the balance of influence and contribution between members of the relationship (Keim

& Lappin, 2002). In SSMT, the therapist takes a direct and active role in the therapy. Instead

of fostering insight in the couples, the therapist attempts to identify and re-label the function of

behavior, which in turn produces change in the system. This is accomplished through the use

of both direct and indirect directives given to the members of the couple by the therapist.

These directives can be therapist-inspired or client-inspired, both of which serve to change the

way the couple thinks or behaves within the system.

Another early approach to couples work that was derived from family therapy is

Virginia Satir’s model, which is classified as an experiential-humanistic approach. Satir was

influential in many ways, as her model was one of the earliest methods for treating couples,

andshe was one of the only prominent female clinicians of her time in the field of family

therapy. Furthermore, she was both nationally and internationally recognized (Gurman &

Messer, 2003). Unlike the systems and strategic theorists who focused on family structure,

power, and boundaries, Satir focused on more humanistic principles in couples. She believed

that individuals inherently strive for their own personal growth and development and that

relationship problems arise when partners have low self-esteem or an inability to continue their
 4

own development (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2008). Poor self-esteem then leads to poor

communication and poor interactions between the couple, which in turn creates problems

within the relationship. Satir identified particular dysfunctional roles that individuals play in

relationships, such as the “blamer” and the “placator,” and she assumed that individuals play

these roles due to low self-esteem or an inability to continue their personal growth. Therapy

aims to enhance self-esteem in each member of the couple by creating corrective emotional

experiences that allow the couple to grow together and enhance their own intimate

relationships. The therapist first focuses on fostering an empathic alliance with the couple

before using a variety of interventions, including I-statements and refocusing the couple's

attention toward the positivity in their relationship. Change occurs by creating a therapeutic

environment in which the couple can take risks through self-disclosure and grow through their

own self-exploration (Gurman & Messer, 2003).

Like Satir’s model, Emotion-Focused Couples Therapy (Johnson & Greenberg, 1995)

is another model of couples therapy that was developed from experiential-humanistic

principles. This couples therapy recognizes the basic tenants of humanistic approaches,

including the ideas that a solid therapeutic alliance can lead to positive change in and of itself,

that people can make positive decisions that promote their own personal growth when given

the opportunity to do so, and that therapy can provide corrective emotional experiences. As

the name would suggest, Emotion-Focused Couples Therapy (EFCT) places importance on the

emotional world of the couple as being central to creating therapeutic change. Perhaps more

than any other couples therapy, EFCT borrows from attachment theory and recognizes adult

attachment as the theory of adult love (Gurman & Messer, 2003). A secure attachment bond

between members of the couple is thought to be the basis of a healthy relationship. Negative

emotions, especially anger, indicate problems within the relationship. Therapeutic work
 5

focuses on the present moment, with interventions involving client-centered and systemic

techniques that focus on the emotions expressed in therapy. Johnson’s (1996) Emotion-

Focused Couples Therapy outlines the stages in the treatment model of EFCT. The first stage

focuses on de-escalation, or reducing the painful emotions experienced by the couple. The

second stage involves changing the interactional patterns of the couple by encouraging

acceptance of the partner’s emotional experience and helping couples to identify and express

their specific emotional needs. The third and final stage, referred to as “Consideration and

Integration,” focuses on assisting the couple in developing new, more adaptive solutions to old

problems and acknowledging the gains made in therapy in an effort to help the couple

generalize what has been effective.

In addition to the various couples therapies that have grown out of family therapy

frameworks, many specific interventions continue to make their way into couples work. One

example of this can be found in mindfulness meditation. Mindfulness meditation is utilized in

a variety of ways in both individual and couples therapy. In its most general form, the process

involves intentionally focusing one’s attention on the present moment in a nonjudgmental way

that avoids evaluating one’s thoughts and feelings (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Mindfulness-based

interventions began to gain popularity in the 1980’s with the introduction of Kabat-Zinn’s

(1982) Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program (MBSR), which continues to make its

way into a growing number of hospital settings today. Similarly, mindfulness-based

interventions have evolved into couples work with the Mindfulness-Based Relationship

Enhancement program (Carson, 2002), which focuses on using mindfulness techniques to

enhance relationship satisfaction in couples.

Although specific interventions like mindfulness techniques have been empirically

evaluated in a variety of studies, with the exception of Johnson’s (1996) Emotion Focused
 6

Couples Therapy, many of the popular couples therapies leaned heavily on the theoretical

frameworks of the family therapies from which they were derived. As a result, these

techniques were often criticized for lacking an empirically-sound framework from which

interventions could be created. That all changed with the work of John Gottman, whose Sound

Marital House Theory was one of the first couples therapies to be created from empirical

research efforts.

The following dissertation aims to explore the relationships between Gottman’s Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse, mindfulness, and relationship satisfaction in a college student

sample. First, the empirical works of John Gottman will be reviewed, including studies that

involve interactional patterns in the areas of perception, physiology, and interactive behavior,

or what Gottman refers to as the Core Triad of Balance (Gottman, 1999). This will be

followed by a brief review of Gottman’s application of these findings in the form of his Sound

Marital House Theory, which refers to Gottman’s treatment model and interventions. Next,

mindfulness will be reviewed, including the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (Kabat-Zinn,

1982) and Mindfulness-Based Relationship Enhancement (Carson, 2002) programs.

Additionally, the relationship between mindfulness and romantic relationship satisfaction will

be reviewed. Finally, the present study involving the relationships between Gottman’s Four

Horsemen, mindfulness, and relationship satisfaction will be described.

 7

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

The Work of John Gottman

Through his work over the past 30 years, John Gottman, Ph.D., has solidified himself

as one of the most prolific researchers of couples and marital therapy. Beginning with the

creation of The Family Research Laboratory, or “love lab” (Levenson & Gottman, 1983),

Gottman was not only one of the first researchers to study couples in a laboratory setting, but

he also was one of the first to utilize a longitudinal design in several studies of couples and

marriages. From these works he has produced numerous scholarly journal articles and

ultimately his own theory and treatment techniques regarding what makes marriages

successful. Perhaps just as influential as the research and workshops aimed at professionals

are the many books and weekend workshops designed for the general public. His influence

can easily be seen in his collective body of work, and he is often regarded as one of the

foremost experts in the field of marriage and couples therapy.

Together with his colleague Robert Levenson, Gottman constructed a laboratory at the

University of Washington that resembled a normal apartment (Gottman, 1999). Couples lived

in the apartment laboratory for 24-hour periods and were asked to behave as they normally

would on a Sunday afternoon at home. Video cameras were turned on at 9am and off at 9pm,

allowing researchers to observe interactions over a 12-hour period. Data were obtained on

“respiration, electrocardiogram, blood velocity to the ear and finger of the nondominant hand,

skin conductance, and gross motor movements using a device attached to the base of chairs”

(Gottman, 1999, p 26). Later, couples were asked to view videotapes, and using a rating dial

that ranged from extremely positive to extremely negative, were asked to rate what they were

feeling and thinking. Additionally, individuals were asked to guess what their partners were
 8

thinking and feeling during the videos. Gottman and colleagues also played specific parts of

the videos, chosen on the basis of some salient dimension like the individual’s behavior,

physiology, or rating, and then asked the subjects how they were thinking or feeling, what

their partner was thinking or feeling, and what their goals were during that moment. Using the

videotapes, behaviors were coded using an “objective coding system with trained observers

who describe facial expressions, voice tone, gestures, body positions and movements, the

distance between them, and so on” (Gottman, 1999, p.27).

Using the “love lab,” Gottman and colleagues conducted seven longitudinal studies

with over 677 couples over the past 30 years. The studies were meant to look at marriages in

various stages ranging from the newlywed stage through transitional periods and into

retirement. They include young couples (Levenson & Gottman, 1983; Levenson & Gottman,

1985), a mix of couples varying from newlyweds to old age (Gottman, 1994), couples with a

preschool child (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996), newlyweds (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, &

Swanson, 1998), middle-aged couples and couples in their sixties (Levenson, Carsatensen, &

Gottman, 1994), and four groups of couples labeled highly abusive, moderately abusive,

distressed nonviolent, and happily married nonviolent (Jacobson, Gottman, Gortner, Berns, &

Shortt, 1998). Follow-up data were collected at different intervals in each of the studies, the

longest of which was 15 years after initial observation. In addition to longitudinal studies in

the love lab, Gottman and colleagues have conducted studies involving brief interventions on

marital interactions as well as weekend workshops with over 900 couples (Gottman, 1999).

These longitudinal studies, interventions, and weekend workshops form the basis of Gottman’s

theory of successful relationships.

In developing his research and theory, Gottman draws on the early theoretical work of

von Bertalanffy (1968), who coined General Systems Theory. Von Bertalanffy viewed all
 9

systems as being similar in that they consisted of many parts, with each part sharing a

mathematical relationship with the others. These mathematical relationships govern the

system’s dynamics, including the actions and interactions of the individual parts. Von

Bertalanffy argued that feedback mechanisms within the system work to help the system

maintain a homeostatic balance, or what Gottman referred to as a stable steady state (Gottman,

Swanson, & Swanson, 2002). When applied to marriages and family interactions, this meant

that each person’s behavior is affected by the other. As a result, the attention of early family

general systems theorists was drawn to the interactions or patterns of interactions between

individuals as opposed to the personality characteristics or pathologies of individuals.

Gottman (1999) pointed out that this view of families as systems had the unfortunate

consequence of pitting the therapist against the family. Specifically, the therapist’s goal is to

initiate change in the family in the form of improvement, whereas the family system would

resist that change in order to maintain the homeostatic environment it was used to.

Unlike family systems theorists, Gottman’s approach aligns the therapist with the

couple. Gottman, Murray, Swanson, Tyson, and Swanson (2005) discuss the equations

theorized by von Bertalanffy. However, mathematical modeling revealed these equations to

be nonlinear, which “reveal that homeostasis in couples is a dynamic process in which the

couple has its own mechanisms of self-correction and repair when the interaction becomes too

destructive (Gottman, 1999, p. 33). Furthermore, there are two different homeostatic states for

each couple: one positive and one negative. In this model, the therapist and couple work

together to strengthen the positive homeostatic steady state while weakening the negative

homeostatic state. This strengthening occurs through repair attempts, which are key to the

therapeutic work involved in Gottman’s theory. Gottman assumes “every relationship is a

system that develops its own balance of steady stable states, with respect to the ratio of
 10

positivity and negativity in behavior, perception, and physiology” (Gottman, 1999, p.33). The

longitudinal studies from Gottman’s love lab focused on these three different domains. These

domains are linked in what Gottman has coined the Core Triad of Balance, with the idea being

that each marriage has a steady state of balance within each of the three domains, that the

system of the relationship is drawn to this state in order to maintain homeostasis, and that

every relationship is capable of repair.

More specifically, Gottman draws on the work of Cook et al. (1995), who describe two

types of steady states in human relationships: an uninfluenced steady state and an influenced

steady state. The uninfluenced steady state consists of what each member of the couple brings

to the interaction before they are influenced by their partner. This uninfluenced steady state is

affected by the individual’s history and temperament, among other factors. The influenced

steady state describes how one individual is affected by the other during the interaction.

Gottman hypothesized that every individual brings to the relationship an uninfluenced steady

state in each of the three areas of the core triad of balance: perception, physiology, and

behavior. The members of the couple interact, and each interaction involves ways in which

the husband influences the wife and the wife influences the husband. Gottman (1999) refers to

these as influence functions, and each interaction can drive the uninfluenced steady states in a

positive or negative direction. The relationship system drives the uninfluenced steady states in

predictable ways, which in turn create influenced stable steady states in perception,

physiology, and behavior. For relationships to work well, Gottman purported that there must

be a balance of positivity to negativity in the stable steady states of perceptions, physiology,

and behavior, with more physical feelings of calmness and well-being versus anxiety or

physiological discomfort.
 11

The Core Triad of Balance: Perception

Gottman (1999) posited that perception is a key factor in differentiating happy

marriages from unhappy ones. Here perception refers to the ways in which partners perceive,

interpret, and attribute the positive and negative actions of one another. Again, it should be

noted that all couples perceive a balance of positive and negative behavior in their partners. In

happy relationships, partners perceive positive actions from their significant other as stable,

consistent, and characteristic of both their partner and the relationship. Negative behaviors are

perceived to be fleeting, situational, fluctuating, and highly alterable. In unhappy

relationships, positive behaviors are perceived to be fleeting and situational, while negative

behaviors are seen as flaws or characteristics of one’s partner. Gottman pointed out that it is

often the case that partners enter couples therapy with the idea that the therapist will recognize

the character flaws that they see in their partner and will align with them to “fix” these flaws in

the partner, thereby improving the relationship.

Gottman (1999) described the process through which the perceptions of these negative

behaviors are transformed into lasting negative narratives of the overall relationship. He

refered to this process as the Distance and Isolation Cascade, which is characterized by

flooding, viewing relationship problems as severe, deciding it is best to work out the problems

alone (without one’s partner), adapting to the resulting parallel lives, and finally, loneliness.

Flooding begins when the negative interactions result in negative emotions that overwhelm

one member of the couple to the point that they cannot believe how their partner is acting and

reacting so negatively. After feeling overwhelmed, the individual views the relationship

problem as severe and believes the responsibility for improving the situation belongs to their

partner. The partner then begins to feel the same way, and in an effort to avoid confrontation,

further negativity, and escalation, the two members of the couple disengage emotionally and
 12

begin to lead parallel lives. As a result, the individuals begin to feel lonely within the

relationship, which further damages their connection and makes other relationship possibilities

look more attractive.

Gottman (1993) provided empirical evidence for the Distance and Isolation Cascade.

Again using longitudinal data from the love lab, Gottman constructed a structural model of the

cascade and tested model fit. Data came from couples who were observed over 24-hour

periods in the love lab behaving as they normally would, discussing the events of the day and

areas of conflicts in their relationship. Observers were trained to code emotions, facial

expressions, and attempts at repair and problem-solving. Follow-up assessments of

relationship quality and stability were later conducted, with the five steps of the cascade being

assessed by various questionnaires. The resulting longitudinal data fit the structural model that

was developed based on Gottman’s Distance and Isolation Cascade.

Core Triad of Balance: Physiology

Physiology is identified as the next factor in Gottman’s Core Triad of Balance. Again,

it should be noted that Gottman argues for the usefulness of balance in each factor of the triad,

and physiology is no different. Whereas previous family and couples therapists like Murray

Bowen (1978) argued that a person cannot think rationally while in a heightened physiological

and emotional state, Gottman (1999) stated that the time for individuals to work on difficult

emotions like anger, sadness, disappointment, or contempt is when they are experiencing those

very emotions. He pointed to the work of child psychologists Ginott (1965) and Redl (1965),

who revolutionized therapy with children by arguing that the most effective interventions for

dealing with child anger, fear, or sadness involved working with the child when he or she was

experiencing those very emotions. Gottman (1999) contended that this type of state dependent

learning is applicable to working with couples in that teaching them to self-soothe and soothe
 13

each other during times of physiological distress can significantly improve the couple’s ability

to cope with distress during conflict, thereby improving the relationship.

In addressing physiology, Gottman (1999) referred to the body’s sympathetic nervous

system, which he framed as the alarm system. The sympathetic nervous system is responsible

for alerting the body to emergency situations and initiating the fight-or-flight response, while

the parasympathetic nervous system is responsible for returning the body to a state of calm.

Emergency situations often leave us in a state of what Gottman called diffuse physiological

arousal, which refers to the fact that “many systems are simultaneously activated to mobilize

the body so that we can cope effectively with emergencies and situations perceived to be

dangerous” (Gottman, 1999, p.75). This adaptive response to threat involves an increased

heart rate and blood pressure, increased amounts of epinephrine, restricted blood flow to the

body’s extremities, and increased levels of glucose in the blood, among other things.

Furthermore, the attentional system becomes a vigilance system, detecting only danger and

limiting one’s ability to think and process information. Gottman stated that this same

emergency response system that is initiated when we are physically threatened is also activated

during a relationship conflict. If not addressed through repair attempts, taking a break from

arguing, or self-soothing, the resulting physiological distress will have a negative effect on the

relationship.

Gottman’s love lab yielded support for these conclusions. In a study published by

Malarkey, Kiecolt-Glaser, Pearl, and Glaser (1994), in-dwelling catheters were used to take

blood samples before, during, and after a group of 40 newlywed couples discussed an area of

conflict. For analysis, the couples were divided into two groups based on how often they

exhibited a particular set of negative communications The authors concluded that the negative

marital interaction codes of the coding system that was used to code behaviors were
 14

significantly related to a greater secretion of epinephrine and other stress hormones. Also,

couples exhibiting higher levels of these particular negative communications showed

significantly higher levels of stress hormones (interpreted as less recovery) a half-hour later.

Core Triad of Balance: Interactive Behavior

Although Gottman instituted many different coding systems in his love laboratory, the

Specific Affect Coding System is of particular importance in Gottman’s research. This

involves training observers to recognize and record facial features involved in emotion as well

as the voices, gestures, and content of what couples say. Multiple observers code the same

interactions so that inter-rater reliability can be computed. Using this coding system in his

longitudinal studies, Gottman computed the ratio of positive to negative exchanges during

interactions that involved conflict resolution (Gottman, 1999). He refers to these as “Dow-

Jones Ratios.”

Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (1998) focused on this ratio of positive to

negative exchanges when evaluating newlywed couples. The authors hypothesized that a

higher degree of negativity over positivity would predict future relationship satisfaction.

Gottman et al. found that couples who had a high ratio of negativity-to-positivity in their

interactions involving conflict resolution were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with

their relationships both at the time the study was conducted and at follow-up four years later.

Furthermore, couples who had a high negativity-to-positivity ratio were more likely to be

divorced at follow-up four years later than couples who had Dow-Jones ratios with higher

positivity to negativity. In other words, couples who displayed more negative affect than

positive affect toward each other were significantly less happy in their relationships. On the

surface, this finding would seem to be intuitive and unimportant. However, it should be noted

that the overall level of negative affect by itself was not a predictor of divorce or lower
 15

relationship satisfaction. Instead, the ratio of positive to negative interactions predicted more

favorable outcomes. This would prove to be important in Gottman’s theory and interventions,

as Gottman stated, “Marital therapy should not declare war on negative affect, for it serves

many positive functions in marriage. It culls out what does not work and renews courtship via

a dance of closeness and distance” (Gottman, 1999, p.40). Furthermore, Gottman (1994)

states that successful marriages contain at least a ratio of five positive interactions to everyone

one negative interaction, which is an often-cited ratio in Gottman’s therapeutic writings

(Gottman, 1999).

In a similar study, Carrere and Gottman (1999) observed couples in the love lab while

they were having a 15-minute discussion concerning a conflict. The authors divided the

discussion into three five-minute blocks, and each was evaluated in terms of the Dow-Jones

ratio of negativity to positivity. Positivity was coded as any display of validation, joy, humor,

or interest, while negativity was coded as any display of contempt, belligerence, anger, fear,

defensiveness, sadness, or stonewalling. Total positivity, total negativity, and difference ratios

between positivity and negativity were calculated for each member of the couple over each

five-minute period. The marital statuses of the couples were then assessed each year over the

next six years. Results in the form of t-tests indicated that couples who later divorced

exhibited greater amounts of negative affect and lower amounts of positive affect when

compared to couples who stayed together. This finding was observed in each of the five-

minute blocks. Husbands played a significant role in the analysis. In relationships that

remained stable over the six-year period, husbands showed an increase in negativity across

time but did not show a decrease in positivity. In relationships that ended in divorce, husbands

showed more negativity and less positivity as the interaction went on. These results also
 16

support Gottman’s claim that it is neither the amount of positivity nor negativity that is

important in predicting the stability of relationships, but the ratio of positivity-to-negativity.

Carrere and Gottman (1999) continued with the analysis, cutting off the final three

minutes of the interaction and again testing whether or not the Dow-Jones ratio could predict

relationship stability. The authors continued with this process and found that only the first

three-minutes of the conversation were needed to predict relationship stability. Gottman uses

this finding as evidence to support the importance of the “harsh start-up,” or a quick escalation

from neutral to negative during an interaction, in his marital therapy.

Of special significance are what Gottman (1994) refers to as the Four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse. After finding that the ratio of positive to negative interactions could predict

divorce, Gottman realized that he and his team had been weighing all negative interactions the

same. The question of whether all negative interactions had the same magnitude of impact on

the relationship was posed. Through further analysis, Gottman found “Not all negatives are

equally corrosive. Four behaviors, which I call The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, are

most corrosive: criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling” (Gottman, 1999, p.41).

These concepts have gained popular notoriety through Gottman’s many books and media

appearances, and they are almost always a focal point of therapeutic interventions based in

Gottman’s theory.

Gottman defines criticism as “any statement that implies that there is something

globally wrong with one’s partner” (Gottman, 1999, p. 41). These types of statements often

begin with “you always” or “you never,” and they are differentiated from a simple complaint

due to their non-specific, global accusation. Gottman pointed out that complaints are not

predictive of marital outcomes, but adding the words always or never effectively turns a

complaint into a criticism. Additionally, Gottman (1999) suggested that a long list of stored
 17

up complaints may serve as a criticism, as together they take on a more global accusation

toward one’s partner. It should be noted again that Gottman maintains voicing displeasure

within the relationship is healthy and functional. In order to avoid criticisms, partners should

focus on making a complaint without blame and focusing on a specific rather than global

concern.

Criticisms are often met with the second of the Four Horsemen: Defensiveness. This is

defined by Gottman as “any attempt to defend oneself from a perceived attack” (Gottman,

1999, p.44). Additionally, defensiveness may also occur in response to a simple complaint.

Defensive statements are problematic to the relationship because they involve denying any

responsibility for the problem and attributing blame solely to one’s partner. As Gottman

pointed out, “It is not both of you who have the problem, but the mean bully you happen to be

married to” (Gottman, 1999, p.44). This concept is similar to O’Malley and Greenberg’s

(1983) concept of retroactive deserving in which one never admits to being wrong and blames

their partner for not preventing or allowing them to make the mistake. Gottman seeks to

combat defensiveness by having each partner acknowledge his or her own responsibility in the

creation of the problem at hand.

Gottman’s Third Horsemen of the Apocalypse is contempt, which he described as “any

statement or nonverbal behavior that puts oneself on a higher plane than one’s partner

(Gottman, 1999, p.44). Contempt may often take the form of mockery, which can be

especially damaging to the relationship when it occurs in a public setting. Ekman, Schwartz,

and Friesen (1978) studied facial movements involved in expressions of contempt and found a

culturally universal expression that occurs when the dimpler muscle pulls the lip corners to the

sides and forms a dimple in the cheek, which is often accompanied with an eye roll or upward

glance. Gottman (1994) found these contemptuous facial expressions to be particularly

 18

damaging to a relationship. After turning off the sound of the video tapes and focusing solely

on these contemptuous facial expressions, Gottman found that contemptuous facial

expressions by husbands were predictive of wives’ infectious illnesses over the following four

year period. Wives’ contemptuous facial expressions alone, however, did not predict

husbands’ illnesses. Gottman suggests that contemptuous interactions can be healed by

fostering a sense of fondness and admiration that involves expressing positive appreciation for

one’s partner.

The last of the Four Horsemen is stonewalling, which Gottman (1999) defined as

withdrawing from the interaction, which typically involves one partner leaving or storming out

of the room. In a typical discussion involving conflict, the listener gives the speaker numerous

indications that he or she is listening, including eye contact, head nodding, expressing warmth

or concern, and mirroring facial expressions, among other cues. Stonewallers do none of these

things. Instead, they look briefly at the speaker, maintain a stiff neck, and hardly vocalize or

respond. Also, they conceal facial expressions instead of showing their feelings. Men are

more likely than women to stonewall, and they usually do so after their own physiology has

become highly aroused (Gottman, 1994). Gottman suggests that couples dealing with conflict

allow one another to take small (approximately twenty-minute) breaks as needed in order to

prevent stonewalling from occurring.

In addition to identifying the Four Horsemen, Gottman (1999) also discussed the

relationship between each of them. He made the important point that happy and successful

marriages are not void of criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling. Instead, these negative

interactions occur less frequently and are often accompanied by successful repair attempts.

Furthermore, although the Four Horsemen may be present at times, they are outnumbered by

positive interactions in at least a five-to-one positive-to-negative Dow Jones ratio. When the
 19

Four Horsemen are present, they usually follow a sequence, with criticism leading to

defensiveness, which leads to contempt followed by stonewalling ending the interaction.

Gottman specified that contempt is in its own category, as the amount of contempt in stable,

successful relationships is “essentially zero” (Gottman, 1999, p.46). Because contempt is such

a strong predictor of relationship success, it is advised that therapists treat it as psychological

abuse and do not allow it to occur when treating a couple. Criticism, defensiveness, and

stonewalling are found in stable relationships, and therefore Gottman argued that the focus of

intervention for these Horsemen should be on cultivating successful repair attempts. Effective

repair, a stable in Gottman’s interventions, results in interest, affection, humor, and lowered

tension being expressed more often and during conflict.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are arguably the most popular concepts of

Gottman’s marital therapy. In addition to being good predictors of marital dissolution in

Gottman’s longitudinal studies (1999), the Four Horseman have been popularized through

Gottman’s popular writings (Gottman, 1994, 1999, 2001, 2006) and numerous television and

media appearances. However, possibly because they make up only a small part of Gottman’s

Sound Marital House Theory, they have not been extensively studied as stand-alone variables

in the academic literature. Gottman provided the Four Horsemen Questionnaire in his book

The Marriage Clinic (1999). This 33-item true/false questionnaire assesses for the presence of

each of the Four Horseman, with higher scores on each of the four subscales indicating a

greater presence of the corresponding maladaptive communication pattern. The Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire has shown adequate reliability and validity in

multiple studies (Gottman, 2012; Cornelius & Alessi, 2007; Walker, 2005).
 20

The Sound Marital House

Using the longitudinal data obtained from the Love Lab and the various findings

regarding the Core Triad of Balance, Gottman developed his own theory of successful

relationships, which he coined “The Sound Marital House” (Gottman, 1999). Unlike his

predecessors who largely assumed that the absence of negative characteristics of relationships

resulted in successful relationships, Gottman focused on what his research suggests make

relationships work. He has described three different types of successful relationships, which

he refers to as volatile, validating, and conflict-avoiding (Gottman, 1993). Gottman pointed

out that although these relationships have different characteristics, all are similar in that they

have at least a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions, and none are superior to the others.

Volatile couples are the most emotionally expressive of the three, and both positive and

negative affect are present at high levels and are expressed freely. They value openness and

honesty, are often seen as passionate individuals, and view arguing itself as a sign of caring.

Validating couples value emotional expressiveness, but only in moderation. We-ness and

companionship are a central focus of the relationship. Conflict-avoiders agree to disagree.

They minimize problems and focus on the strengths of their marriage. This type of couple is

often seen as avoidant and assumed to be unhealthy, but the relationship works because the

focus is on the acceptance of problems and the concentration is on the positive aspects of the

relationship.

In addition to believing that negative affect should be minimized in healthy

relationships, most theorists would consider the validators to be the only desirable type of the

three aforementioned couples (Gottman, 1999). Gottman (1993) stressed that it is not the

expression of positive or negative affect that predicts relationship success, but the ratio. In

other words, a high level of negative affect expression is perfectly acceptable in a relationship
 21

provided there is at least five times as much positive affect expression occurring. Instead of

negative affect being the problem, mismatches in interaction styles predict relationship success

(Gottman, 1999). For instance, when a validator and avoider are in a relationship, the

validator is constantly pursuing the avoider while feeling shutout emotionally, and the avoider

begins to feel flooded. When a validator and volatile are together, the validator feels as if he

or she is not listened to and begins to feel flooded, while the volatile feels their partner is cold,

unemotional, and distant. In the event an avoider and volatile are in a relationship, the avoider

feels he or she has married an emotionally unstable person, while the volatile feels unloved,

rejected, and unappreciated.

Although these relationship types appear very different, they can all be characterized

by Gottman’s two “staples” of successful relationships: the overall level of positive affect, and

the ability to reduce negative affect during conflict resolution. Gottman argued that “these two

empirical facts give us the basis for marital therapy” (Gottman, 1999, p.105). With that in

mind, Gottman’s Sound Marital House Theory is predicated on the idea that interventions

should work to increase positive affect and help couples develop strategies for reducing

negative affect during conflicts. The Sound Marital House consists of four different levels that

build upon one another, and Gottman’s marital therapy includes interventions designed to

address each level.

The foundation of Gottman’s sound marital house is the marital friendship. Gottman

(1999) purported that it is difficult to create positive affect in a distressed relationship, but the

marital friendship can be restored rather easily. Therefore, the ground floor of the sound

marital house focuses on creating positive affect in non-conflict settings, or everyday

interactions. Gottman identified three components of the marital friendship, which he refers to

as cognitive room, fondness and admiration, and turning toward versus turning away.
 22

Cognitive room refers to the general knowledge that partners have about each other’s history,

lives, and hopes and dreams. Interventions such as the “love map” are designed to increase

partners’ understanding of each other, thereby allowing them to occupy more space in their

partner’s cognitive room (Gottman, 1999). The fondness and admiration component aims to

develop a sense of liking and admiring for one’s partner. Interventions include having

individuals share memories of the relationship that they enjoy and list characteristics that they

appreciate about their partner. The final component of the marital friendship, turning toward

versus turning away, encourages couples to accept their partner’s desire for their attention (as

opposed to rejecting it). This is based on the idea that partners often reject their mate’s desire

for attention out of mindlessness instead of malice, and by encouraging individuals to be

mindful of their partner’s need for their company, fewer feelings of distance and rejection

result. Interventions include exercises that bring partners into contact with each other while

they work together on tasks like cooking dinner, walking the dog, or reading to each other

(Gottman, 1999). Additionally, couples are instructed as to how to have a mindful

conversation with each other in a supporting and validating way.

The next level of the sound marital house involves creating positive sentiment override

(Gottman, 1999). This refers to the couple’s ability to access positive affect during conflict

interactions. If the couple has been successful at the foundational level of the sound marital

house, meaning positive affect is present in their daily interactions, it is likely to permeate into

their conflict interactions. As Gottman states, “Sufficient positive affect in nonconflict

interactions makes positive sentiment override possible” (Gottman, 1999, p.107). This means

that repair attempts will be more successful, as couples are able to use positive affect to soothe

each other and decrease heightened states of physiological arousal during conflict.
 23

The third level of the sound marital house involves regulating conflict. The most

important aspect of this level is that it is the successful regulation of conflict, not their

resolution, that predicts relationship success (Gottman, 1999). Whereas other marital therapies

may focus on resolving conflict, Gottman believes that because individuals retain their unique

personalities while blending them together to create a state of we-ness, conflict will naturally

occur within the relationship, and some problems will remain unsolved. The positive

sentiment override created on the preceding floor of the sound marital house allows couples to

feel comfortable with unresolved issues and allows for effective repair attempts during

conflict. Gottman reported that even in newlywed couples that initially scored high on the

Four Horsemen, when repair was effective (meaning couples were able to decrease negative

affect and express positive affect during conflict), 83.3% were in stable and happy marriages

eight years later (Gottman, 1999). Interventions at this level involve having the couple

identify their solvable and unsolvable problems and guiding them through soft startup

techniques and repair attempts that promote positive affect.

The final level of the sound marital house, the ceiling, involves creating shared

meaning. Gottman (1999) asserts that each family creates its own culture with its own unique

blend of rituals, symbols, metaphors, and narratives. Individuals in happy relationships seek to

share in each other’s goals, dreams, and aspirations and work together to make them come

true. Doing so requires the characteristics developed at the previous levels, including

regulating conflict, developing positive sentiment override, and fostering the marital

friendship. Interventions at this level are designed to encourage couples to identify and

examine their own unique goals, rituals, symbols, and roles together. Notably, this level of the

sound marital house has been criticized for lacking empirical evidence (Stanley, Bradbury, &

Markman, 2000; Sell, 2009).

 24

Given the breadth and depth of Gottman’s Sound Marital House Theory, it is not

surprising to see that it has been studied in relation to various constructs such as dating

violence (Cornelius, Shorey, & Beebe, 2010), child abuse (Tell, Pavkov, Hecker, & Fontaine,

2006), and communication style (Cornelius & Alessi, 2007). Furthermore, more popular

aspects of the theory like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse receive individual attention in

the literature (Walker, 2006). In addition to being empirically linked to other constructs in the

research literature, in writings for the general public Gottman (2001) suggested other skill sets

may be used to enhance communication and guard against the Four Horsemen in couples. One

such example suggested by Gottman involves mindfulness. In discussing the foundation of the

Sound Marital House, Gottman suggested that couples often interrupt each other, disregard

their partner’s concerns, or respond in a preoccupied manner. He added that couples likely are

on “automatic pilot” (Gottman, 2001, p.45) and are not intentionally disregarding their spouses

concerns. Gottman suggested that by being mindful of the present moment, partners can

become more aware of how their interactive behavior affects their partner, thereby improving

communication.

Although Gottman (2001) commented on the usefulness of mindfulness in combating

the Four Horsemen and creating successful repair attempts, the relationship of mindfulness to

the Sound Marital House has not been empirically studied. This is especially surprising given

that mindfulness has been linked to communication, conflict resolution, and relationship

satisfaction in couples (Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, & Rogge, 2007). In a two-part

study, Barnes et al. (2007) first studied a sample of 82 dating college students (no students

were members of the same dyad) and, using multiple regression analyses, found that trait

mindfulness predicted higher relationship satisfaction and greater capacities to respond to

relationship stress in positive and productive ways. In the second study, the authors replicated
 25

the previous findings in a sample of sixty heterosexual couples. Then, couples were bought

into a laboratory setting and asked to discuss two relationship conflict topics of their choosing.

The couples were asked to sit quietly and relax for five minutes both before and after the

conflict discussions took place. Pre- and post-conflict assessments of mood and trait

mindfulness were obtained. The authors reported that trait mindfulness was found to predict

lower emotional stress responses and positive pre- and post-conflict change in perception of

the relationship. Additionally, state mindfulness was related to better communication quality

during the discussion.

Given these findings, Gottman’s suggestion that mindfulness appears to contribute to

more productive communication between partners, especially during conflict, would appear to

be supported. The following section will examine the concept of mindfulness as well as

popular mindfulness-based intervention programs and further research regarding mindfulness

and relationships.

Mindfulness

The term “mindfulness” is presented in many different forms and, as Bishop et al.

(2004) discussed, can be difficult to define. While some describe mindfulness as the self-

regulation of attention, others view it as “an orientation that is characterized by curiosity,

openness, and acceptance” (Bishop et al. 2004, p.232). Just as the literature base on

mindfulness has evolved over time, so too have the ways in which the construct is defined. In

its simplest of forms, mindfulness refers to a way of directing attention (Baer, 2003). More

specifically, mindfulness refers to a nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment (Hahn,

1976). Brown and Ryan (2003) described mindfulness as an open and receptive attention to

and awareness of what is taking place, both internally and externally, in the present moment.

Kabat-Zinn (1990) described mindfulness as the act of intentionally focusing one’s attention
 26

on the present moment in a nonjudgmental, non-comparative, and accepting way that is void

of evaluation. He later commented that mindfulness is the process of “paying attention in a

particular way, on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994,

p.4).

Wachs and Cordova (2007) pointed out that mindfulness, as it is conceptualized and

studied by Western researchers and practitioners, is derived from Buddhist and other Eastern

spiritual systems that focus on contemplation and cultivation of the ability to tend to the

present moment. However, in adapting these practices to the Western world and for use in

hospital and mental health settings, the overt religious teachings associated with mindfulness

have been removed (Baer, 2003). According to Gambrel and Keeling (2010), some have

“questioned whether the effectiveness of mindfulness training is diminished by removing it

from a larger context,” (p.414) whether that context is religious, spiritual, or theoretical. Still,

mindfulness is often conceptualized as a trait that can be found in varying degrees in

individuals and as a quality that can be developed through practice (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell,

2007). As Baer (2003) argued, mindfulness need not be associated with a particular religious

philosophy in order to be beneficial to individuals. The author continued to state the

following:

By conceptualizing traditional mindfulness meditation practices as sets of skills that

can be taught independently of any religious belief system, researchers and clinicians

have made mindfulness training available to Western populations by incorporating it

into interventions that are increasingly offered in mental health and medical settings.

(Baer, 2003, p.4)

Mindfulness skills have been utilized in medical and mental health settings in a variety

of ways; each way involving the teaching of mindful awareness. Whether in the structure of a
 27

formalized program or in utilizing mindfulness skills in a less formal manner, similar general

instructions are often given. Clients are asked to incorporate mindfulness skills into daily life

activities such as walking, driving, and eating (Baer, 2003). Individuals are asked to focus

their attention on one specific activity, whether it be breathing, eating, or walking, and to

observe it with focus and without judgment. Throughout these exercises, individuals are asked

to notice where their mind wanders to, which usually involves the past or future. They are

instructed to note where the mind wandered to and to accept this before bringing their attention

back to the activity at hand, whether it be the breath, eating, or whatever the chosen activity

was. It is often that the mind generates an emotional state, such as anxiety, or the mind

wanders to a bodily sensation like an itch. In each case, individuals are instructed to note

where the mind took them, to accept this without judgment, and to return to the point of focus.

It is here that the definition of mindfulness used by Kabat-Zinn (1994) is utilized, as

individuals are encouraged to note these wandering thoughts and urges with a friendly

curiosity and acceptance while avoiding self-criticism and judgment.

Mechanisms of Mindfulness Action

As the research on mindfulness continues to grow, some studies have aimed to

examine the mechanisms of mindfulness action, or how, exactly, mindfulness works to

produce benefits for individuals. Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, and Freedman (2006) proposed a

theoretical model for the mechanisms of mindfulness. The authors postulated a three axiom

model of mindfulness, the three axioms of which serve as the foundation of the model and

include intention, attention, and attitude. Intention plays an important role in how mindfulness

benefits practitioners. The authors explained that as meditators continue to practice, their

intentions move from self-regulation to self-exploration and finally to self-liberation.

Intentions are dynamic and evolve throughout mindfulness practice. Attention is a second
 28

fundamental component of mindfulness, and in this context it refers to an individual's ability to

observe moment-to-moment internal and external experience. The authors point to cognitive

theories and the importance of attention as it relates to sustained attention or vigilance,

switching mental sets, and cognitive inhibition. The authors go on to state that the self-

regulation of attention would be predicted to result in the enhancement of these skills. The

third axiom, attitude, refers to how one attends and the qualities one brings to attention. For

example, attention may have a critical quality or a compassionate one. The authors posited

that individuals can learn to attend to their thoughts and feelings with a positive attitude

characterized by kindness and openness. With increased training, individuals can attend to

experience without judgment and with kindness and compassion.

The authors continued by proposing a model of potential mechanisms of mindfulness

that builds on the three axioms, suggesting that intentionally attending with openness and

nonjudgement leads to a significant shift in perspective. They refer to this shift as

reperceiving. Reperceiving "is a meta-mechanism of action which overarches additional direct

mechanisms that lead to change and positive outcome" (Shapiro et al., 2006, p.377). This can

be described as a change in consciousness in which the previous subject becomes the object.

Much like the young toddler develops into a child that can see himself as separate from the

objective world, the reperceiving in mindfulness refers to one's own thoughts, feelings, and

memories. Mindfulness practice allows one to become less attached to their stories, and in this

way the stories become simply stories, which results in greater clarity, perspective, and

objectivity (Shapiro et al, 2006).

Additionally, Shapiro et al. (2006) postulated four additional mechanisms of

mindfulness action, which include self-regulation, values clarification, cognitive, emotional,

and behavioral flexibility, and exposure. Self-regulation "is a process whereby systems
 29

maintain stability of functioning and adaptivity to change" (Shapiro et al., 2006, p.380).

Reperceiving allows for self-regulation in that one gains the ability to step back from negative

emotionality and view it as an emotional state, which frees one from behaving in an automatic

response to negative emotionality. Values clarification refers to the process by which one

recognizes and understands their own values. Values are often conditioned by family, society,

and other social forces, and individuals often respond and react to stimuli based on these

values. Reperceiving allows one to become more aware of their values and how they impact

behavior, and by separating ourselves from our values through the process of observation, one

becomes less reactive. Furthermore, through observing in a nonjudgmental fashion, one can

reassess their value system and act in ways that are more congruent with this system.

Regarding cognitive, emotional, and behavioral flexibility, reperceiving facilitates "more

adaptive, flexible responding to the environment in contrast to the more rigid, reflexive

patterns of reactivity that result from being overly identified with one's current experience"

(Shapiro et al., 2006, p.381). Reperceiving enables one to observe their inner experience and

see their mental-emotional content with more clarity, which in turn results in more cognitive

and behavioral flexibility and less reactivity. Finally, another mechanism of mindfulness

comes in the form of exposure. Reperceiving allows a person to experience strong emotions

with greater tolerance and objectivity, which results in less reactivity.

In sum, Shapiro et al. (2006) posited that mindfulness arises when intention, attention,

and attitude are simultaneously cultivated. Reperceiving occurs, which allows for a shift in

perspective. This shift is at the heart of mindfulness and the changes it produces. The authors

suggested that multiple mechanisms are facilitated by the shift of reperceiving, and these

mechanisms include self-regulation, values clarification, cognitive-behavioral flexibility, and

exposure.
 30

Carmody, Baer, Lykins, and Olendzki (2009) provided partial support for the model

described by Shapiro et al. (2006). The authors assessed 309 participants who enrolled in one

of seventeen sections of a mindfulness program at the University of Massachusetts Medical

School between 2006 and 2007. Both mindfulness and reperceiving showed significant

increases from pre to post intervention. Furthermore, self-regulation, values clarification,

cognitive-behavioral-emotional flexibility, and exposure also increased significantly over the

course of treatment. However, increases in reperceiving were not found to mediate the

relationship between mindfulness and the other four mechanisms of action posited by Shapiro

et al. (2006). The authors suggested that mindfulness and reperceiving may instead be highly

overlapping constructs and that both variables change with participation in mindfulness

programs.

In another study investigating the mechanisms of mindfulness action, Arch and Craske

(2008) investigated the impact of a single 15-minute mindfulness-based focused breathing

induction on the intensity and negativity of emotional responses to affectively-valenced picture

slides. The authors compared the 15-minute mindfulness breathing exercise group to a group

that received 15-minute recorded inductions of unfocused attention and worrying. Compared

to the unfocused induction group, the mindful breathing group maintained more consistent

positive responses to the neutral slides before and after the induction exercise. Additionally,

the focused breathing group reported lower negative affect in response to the slides and a

greater willingness to view the highly negative slides for longer periods of time as compared to

the unfocused group. The authors concluded that one mechanism through which mindfulness

provides positive benefits for individuals is via increased emotion regulatory capacities.

Mindfulness results in more adaptive responses to negative stimuli, reduced emotional

volatility, and an increased willingness and tolerance for negative affect.

 31

While mindfulness skills have been incorporated into a variety of treatments, they have

also been utilized in a number of formalized mindfulness-based programs. Baer (2003) is

regarded as one of the best sources for empirically-supported treatments and programs that

utilize mindfulness teachings. The most popular of these programs include mindfulness-based

stress reduction (Kabat-Zinn, 1990), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (Segal, Teasdale,

Williams, & Gemar, 2002), and mindfulness-based relationship enhancement (Carson, Carson,

Gil, & Baucom, 2004). Additionally, other empirically-supported formalized treatments

include mindfulness skills as one portion of the larger treatment. Notable examples include

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993), a popular treatment for borderline

personality disorder, and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, &

Wilson, 1999), a therapeutic approach used to treat a variety of problems and symptoms. Each

of these programs utilizes mindfulness skills in a different way to address a variety of

concerns, but in each program the idea behind mindfulness is the same: focusing on the

present moment in an accepting and nonjudgmental fashion can provide a host of therapeutic

benefits. The two most popular mindfulness-based intervention programs, MBSR and MBRE,

will now be examined briefly.

Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction

Kabat-Zinn's (1982) Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program was the

first formalized mindfulness-based program to gain popularity. Baer (2003) pointed out that

as of 1998, this particular program was being utilized in over 240 hospitals nationwide and

was being used to treat patients with a variety of symptoms and disorders. Baer (2003) went

on to state that the number of these programs has undoubtedly grown since 1998. The

program was originally designed in a behavioral medicine setting for use with individuals with

chronic pain and other stress-related ailments, and its use has been expanded to include
 32

patients struggling with a variety of problems including cancer, eating disorders, depression,

anxiety, and intimate partner violence (Baer, 2003).

The standard mindfulness-based stress reduction program lasts 8 weeks and involves

weekly 2-3 hour sessions in addition to extensive daily homework, which comes in the form of

45-minute homework assignments that are to be practiced at least six days per week. Each

class session involves an experiential component in which participants receive instruction in a

mindfulness exercise and are encouraged to discuss their experiences. Also, the sixth week of

the program includes an all-day mindfulness session. Participants are expected to be active in

their daily practice of mindfulness exercises, which include such activities as mindful eating,

the body scan, hatha yoga, and sitting and walking meditations. Due to the challenging

requirements of the program, the time commitment required is discussed with participants

during an initial orientation session in which participants are encouraged to ask questions and

openly discuss their reasons for and against participating in the program (Baer, 2003). Classes

often include up to 30 participants, which is another reason the program has been found to be

useful in the hospital and medical setting (Baer, 2003).

Various studies demonstrate the usefulness of MBSR with different populations. Soon

after the program was developed, Kabat-Zinn, Lipworth, and Burney (1985) reported that

individuals with chronic pain who underwent the MBSR program reported greater reductions

in depressive symptoms, anxiety, overall perceived pain, and overall pathological symptoms in

comparison to a control group. Kabat-Zinn et al. (1992) later demonstrated MBSR's

usefulness in working with patients with anxiety disorders, as individuals who participated in

the program reported reduced depression and anxiety symptoms. The benefits of MBSR were

also shown to be useful with cancer patients. Carson, Speca, Patel, and Goodey (2003) found

that MBSR reduced stress and sleep disturbances and increased overall quality of life ratings
 33

in prostate cancer patients. Similarly, Speca, Carlson, Goodey, and Angen (2000) reported

reductions in stress, depression, and anxiety in cancer outpatients. Using a group of college

students enrolled in a behavioral medicine course, Astin (1997) found increases in constructs

including self-control, acceptance, and spirituality and decreases in depression and anxiety

symptoms. In a non-clinical sample, MBSR was found to reduce perceived stress and increase

positive states of mind in a group of healthy adults who participated in the course (Chang et

al., 2004). It is clear that the research supports the efficacy of MBSR in treating a variety of

issues in a variety of populations.

Mindfulness Based Relationship Enhancement

Although mindfulness programs have been used with a variety of populations in order

to treat multiple pathological conditions, only recently has mindfulness been applied to

interpersonal relationships, and more specifically to intimate relationships. The most

influential mindfulness-based relationship program has been coined The Mindfulness-Based

Relationship Enhancement Program (MBRE; Carson, 2002).

MBRE was developed by Carson (2002) as a doctoral dissertation project, the results

of which were later published in Behavior Therapy (Carson, Carson, Gil, & Baucom, 2004).

Baer (2003) noted that the project was likely affected by the positive psychology movement,

as previous research on relationships focused on addressing problems in relationships. With

the positive psychology movement came a focus on enhancing relationships that were already

functioning well. Relationship researchers often posit that it is much easier to prevent marital

problems and promote relationship enhancement in couples who are relatively happy and are

emotionally engaged as opposed to waiting until the relationship is distressed and negative

interactional patterns have been established (Baer, 2003). Carson's MBRE program was
 34

designed for use with non-distressed couples (Carson et al., 2004) and is a direct derivative of

Kabat-Zinn's MBSR program (Baer, 2003).

MBRE follows the same format and involves the same teaching style as MBSR (for a

complete description of the MBRE program, see Carson, 2002). Just as is the case with the

MBSR program, couples are expected to attend eight weekly sessions, each approximately 2.5

hours long, with a seven-hour long retreat on one weekend day during the 6th week of the

program. Additionally, the program involves some adaptations in order to address its goal of

enhancing relationships in non-distressed couples. For example, screenings are done with both

members of the couple simultaneously (Baer, 2003). Greater use is made of the metta, or

loving-kindness meditation, which helps couples focus on directing compassion toward one's

partner. Throughout the program, practices of MBSR geared toward making individuals more

aware of present activities are adapted to make couples more aware of their shared activities

and experiences (Baer, 2003).

Quantitative empirical support for the MBRE program is difficult to obtain for a

variety of reasons. In addition to the difficulties that come with studying couples and eight-

week long programs, Christensen and Heavey (1999) pointed out that studying non-distressed

couples invites problems with ceiling effects, as the members are already happy and enjoying

the benefits of a positive relationship. However, in the only randomized controlled trial of the

MBSR program to date, Carson et al. (2004) evaluated the program using a sample of 44 non-

distressed heterosexual couples. Post-treatment results showed improvements in a variety of

domains, most notably average daily relationship distress, acceptance of partner, relationship

happiness, relationship satisfaction, and relationship distress.

 35

Mindfulness and Relationship Satisfaction

Although the research on mindfulness has been increasing over the past two decades

(Brown et al., 2007), only recently has research turned an eye toward the relationship between

mindfulness and interpersonal relationships. More specifically, research is just now starting to

look into the effects of mindfulness on relationship satisfaction. Although a consensus has yet

to be reached over the exact pathways through which mindfulness affects relationship

satisfaction, results do indicate that mindfulness skills are positively correlated with

relationship satisfaction (Barnes et al., 2007; Wachs & Cordova, 2007; Kabat-Zinn, 1993).

One early study of the effects of mindfulness on relationship satisfaction came in

Carson et al.’s (2004) evaluation of the MBRE program. As Ormiston (2011) later pointed

out, in this study mindfulness was conceptualized as a learned skill and not as a dispositional

trait. This distinction was important in that it led to further research involving the

conceptualization of mindfulness as a skill that could be taught, cultivated, and improved. In

other words, mindfulness was seen as a skill or trait that exists to varying degrees in everyone,

meaning that mindfulness-based programs or teachings can be incorporated into a variety of

therapeutic activities and treatments. Carson et al. (2004) found that the MBRE program

resulted in enhanced relationship functioning in the form of greater relationship happiness and

an increased ability to cope both with general stress and stress related to the relationship. The

authors reported that the more mindfulness skills were practiced, the greater the benefits in

terms of overall stress, coping with stress, relationship stress, and relationship happiness.

These benefits were reported as being realized both on the day of the mindfulness practice and

several days afterward. The authors speculated that one pathway through which mindfulness

skills enhance relationships is by providing a greater ability to acknowledge and work through

stress associated with the relationship.

 36

Another important study of the relationship between mindfulness skills and intimate

relationship satisfaction came from Wachs and Cordova (2007). The authors tested the theory

that mindfulness contributes to intimate relationship satisfaction by enhancing emotional skills

within the context of the relationship, thereby making it easier for couples to handle emotional

difficulty within the relationship. Using a sample of married couples, Wachs and Cordova

(2007) hypothesized that mindfulness would be associated with higher marital quality and

partners’ emotional skills and that the relationship between mindfulness and marital quality

would be mediated by these emotional skills. The authors reported that emotional skills and

mindfulness were both related to marital adjustment. Furthermore, the authors found that the

relationship between mindfulness and marital quality was mediated by emotional skills

including the ability to communicate emotions and the ability to regulate anger.

Barnes et al. (2007) also made an important contribution to the study of mindfulness

and its effect on intimate relationship satisfaction. Whereas Wachs and Cordova (2007)

looked at the relationship between mindfulness and relationship satisfaction and found that

emotional skills function as a mediator of the relationship, Barnes et al. (2007) looked at the

relationships of both trait and state mindfulness as mediated by stress and communication

skills. In the first of two studies reported, the authors demonstrated that higher trait

mindfulness predicted higher relationship satisfaction and greater ability to cope with

relationship stress. The second study replicated and extended the findings of the first study.

Here the authors found that trait mindfulness predicted “lower emotional stress responses and

positive pre- and post-conflict change in perception of the relationship” (p.482). Additionally,

state mindfulness was related to better communication during the discussion following

conflict. Barnes et al. (2007) is significant for a number of reasons. First, the study involved a

college student sample, much like the current work, and demonstrated the usefulness of
 37

mindfulness skills in intimate relationships with this age group. Additionally, the authors

demonstrated the usefulness of both trait and state mindfulness in benefiting intimate

relationship satisfaction.

Mindfulness as a construct has evolved in the literature base, both in terms of how it is

conceptualized and assessed. Early work suggested disagreement concerning whether

mindfulness should be assessed as a multifaceted or unidimensional construct. For example,

the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003) conceptualized

mindfulness as a unidimensional construct and yielded one total score. In contrast, Baer,

Smith, and Allen (2004) designed the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills as a

multidimensional measure. Grounded in dialectical behavior therapy, the authors

conceptualized mindfulness as a set of interrelated skills, and the measure yields subscale

scores for four mindfulness skills: observing, describing, acting with awareness, and accepting

without judgment.

More recently, Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, and Toney (2006) conducted an

exploratory factor analysis using the Friedburg Mindfulness Inventory (Buchheld, Grossman,

& Walach, 2001), the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003), the

Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (Baer et al., 2004), the Mindfulness Questionnaire

(Chadwick, Hember, Mead, Lilley, & Dagnan, 2005) and the Cognitive and Affective

Mindfulness Scale (Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007). The measures

were administered to a large sample of 613 college students, and the results suggested a five-

factor solution: observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging of inner experience,

and nonreactivity to inner experience. By selecting the seven to eight items with the highest

loadings on the respective factors (and lower loadings on other factors), the authors were able

to create the 39-item Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer et al, 2006). Yielding both a
 38

total score and subscale scores, this measure is largely considered the gold standard for

assessing mindfulness today.

Developmental Theories and College-Age Individuals

Of special importance in the current discussion are the various ways in which

developmental theories attempt to capture the unique stages and characteristics of college-aged

individuals. Unlike other developmental periods, this period of development "is the only

period of life in which nothing is normative demographically" (Arnett, 2000, p.417).

Demographic status in terms of living at home, parenting, cohabitating, and enrollment in

school is difficult to predict using age alone. This diversity provides complexity in terms of

how we discuss the possible roles that mindfulness and negative communication patterns like

the Four Horsemen play in the lives of dating college students. Furthermore, Newlon (2013)

reports that 28% of married college graduates met while attending the same college. Although

Gottman's techniques were designed for use with married couples, the fact that a significant

number of married couples meet during the college years provides further support for

examining the role the Four Horsemen may play in college dating relationships.

Erik Erikson (1963) provided one of the more popularized theories of development.

Unlike prominent developmental theorists before him who proposed that personality and

behavioral patterns were established in early childhood, Erikson proposed that development

continues to occur across the lifespan. Erikson described this development in terms of eight

stages, each containing a specific conflict or crisis that needed to be resolved before an

individual could move on to the subsequent stage of development. College-aged individuals

span both the fifth and sixth stages of Erikson's theory, which are identity vs. role confusion

and intimacy vs. isolation. According to the theory, adolescents in the fifth stage struggle to

break away from their parents and establish their own sense of identity. Once that is resolved
 39

and a sense of identity has been formed, these young adults move into the sixth stage of

development where they look to establish and maintain intimacy in close personal

relationships, including friendships, dating relationships, and marriage. This sixth stage

provides further support for the applicability of Gottman's techniques with college-age

individuals, as these techniques aim to enhance intimacy by improving communication with

romantic relationships.

In discussing the transition from adolescence to young adulthood, Erikson (1968)

described how industrialized societies allow for a longer transitional period and for more

personal exploration and role experimentation. In support of this idea, Arnett (2000) argued

that the period of emerging adulthood has become a distinct period of development that occurs

between the late teens through the twenties, which includes the typical ages at which

individuals begin college. Arnett explained that this developmental period is socially

constructed, and because it has become more acceptable to delay marriage and parenthood into

the late twenties or early thirties, this allows individuals in their late teens and early twenties

more time before they are expected to settle into adult roles and long-term relationships.

Arnett added that this period is characterized by a relative independence from social roles and

expectations. Like Erikson before him, Arnett's theory of emerging adulthood also highlights

the importance of romantic relationship in the development of college-age individuals. Arnett

commented, "By emerging adulthood, dating is more likely to take place in couples, and the

focus is less on recreation and more on exploring the potential for emotional and physical

intimacy." (Arnett, 2000, p.473). These relationships tend to involve a deeper level of

intimacy as compared to the relationships of adolescence, and individuals look to explore

romantic relationships in an effort to determine what type of person they could potentially

partner with for life. Like Erikson, Arnett's theory of emerging adulthood also provides
 40

evidence for the use of Gottman's techniques with college-age individuals, as the methods to

improve communication and deepen intimacy can assist college-age individuals in resolving

one of the primary focuses of emerging adulthood.

Present Study

The present study involved multiple goals. First, although Gottman’s Sound Marital

House Theory has been extended to dating couples (Cornelius, Shorey, & Beebe, 2010), this

was done in order to examine the relationship between dating violence and many components

of the Sound Marital House Theory. The current study aimed to examine the relationship

between the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and relationship satisfaction amongst a group

of dating college students. Because Gottman’s theory originally focused on marriage, it may

often be overlooked as a treatment option when working with college students. Given that the

average college student is at a developmental level focused on establishing intimate

relationships with others (Austrian, 2008), the techniques suggested by Gottman may prove

useful with this population. The initial portion of this study was conducted in order to lend

support to the possible usefulness of Gottman’s theory and interventions with dating college

students. It was hypothesized that the presence of negative communication patterns in a

relationship, specifically each of Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Criticism,

Defensiveness, Contempt, and Stonewalling), would be associated with lower relationship

satisfaction in a sample of dating college students.

Secondly, although Gottman discusses the usefulness of mindfulness techniques

(Gottman, 2001), to date no study has examined the relationship between mindfulness

techniques and Gottman’s Sound Marital House Theory. The second hypothesis of this study

was that higher amounts of each of the five facets of mindfulness would be associated with

higher relationship satisfaction in the dating college student sample.

 41

Finally, given that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are the most maladaptive of

interactive behaviors identified by Gottman (1999), the present study aimed to examine the

role mindfulness plays in the relationship between the Four Horsemen and relationship

satisfaction. If mindfulness is a skill that can be cultivated through practice (Brown, Ryan, &

Creswell, 2007; Ormiston, 2011) and is found to mediate the relationship between the Four

Horsemen and relationship satisfaction, one may consider mindfulness interventions as a

viable treatment option for individuals struggling with the Four Horsemen and relationship

satisfaction. It was hypothesized that mindfulness will mediate the relationship between the

Four Horsemen and relationship satisfaction. If true, this would lend support to the utilization

of mindfulness interventions as an intervention for dating college students struggling with

negative communication patterns such as the Four Horsemen.

 42

CHAPTER III

METHODS

Data Collection Procedure

The study was conducted online using Qualtrics and the university SONA data

collection system during the Spring 2013 semester. Initial screening questions asked of nearly

all eligible students in the Subject Pool included “Are you currently in a romantic

relationship,” “How long have you been in your current romantic relationship,” “Do you

consider your current romantic relationship a long-distance relationship,” “Have you ever been

in a romantic relationship,” and “How long was your most recent romantic relationship?”

Only students who indicated that they have ever been in a romantic relationship were eligible

for participation in the study. It was not necessary that students indicate they are currently in a

relationship in order to be eligible. Both questions were asked as screening questions because

it was difficult to predict the base rates of students currently in romantic relationships prior to

data collection.

Students who were deemed eligible for participation based on the screening questions

were emailed a link for participation in the study. This link lead participants to a Qualtrics

survey that included informed consent (Appendix E), a demographics questionnaire, three

questionnaires involved in the study, and a debriefing form (Appendix F) complete with

referral sources (Appendix G). Participants had the ability to opt out of the study at any time.

Participants were notified that their data was initially identifiable and that all data would be de-

identified prior to analysis. All forms were expected to be completed in approximately 10-15

minutes.
 43

Participants

Participants for the study were recruited from the subject pool at Indiana University of

Pennsylvania. The subject pool is comprised of students who are typically 18 to 19 years-old,

in their first or second year of study at the university, and are enrolled in an introductory

psychology course. This population was chosen because the primary aim of the study

involved examining the relationships between negative communication patterns, mindfulness,

and relationship satisfaction in college students in dating relationships. The subject pool was

selected as a means of obtaining participants both due to convenience and because this is the

established known way of reaching the selected population on campus. The total number of

participants surveyed was 406. Because it was difficult to predict the number of subjects in

dating relationships at the time of data collection, any participant who indicated having ever

been in a dating relationship was eligible to complete the study. However, primary analyses

only include those respondents who were currently involved in a dating relationship at the time

of data collection. In addition to relationship status, other demographic variables assessed

included age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, year in college, length of current

relationship, whether or not the current relationship was long distance, and whether or not the

participant had ever undergone formal mindfulness training.

The sample was screened for missing data. Due to the nature of data collection in

which subjects were required to answer a question before being prompted with the next

question, the data set contained no missing data for the major variables assessed. However,

one variable included in the analyses, length of relationship, was an open-ended question that

did not require a response. Participants who did not answer this question were eliminated

from the final analyses.

 44

Next, participants were selected for inclusion in the analyses based on whether they

were currently in a dating relationship at the time measures were completed. A total of 406

participants took the survey, 229 (56.4%) of which indicated they were currently in a dating

relationship. Of the 229 subjects currently in a relationship, only 196 indicated the length of

their current relationship. These subjects, who comprise 48.3% of the overall sample, were

included in the final analyses. Table 1 and Table 2 include the descriptive statistics for the

entire sample grouped by participants' relationship status (those responding about their Current

Relationship and those responding about their Most Recent Relationship).

Table 1

Descriptives of the Sample

Variable N Min Max M SD

Age (Years)

Current Relationship 196 18 29 19.28 1.68

Most Recent Relationship 177 18 29 19.15 1.48

Length of Relationship (Months)

Current Relationship 196 1 120 23.30 19.47

Most Recent Relationship 162 1 96 15.35 15.88

 45

Table 2

Descriptives of the Sample

Current Relationship Most Recent Relationship

Variable N % N %

Gender 196 177

Male 66 33.7 69 39.0

Female 130 66.3 108 61.0

Race/Ethnicity 196 177

White/Non-Hispanic 165 84.2 149 84.0

African American 16 8.2 12 6.8

Hispanic/Latino(a) 6 3.1 3 1.7

Biracial 4 2.0 2 1.1

Asian/Asian
American 3 1.5 6 3.4

Middle Eastern 2 1.0 3 1.7

Sexual Orientation 196 177

Heterosexual 187 95.4 167 94.4

Homosexual 3 1.5 4 2.3

Bisexual 3 1.5 4 2.3

Pansexual 1 .5 1 0.6

Other 2 1.0 1 0.6

Year in College 196 177

Freshman 140 71.4 136 76.8

Sophomore 41 20.9 32 18.1

Junior 7 3.6 6 3.4

Senior 6 3.1 3 1.7

Other 2 1.0 0 0.0

Mindfulness Training 196 177

Yes 32 16.3 25 14.1

No 164 83.7 152 85.9

Current Relationship Long Distance 196

Yes 87 44.4

No 109 55.6
 46

Of the 196 subjects selected for the primary analyses in the study, 130 identified as

women (66%) and 66 identified as men (34%). The mean age of the sample was 19.3 years of

age (range = 18 to 29). The majority of the sample identified as White (N=165, 84%), with

African Americans (N=16, 8.2%), Hispanic/Latinos(as) (N=6, 3.1%), Biracial (N=4, 2%),

Asian/Asian American (N=3, 1.5%), and Middle Easterners (N=2, 1%) comprising the

remainder of the sample. Ninety-five percent of the sample identified as heterosexual

(N=187), with the remaining 4% of the sample identifying as homosexual, bisexual,

pansexual, or other (N=9). The average length of relationship was 23.3 months (range = 1

month to 120 months). Forty-four percent of participants (N=87) characterized their

relationship as long-distance. Sixteen percent of the sample (N=32) indicated they had

previous formal training in mindfulness.

Data Cleaning

Prior to analysis, the data set was checked for missing data. However, during data

collection for all primary variables, participants were required to provide a response before

they were able to proceed to the next question, meaning the data set should include a response

for all items. After the data was collected, total scores and subscale total scores for each

measure were computed as new variables. Prior to analysis, all variables were standardized

into z-scores with means of zero and standard deviations of one in order to make discussion

and conclusions more intuitive and easily understood.

Measures

Participants completed three measures and a basic demographics questionnaire

(Appendix A). In addition to various demographics including age, gender, and sexual

orientation, this questionnaire included brief questions about the participant’s relationship

status, including current relationship status, length of relationship, and length of longest
 47

romantic relationship. Participants who were not currently involved in a romantic relationship

were asked to fill out the remaining questionnaires in reference to their most recent romantic

relationship. The other three questionnaires are the Relationship Assessment Scale

(Hendricks, 1988), the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer, Smith, Hopkins,

Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006), and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire

(Gottman, 1999).

Relationship Assessment Scale

The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Appendix B) is a 7-item instrument

designed to measure overall satisfaction in a relationship (Hendrick, 1988). The measure

consists of 7 items scored using five-point Likert Scales and was designed to be a brief, easily

administered and scored measure of general satisfaction in romantic relationships. Items

include “How well does your partner meet your needs” and “In general, how satisfied are you

with your relationship.” A total score is computed by summing scores from the seven items.

Research has provided evidence that the RAS has good reliability (α = .86) and concurrent

validity with a number of the subscales of the Love Attitudes Scale and Dyadic Adjustment

Scale (Hendrick, 1988). Reliability data in the form of Cronbach's alpha (1951) for the current

sample (N = 406, α =.901) can be found in Table 3.

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

The Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer, Smith, Hopkins,

Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006; Appendix C) is a 39-item self-report questionnaire designed to

measure five difference facets of mindfulness. The measure was constructed using an

exploratory factor analyses involving the five leading measures of mindfulness at the time,

which included the Friedburg Mindfulness Inventory (Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001),

the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003), the Kentucky Inventory of
 48

Mindfulness Skills (Baer et al., 2004), the Mindfulness Questionnaire (Chadwick, Hember,

Mead, Lilley, & Dagnan, 2005) and the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale (Feldman,

Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007). These measures were administered to a large

sample of 613 college students, and the results suggested a five-factor solution: observing,

describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging of inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner

experience. Subscales were designed to correspond with each of the five factors, or facets, by

selecting the seven to eight items with the highest loadings on the respective factors (and lower

loadings on other factors).

Baer et al. (2008) described each of the five facets of mindfulness. The first facet,

observing, refers to “noticing or attending to internal and external experiences, such as

sensations, cognitions, emotions, sights, sounds, and smells” (Baer et al., 2008, p.330). An

example of one item on this scale is, “I notice the smells and aromas of things.” The

Describing facet refers to “labeling internal experiences with words” (Baer et al., 2008, p.330).

One example of an item on this scale is “I am good at finding words to describe my feelings.”

The Acting with Awareness facet “includes attending to one’s activities of the moment and

can be contrasted with behaving mechanically while attention is focused elsewhere” (Baer et

al., 2008, p.330). An example of an item on this scale is “I find myself doing things without

paying attention.” The fourth facet, Nonjudging of Inner Experience, “refers to taking a non-

evaluative stance toward thoughts and feelings” (Baer et al., 2008, p.330). One example of an

item on this scale is “I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate, and I should not

feel them.” Finally, the fifth and facet, Nonreactivity to Inner Experience, is described as “the

tendency to allow thoughts and feelings to come and go, without getting caught up in or

carried away by them” (Baer et al., 2008, p.330). An example of an item on this scale includes

“I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them.” Each factor has been
 49

found to have adequate reliability using an undergraduate sample (Observing, α =.83;

Describing, α =.91; Acting with Awareness, α =.87; Nonjudging of Inner Experience, α =.87;

Nonreactivity to Inner Experience, α =.75; Baer & Huss, 2008). Additionally, Cronbach’s

alphas (1951) were computed for the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire and each of the

five facet subscales using the entire data set (N = 406). Results are included in Table 3.

Table 3

Cronbach's Alphas for Scales (N = 406)

Measure Α
Relationship Assessment Scale .901

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire .859

Observing .749
Describing .868
Acting with Awareness .881
Nonjudgment of Inner Experience .879
Nonreacting to Inner Experience .655

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire (Appendix B) is one of many

questionnaires designed to assist clinicians in assessing the Sound Marital House of the couple

in therapy. This questionnaire is provided by Gottman in his book The Marriage Clinic

(1999). The 33-item true/false questionnaire assesses for the presence of each of the Four

Horseman, with subscales corresponding to criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and

stonewalling. High scores on each of the four subscales indicate a greater presence of the

corresponding maladaptive communication pattern. Items include “I often just want to leave

the scene of an argument,” “My partner never really changes,” “My partner doesn’t face

problems responsibly and maturely,” and “Arguments seem to come out of nowhere.” Given

that the focus of the study is on college students and not necessarily on dating couples, the
 50

word “spouse” was replaced with “partner” in all applicable items. The Four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse Questionnaire has shown adequate reliability and validity in multiple studies

(Walker, 2005; Cornelius & Alessi, 2007; Gottman, 2012).

As the process of computing total and subscale scores began, research on the Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire was consulted in an effort to identify which items

should be scored on each of the four subscales. It was then realized that although many

publications analyzed the subscales in this manner, none of them published the methods used

to score each subscale. What follows is a discussion of the various methods used to determine

how items would be assigned to the individual subscales of the Four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse Questionnaire.

First, the Gottman Institute was contacted regarding this issue. In an email response

(8/4/14), the institute indicated that they could not provide an answer as to which items

belonged on each subscale, stating, "This particular research was conducted many years ago

and our office does not have the original data."

Next, an effort was made to contact committee members from other dissertations in

which the Four Horsemen subscales were scored and analyzed. Committee members from two

dissertations, Walker (2005) and Boska (2005) were contacted, and both provided the ways in

which the subscales were scored. However, neither provided the rationale for which items

were scored on each subscale, and inquiries concerning this matter went unanswered.

Therefore, in an effort to identify which items should be scored on each subscale of the

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire, a factor analysis was conducted using the

entire data set (N = 406). Factor analysis was chosen as an appropriate procedure because it

not only aims to determine the number of latent constructs assessed by the items of a

questionnaire, but it also examines the number of items needed to accurately assess each latent
 51

construct (Merson, 2011). Furthermore, this procedure allows the researcher to preemptively

select the desired number of factors based on theoretical guidelines, which is what we intended

to do in this study. However, the standard process in SPSS for conducting a factor analysis is

based on a correlation/covariance matrix, and therefore requires continuous variables. The

true/false items on the Four Horsemen Questionnaire are dichotomous, so additional steps

were needed in order to conduct a factor analysis.

One solution is described in Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando (2014). The authors describe

a process for computing the tetrachoric correlation matrix within a standalone program, which

they name POLYMAT-C. The program can be downloaded for free at

http://psico.fcep.urv.es/utilitats/factor/. This program was used to conduct the factor analysis

that follows.

In order to address the question of which items load onto each of the four subscales of

the 33-item Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire (Criticism, Defensiveness,

Contempt, and Stonewalling), a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the entire

data set (N=406) and the POLYMAT-C program. A four-factor solution was specified using

an Oblimin (oblique) rotation because the factors are theoretically correlated. For example,

Gottman stated that defensiveness often occurs in response to criticism, meaning the two

factors should be correlated. In determining which factors should be retained, the K1 method

proposed by Kaiser (1960) is a common method that is most often used. This method involves

retaining all factors with eigenvalues greater than one. The Kaiser method had been criticized

for leading to arbitrary decisions and for having a tendency to overestimate the number of

factors retained (Zwick & Velicer, 1986). Therefore, the more selective process of parallel

analysis was utilized in order to determine how many factors underlie the structure of the Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire. Horn's (1965) process of parallel analysis

 52

involves computing eigenvalues for factors from the actual data set and comparing them to

eigenvalues of a randomly generated data set with the same number of observations and

variables. Factors are retained only when their eigenvalues are greater than the eigenvalues

from the randomly generated data set (Ladesma & Valero-Mora, 2007).

The results of the factor analysis are described in Table 10 in Appendix H. Using the

Kaiser criteria, a 10-factor solution is proposed, as 10 factors have an eigenvalue greater than

1.0. Given the proposed subscales of the Four Horsemen Questionnaire, this solution is not

consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of the questionnaire. The items that would load

on to the subscales are suggested in a way that is not congruent with the proposed theoretical

constructs of the Four Horsemen for this sample of college students. Parallel analysis yields a

2-factor structure (Table 11; Appendix H). If a four-factor solution is retained as was

proposed in the confirmatory factor analysis procedure, item loadings on the four factors are

inconsistent with the theory (Table 10; Appendix H). There is some disagreement in the

literature concerning what is generally accepted as an appropriate cut score for retaining items

on factors, with .40 often considered a minimum cut score (Distefano, Zhu, & Mindrila, 2009).

Even using this liberal cut point to retain only items with factor loadings greater than .40, the

four factors have six, one, ten, and four items, respectively. Face validity shows that these

proposed factors and the retained items do not describe the negative communication patterns

of criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling. Furthermore, they do not coincide

with the subscales utilized in other studies involving the Four Horsemen Questionnaire

(Walker, 2005; Boska, 2005).

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014) outlines the different

types of validity related to psychological testing and assessment. One type is construct

validity, which can be achieved through factor analysis procedures. With this particular data
 53

set, the factor analysis did not produce a workable solution that is consistent with Gottman's

theory and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire, so the construct validity of

the instrument was not achieved for this particular sample. Although less empirically-driven,

another form of test validity is content validity, which refers to the extent to which a measure

effectively measures all facets of the construct it presumes to measure. One way to establish

the content validity of a measure is to have experts review and rate the survey. Because

evidence for construct validity could not be obtained with this specific data set, efforts to

establish the content validity of the subscales were conducted.

In the next attempt to assign items from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Questionnaire to their appropriate subscales, raters were asked to assign items to the four

subscales based on their evaluation of the validity of each item and inter-rater reliabilities were

calculated. Raters included four doctoral interns and one staff psychologist at a large

university counseling center. The five raters were chosen because they had all recently

completed a training seminar on utilizing Gottman's techniques with couples in a university

counseling center. The raters were given a copy of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Questionnaire (Appendix D) and asked to assign each item to one of the four subscales. Fleiss'

kappa (1971) statistic was utilized as a measure of overall agreement on the subscales. This

statistic is the appropriate choice for computing reliability of agreement between multiple

raters when assigning categorical ratings in an effort to classify items. Landis and Koch

(1977) stated that kappa values of .41-.60 indicate moderate agreement, while kappa values of

.61-.80 indicate substantial agreement.

Initial results for all 33-items yielded a Fleiss' kappa of .721. However, five items

yielded low inter-rater agreement. Four items yielded 60% agreement while a fifth item

yielded 40% agreement. These five items were dropped from the Four Horsemen of the
 54

Apocalypse Questionnaire. The 28-item questionnaire yielded a Fleiss' kappa of .827.

Removing any further items did not increase the kappa value. Cronbach’s alpha (1951) was

calculated to determine the internal consistency reliability of the scores resulting from each

subscale and the overall 28-item scale. This statistic assesses the intercorrelations between

items on a subscale and is the most widely used measure of internal consistency (Garson,

2008). Alphas above .6 are considered acceptable, while alphas between .7 and .9 are

considered good (Kline, 2000). The 28-item questionnaire can be found in Table 12 in

Appendix H. Included is an 8-item Criticism subscale (α = .701), an 8-item Defensiveness

subscale (α = .800), a 7-item Contempt subscale (α = .780), and a 5-item Stonewalling

subscale (α = .654). Each of the four subscales were correlated with one another other as well

as the total score, which is expected given Gottman's (1999) assertion that the Four Horsemen

often occur in response to each other. Correlations are included in Table 13 in Appendix H.

The overall reliability for the 28-item questionnaire is α = .912. This 28-item measure and

four subscales were used in all subsequent analyses.

 55

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Primary Analyses

The first hypothesis was that the presence of negative communication patterns in a

relationship, specifically each of Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Criticism,

Defensiveness, Contempt, and Stonewalling), would be associated with lower relationship

satisfaction in a sample of dating college students. Before testing this hypothesis, a

preliminary linear regression analysis was conducted. The standardized total score from the

Relationship Assessment Scale was entered as the outcome variable, with the standardized

total score of the 28-item Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire serving as the

independent variable. Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Length of Current

Relationship, and Long Distance Relationship (yes/no) were entered as control variables. This

preliminary linear regression model was significant (F(7, 188) = 16.253, p < .001) and explained

35% (Adjusted R2 = .354) of the variance in participants' relationship satisfaction scores as

measured by the Relationship Assessment Scale.

In order to test the hypothesis that the presence of negative communication patterns in

a relationship, specifically each of Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Criticism,

Defensiveness, Contempt, and Stonewalling), would be associated with lower relationship

satisfaction in a sample of dating college students, a multiple linear regression was conducted

using the standardized total score from the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) as the

outcome variable. Standardized total scores from each of the subscales of the Four Horsemen

of the Apocalypse Questionnaire were entered as the independent variables, with Age, Gender,

Race/Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Length of Current Relationship, and Long Distance

 56

Relationship (yes/no) entered as control variables. These demographic variables were chosen

as controls so that their potential influence on relationship satisfaction can be taken into

account and controlled for in order to avoid attributing their possible affects to the impact of

the Four Horsemen.

The linear regression model was significant (F(10, 185) = 12.784, p < .001) and explained

38% (Adjusted R2 = .377) of the variance in participants' relationship satisfaction scores as

measured by the Relationship Assessment Scale. Graphs of the residuals are included in

Figure 1; Appendix I. Graphs indicate that the residuals may be related to some of the

variables included in the model, which provides some evidence that the model may not be

appropriately specified. However, given the complexity of sources of variance in social

science models, the adjusted R2 does indicate that the model explains a large portion of

variance utilizing a relatively small number of variables. The results are given in Table 4.

Results indicate that of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Criticism (β = -.209, p <.05)

was found to be a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction, indicating that a one

standard deviation increase in Criticism score results in approximately one-fifth of a standard

deviation decrease in Relationship Assessment Scale score. Contempt (β = -.390, p <.001)

was also a significant predictor and shows that a one standard deviation increase in Contempt

score results in approximately two-fifths of a standard deviation decrease in Relationship

Assessment Scale score. Of the control variables, Age (β = -.159, p <.05) and Length of

Relationship (β = .150, p <.05) were statistically significant. A one standard deviation

increase in Age results in approximately one-sixth of a standard deviation decrease in

Relationship Assessment Scale score, and a one standard deviation increase in the Length of

the Relationship results in approximately one-seventh of a standard deviation increase in

Relationship Assessment Scale score.

 57

Table 4

Linear Regression Model Exploring How the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Impact Relationship Satisfaction Controlling for Demographic Variables (N =
196).

Β
Age -0.159 *
Length of Relationship 0.150 *
Gender 0.068
Race/Ethnicity -0.026
Sexual Orientation 0.034
Current Relationship Long Distance -0.022

Four Horsemen Criticism -0.209 *

Four Horsemen Defensiveness -0.054
Four Horsemen Contempt -0.390 ***
Four Horsemen Stonewalling -0.077

R2 0.409 ***
2
Adjusted R 0.377 ***
Note. β = Beta, the standardized regression coefficient
*p < .05 ***p < .001

The second hypothesis was that higher amounts of each of the five facets of

mindfulness would be associated with higher relationship satisfaction in the dating college

student sample. A linear multiple regression was conducted in order to test this hypothesis.

The standardized total score from the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) was entered as the

outcome variable. Standardized total scores from each of the subscales of the Five Facet

Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness,

Nonjudgment of Inner Experience, Nonreacting to Inner Experience) were entered as the

independent variables, with Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Length of

 58

Current Relationship, Long Distance Relationship (yes/no), and Mindfulness Training (yes/no)

entered as control variables.

The linear regression model was significant (F(12, 183) = 1.856, p < .05) and explained

5% (Adjusted R2 = .050) of the variance in participants' relationship satisfaction scores as

measures by the Relationship Assessment Scale (Table 5). As was the case in the first

hypothesis, graphs of the residuals (Figure 2; Appendix I) indicate that they may be related to

some of the variables included in the model. Results indicate that none of the five facets of

mindfulness (Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness, Nonjudgment of Inner

Experience, Nonreacting to Inner Experience) were found to be significant predictors of

relationship satisfaction. However, Formal Training in Mindfulness was statistically

significant (β =.143, p < .05). No control variables were found to be significant predictors. If

less rigorous standards of significance are applied, both Describing (β =.152, p < .1) and

Nonjudgment of Inner Experience (β =.160, p <. 1) were found to be significant predictors.

 59

Table 5

Linear Regression Model Exploring How the Five Facets of Mindfulness

Impact Relationship Satisfaction Taking Into Account Demographic Variables
(N = 196).

Standardized β Coefficient
Age -0.097
Length of Relationship 0.046
Gender 0.020
Race/Ethnicity 0.133
Sexual Orientation -0.022
Current Relationship Long Distance -0.006

FFMQ Observe 0.074

FFMQ Describe 0.152 ~
FFMQ Act with Awareness -0.020
FFMQ Nonjudgment 0.160 ~
FFMQ Nonreacting -0.012
Formal Mindfulness Training 0.143 *

R2 0.109 *
2
Adjusted R 0.050 *
Note. β = Beta, the standardized regression coefficient
~p < .1 *p < .05

In the final analysis it was hypothesized that increased mindfulness skills could be

utilized to reduce the negative impact of the Four Horsemen on relationship satisfaction.

This was tested using a blocked (or hierarchal) regression analysis. Blocked regression allows

the researcher to determine the strength of a group (or block) of variables in relation to other

groups of variables, and to determine if the addition of a variable or group of variables affects

the significant level or strength of relationship between another predictor and the outcome

variables. This analysis is well-suited for answering the research question because it allowed
 60

the researcher to observe how the influence of the Four Horsemen on relationship satisfaction

changed when the five facets of mindfulness were added to the model.

In the first block, demographic variables including Age, Sex, Race, and Sexual

Orientation, Length of Current Relationship, Long Distance Relationship (yes/no) were

included. In the second block, standardized totals for each subscale of the Four Horsemen

(Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt, Stonewalling) were included. In the third and final

block, standardized total scores for each of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

subscales were included (Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness, Nonjudgment of

Inner Experience, and Nonreactivity to Inner Experience). Additionally, the dichotomous

variable assessing whether or not one has ever had formal mindfulness training was included

in this third block as an additional control on the effect of mindfulness. The results from each

of the blocks are given in Table 6.

The first block containing demographic variables was not significant (F(6, 189) = 0.741, p

= .617), indicating that the demographic variables alone do not account for a significant

amount of variance in relationship satisfaction scores.

The second block containing the influences of the Four Horsemen was significant (F(10,

185) = 12.784, p < .001) and accounted for 38% of the variance in relationship satisfaction

scores (Adjusted R2 = .377). Consistent with findings from the first hypothesis, Criticism (β =

-.209, p < .05) and Contempt (β = -.390, p < .001) were both significant predictors of

relationship satisfaction, as were Age (β = -.159, p < .05) and Length of Relationship (β =

.150, p < .05).

The third block included the addition of the five facets of mindfulness (Observing,

Describing, Acting with Awareness, Nonjudgment of Inner Experience, Nonnreacting to Inner

Experience) as well as the Formal Training in Mindfulness variable. The full hierarchal
 61

regression model was significant (F(16, 179) = 8.812, p < .001) and explained 39% (Adjusted R2

= .391) of the variance in relationship satisfaction. Again, graphs indicate that the residuals

may be related to variables included in the model (Figure 3; Appendix I). Criticism (β = -.206,

p < .05) and Contempt (β = .-.401, p < .001) remained significant. Although this model was

significant, the addition of the mindfulness variables accounted for only a 1% increase in the

amount of variance explained by the model. Furthermore, none of the five facets were

significant predictors of relationship satisfaction. If less rigorous standards of significance are

applied, only Describing (β = .119, p < .1) and Formal Mindfulness Training (β = .105, p < .1)

would be significant predictors.

The change in R2 between the second and third models indicates that the addition of the

Four Horsemen was significant, specifically in that Criticism and Contempt are significant

predictors of relationship satisfaction. Although the third model indicates that the addition of

the mindfulness facets accounts for a significant proportion of variance in relationship

satisfaction, the change in R2 was only 1%, which indicates that the mindfulness facets have a

relatively small but still statistically significant impact on relationship satisfaction.

Furthermore, the impact of the Four Horsemen was relatively unchanged after mindfulness

facets were added to the model, which indicates that any impact these facets have on

relationship satisfaction occurs directly and not through increasing or decreasing the Four

Horsemen. It is more likely that the significant amount of variance accounted for by the

addition of the mindfulness facets was previously associated with the error term or residuals in

previous models.
 62

Table 6

Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How the Five Facets of Mindfulness Impact Relationship
Satisfaction Taking Into Account the Impact of Demographics and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Negative Communication Patterns (N = 196).

Block 3: Five
Facet
Block 1: Block 2: Four Mindfulness
Demographics Horsemen Questionnaire

Β Β Β

Age -0.118 -0.159 * -0.148 *

Length of Relationship 0.053 0.150 * 0.144 *
Gender 0.021 0.068 0.073
Race/Ethnicity 0.099 -0.026 -0.009
Sexual Orientation -0.009 0.034 0.012

Current Relationship Long Distance -0.003 -0.022 -0.040

Four Horsemen Criticism -0.209 * -0.207 *

Four Horsemen Defensiveness -0.054 -0.018
Four Horsemen Contempt -0.390 *** -0.401 ***
Four Horsemen Stonewalling -0.077 -0.065

FFMQ Observe 0.070

FFMQ Describe 0.119 ~
FFMQ Act with Awareness -0.014
FFMQ Nonjudgment 0.017
FFMQ Nonreacting -0.013
Formal Mindfulness Training 0.105 ~

R2 0.023 0.409 *** 0.441 ***

Adjusted R2 -0.008 0.377 *** 0.391 ***
Change in R2 0.014
Note. β = Beta, the standardized regression coefficient
~p < .1 *p < .05 ***p < .001
 63

Secondary Analyses

Although subjects who indicated they were not currently in a dating relationship did

complete the survey, they were asked to answer survey questions based on their recollections

of their most recent relationship. By definition, this relationship had already ended, which

suggests it is qualitatively different from the ongoing relationships of other participants.

Furthermore, subjects' responses about a past relationship could be biased due to a number of

factors including how long ago the relationship ended, memory, how the relationship ended,

and why the relationship ended, among others. Therefore, only subjects who indicated they

were in a relationship at the time of data collection and provided a response to all questions on

the survey (N=196) were included in the primary analyses. In order to further support the idea

that the Current Relationship and Most Recent Relationship groups are qualitatively different,

an independent samples t-test was conducted comparing the Current Relationship (N = 229)

group with the Most Recent Relationship (N=177) group on age, whether or not they had

previously received mindfulness training, and all measures used in the study. All variables

were standardized prior to analysis. Results are included in Table 7 below.

Results indicate significant differences between the Current Relationship and Most

Recent Relationship groups on the Four Horsemen Questionnaire total score as well as each of

the Four Horsemen subscale scores. Specifically, the Most Recent Relationship group (M=

.414, SD=.999) scored significantly higher than the Current Relationship group (M=-.320,

SD=.878) on the Four Horsemen Total Score (t(404)=7.87, p<.000). The Most Recent

Relationship group (M= .365, SD=.992) also scored significantly higher than the Current

Relationship group (M=-.282, SD=.913) on the Four Horsemen Criticism subscale

(t(404)=6.82, p <.000). Similarly, the Most Recent Relationship group (M= .323, SD=.975)
 64

scored significantly higher than the Current Relationship group (M=-.250, SD=.947) on the

Four Horsemen Defensiveness subscale (t(404)=5.97, p <.000). Additionally, the Most Recent

Relationship group (M= .414, SD=1.062) scored significantly higher than the Current

Relationship group (M=-.320, SD=.818) on the Four Horsemen Contempt subscale

(t(404)=7.87, p <.000). The Most Recent Relationship group (M= .338, SD=1.024) also scored

significantly higher than the Current Relationship group (M=-.261, SD=.900) on the Four

Horsemen Stonewalling subscale (t(404)=6.27, p <.000). As might be expected, the results

indicate that relationships that have already ended included significantly higher amounts of the

Four Horsemen negative communication patterns. In addition to the aforementioned

differences between current relationships and recall of past relationships, these results support

the decision to only include those currently in a relationship in the primary analyses in an

effort to answer the research questions of the current study.

 65

Table 7

Results of T-tests Comparing Outcome Measures by Relationship Status

Relationship Std. Mean

Outcome Status N Mean Deviation Difference T-Value df
Four Horsemen Total Most Recent 177 0.4143 0.9985 0.7344 7.871*** 404
Current 229 -0.3202 0.8778

Four Horsemen Criticism Most Recent 177 0.3649 0.9922 0.6469 6.817*** 404
Current 229 -0.2820 0.9128

Four Horsemen Defensiveness Most Recent 177 0.3235 0.9750 0.5735 5.970*** 404
Current 229 -0.2500 0.9479

Four Horsemen Contempt Most Recent 177 0.4142 1.0619 0.7343 7.870*** 404
Current 229 -0.3201 0.8184

Four Horsemen Stonewalling Most Recent 177 0.3382 1.0241 0.5996 6.268*** 404
Current 229 -0.2614 0.8996

RAS Total Score Most Recent 177 -0.6873 0.8851 -1.2185 -15.273*** 404
Current 229 0.5312 0.7221

FFMQ Total Score Most Recent 177 -0.1278 0.9530 -0.2266 -2.276* 404
Current 229 0.0988 1.0261

FFMQ Observe Most Recent 177 0.0407 0.9575 0.0721 0.720 404
Current 229 -0.0315 1.0326

FFMQ Describe Most Recent 177 -0.0412 1.0254 -0.0731 -0.730 404
Current 229 0.0319 0.9809

FFMQ Act with Awareness Most Recent 177 -0.1848 1.0082 -0.3277 -3.315** 404
Current 229 0.1429 0.9719

FFMQ Nonjudgment Most Recent 177 -0.1525 0.9689 -0.2704 -2.723 404
Current 229 0.1179 1.0098

FFMQ Nonreacting Most Recent 177 0.0264 1.0524 0.0468 0.467 404
Current 229 -0.0204 0.9594

Age Most Recent 177 19.1469 1.4813 -0.1940 -1.116 404

Current 229 19.3406 1.9073

Mindfulness Training Most Recent 177 0.1412 0.3493 -0.0160 -0.445 404
Current 229 0.1572 0.3648
*p <.05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
 66

Similarly, Gottman (1999) reports that gender differences may be present in the way

the Four Horsemen manifest in relationships. For example, men are more likely than women

to respond to criticism by stonewalling (Gottman, 1999). These gender differences were one

reason that gender was controlled for in previous analyses. In an effort to further explore any

gender differences that may be present in the sample, an independent samples t-test was

conducted comparing the males and females on each of the subscales of the Four Horsemen of

the Apocalypse Questionnaire. All variables were standardized prior to analysis. Results are

included in Table 8. Results indicate that for the sample there were no significant differences

between males and females on the total score or any subscale scores of the Four Horsemen of

the Apocalypse Questionnaire.

Table 8

Results of T-tests Comparing the Four Horsemen by Gender (N = 406)

Std. Mean
Outcome Gender N Mean Deviation Difference T-Value df
Four Horsemen Total Females 256 0.0027 1.0356 0.0072 0.070 404
Males 150 -0.0045 0.9395

Four Horsemen Criticism Females 256 -0.0463 1.0157 -0.1253 -1.219 404
Males 150 0.0790 0.9709

Four Horsemen Defensiveness Females 256 -0.0205 0.9982 -0.0555 -0.540 404
Males 150 0.0350 1.0054

Four Horsemen Contempt Females 256 0.0592 1.0552 0.1604 1.632 404
Males 150 -0.1011 0.8924

Four Horsemen Stonewalling Females 256 0.0298 1.0370 0.0806 0.784 404
Males 150 -0.0508 0.9347

Additionally, another secondary analysis was performed utilizing a blocked regression.

It was hypothesized in that increased mindfulness skills can be utilized to reduce the negative
 67

impact of the Four Horsemen on relationship satisfaction. Results for participants currently in

relationships supported the hypothesis that the Four Horsemen have a negative impact on

relationship satisfaction for the sample. However, results did not support the hypothesis that

mindfulness skills could be utilized to reduce this impact. A similar regression analysis was

conducted using data from the participants who previously indicated that they were not

currently in a relationship and responded to questionnaires based on their most recent

relationship. Of the 177 participants that indicated they were not currently in a relationship,

152 (88%) indicated that they had been in a previous relationship and supplied data based on

that relationship. Results are included in Table 9 below.

In the first block, demographic variables including Age, Sex, Race, and Sexual

Orientation, and Length of Previous Relationship, were included. In the second block,

standardized totals for each subscale of the Four Horsemen (Criticism, Defensiveness,

Contempt, Stonewalling) were included. In the third and final block, standardized total scores

for each of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire subscales were included (Observing,

Describing, Acting with Awareness, Nonjudgment of Inner Experience, and Nonreactivity to

Inner Experience). Additionally, the dichotomous variable assessing whether or not one has

ever had formal mindfulness training was included in this third block as an additional control

on the effect of mindfulness. The results from each of the blocks are given in Table 9.

The first block containing demographic variables was not significant (F(5, 146) = 0.484, p

= .788), indicating that the demographic variables alone do not account for a significant

amount of variance in relationship satisfaction scores.

The second block containing the influences of the Four Horsemen was significant (F(9,

142) = 5.165, p < .001) and accounted for 20% of the variance in relationship satisfaction scores

(Adjusted R2 = .199). Consistent with findings from Current Relationship group analysis,
 68

Criticism (β = -.262, p < .05) and Contempt (β = -.267, p < .05) were both significant

predictors of relationship satisfaction. Age and Length of Relationship were not significant

predictors for this group of participants.

Consistent with the Current Relationship group analysis, the third block included the

addition of the five facets of mindfulness (Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness,

Nonjudgment of Inner Experience, Nonnreacting to Inner Experience) as well as the Formal

Training in Mindfulness variable. The full hierarchal regression model was significant (F(15,

186) = 3.384, p < .001) and explained 19% (Adjusted R2 = .192) of the variance in relationship

satisfaction. Criticism (β = -.268, p < .05) and Contempt (β = .-.229, p < .05) remained

significant. Although this model was significant, the addition of the mindfulness variables

resulted in a 1% decrease in the amount of variance explained by the model. None of the five

facets were significant predictors of relationship satisfaction.

Similar to the Current Relationship group, the change in R2 between the first and

second models indicates that the addition of the Four Horsemen was significant, specifically in

that Criticism and Contempt continue to be significant predictors of relationship satisfaction.

However, unlike with the Current Relationship group, the addition of the mindfulness

variables into the third block of the model actually resulted in a decrease in the amount of

variance explained, albeit a small and practically meaningless decrease. Again, the impact of

the Four Horsemen was relatively unchanged after mindfulness facets were added to the

model. These results lend further evidence to the argument that the Four Horsemen,

specifically Criticism and Contempt, are significant predictors of relationship satisfaction in

college student relationships, whereas mindfulness skill are not.

 69

Table 9

Hierarchical Regression Model Exploring How the Five Facets of Mindfulness Impact Relationship Satisfaction
Taking Into Account the Impact of Demographics and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in Participants'
Most Recent Relationships

Block 1: Block 2: Four Block 3: Five Facet Mindfulness

Demographics Horsemen Questionnaire
Β Β Β
Age 0.039 -0.041 -0.049
Length of Past Relationship -0.045 0.080 0.082
Gender 0.092 0.033 0.013
Race/Ethnicity -0.053 -0.073 -0.054
Sexual Orientation -0.026 -0.037 -0.039

Four Horsemen Criticism -0.262* -0.268*

Four Horsemen Defensiveness -0.014 -0.023
Four Horsemen Contempt -0.267* -0.239*
Four Horsemen Stonewalling -0.014 -0.034

FFMQ Observe 0.081

FFMQ Describe -0.16~
FFMQ Act with Awareness 0.069
FFMQ Nonjudgment 0.005
FFMQ Nonreacting 0.097
Formal Mindfulness Training -0.054

R2 0.016 0.247*** 0.272***

Adjusted R2 -0.017 0.199*** 0.192***
Change in R2 -0.007
Note. β = Beta, the standardized regression coefficient
~p < .1 *p < .05 ***p < .001
 70

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationships between Gottman's Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse, mindfulness, and relationship satisfaction in a sample of dating

college students. Although Gottman (1999) suggested that skills like mindfulness may play

an important role in helping couples to regulate conflict and overcome the impact negative

communication patterns may have on their relationship, to date no study has empirically

examined these relationships. The current study had multiple goals. First, the study aimed to

explore the relationship between the Four Horsemen negative communication patterns of

criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling and relationship satisfaction in a sample

of dating college students. Next, the study aimed to examine the relationship between the

different facets of mindfulness and relationship satisfaction in the sample of dating college

students. Finally, the study hoped to show that the facets of mindfulness may mediate the

relationship between the Four Horsemen and relationship satisfaction.

One of the major contributions of the study, and possibly one of the most

important findings, was established prior to any research question being examined. While

attempting to analyze the data, it was discovered that although multiple studies (Boska, 2005;

Walker, 2005) and literature (Gottman, 1999) discuss the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Questionnaire and the associated subscales measuring criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and

stonewalling, no publication includes a method of scoring the subscales or which items should

be included on the respective subscales. Therefore, before any research questions could be

answered, analyses for assigning items and scoring each of the subscales were conducted.
 71

The first attempt included an exploratory factor analysis with a proposed four factor

solution corresponding to each of the four subscales. Unfortunately, results indicated a two

factor structure and did not provide a workable solution in assigning items to the four

subscales. This finding calls into question the construct validity of the Four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse questionnaire, especially in terms of using it to assess these negative

communication patterns in college student dating relationships. It may also suggest that two

factors underlie the four negative communication patterns known as the Four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse. This measure was not necessarily designed for research purposes and was instead

designed to give clinicians a ways of measuring the presence of the Four Horsemen in couples

who are currently in therapy, but the current results suggest that it may not be assessing the

presence of four distinct constructs. However, if an empirically valid and reliable version of

the subscales can be constructed through future research, the potential for the measure to be

utilized in research settings is quite high, as it purports to capture the presence of very popular

constructs related to negative communication, and a framework for working with clients

utilizing the concepts already exists. Further evaluation of the measure, especially in terms of

establishing the construct validity with a sample of dating college students, could provide a

meaningful contribution to the study of the Four Horsemen in dating relationships.

Although construct validity was not supported for the Four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse Questionnaire, content validity was examined through the use of interrater

reliability. Five doctoral interns who had been trained in Gottman's techniques assigned items

to their corresponding subscales, and kappa's were computed using the results. Results

indicated strong interrater reliability for each of the subscales. A 28-item version of the Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse was produced, with internal consistency data suggesting strong

reliabilities for each subscale as well as the overall measure. Although further work is needed
 72

to establish the clinical utility of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire, the

current study provides a method for assigning items to and scoring each subscale as well as a

rationale for the decisions involved in the process. In the absence of available information on

Gottman's original subscales or a more empirically-derived method of assigning items to

subscales, the subscales produced in the current study may prove useful for future researchers

wishing to examine the Four Horsemen.

The first research question aimed to examine the relationship between the Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse and relationship satisfaction in a sample of dating college

students. In order to examine this relationship, a multiple linear regression analysis was

conducted. After controlling for various demographic variables including age, gender,

race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation as well as the length of the relationship and whether or

not it was a long distance relationship, it was found that the Four Horsemen accounted for 38%

of the variance in relationship satisfaction scores. More specifically, both criticism and

contempt were found to be predictors of relationship satisfaction. Gottman (1999) highlighted

the impact contempt has on a relationship, stating that the amount of contempt in a stable,

successful relationship is "essentially zero" (Gottman, 1999, p.46). Consistent with Gottman's

assertion and previous findings, contempt was found to be the strongest predictor of

relationship satisfaction. For every one standard deviation increase in contempt scores,

subjects reported a two-fifths of a standard deviation decrease in relationship satisfaction

scores. Similarly, a one standard deviation increase in criticism scores results in a one-fifth

standard deviation decrease in relationship satisfaction. In general, as criticism and contempt

increase in a relationship, the satisfaction with the relationship decreases.

An additional blocked regression analysis was conducted using only those individuals

who answered items based on their previous relationship, which by definition had already
 73

ended. Again, after controlling for demographics, the Four Horsemen were found to be

significant predictors of relationship satisfaction and accounted for 20% of the variance in

relationship satisfaction scores. Furthermore, consistent with the prior analysis, Criticism and

Contempt were both found to be significant predictors, whereas Defensiveness and

Stonewalling were not. Although the model performed similarly in terms of significance, it is

notable that the model accounted for nearly twice the amount of variance in relationship

satisfaction scores of the Current Relationship group compared to the Most Recent

Relationship group. As previously discussed, subjects' responses about a past relationship

could be biased due to a number of factors including how long ago the relationship ended,

memory, how the relationship ended, and why the relationship ended. These differences could

account for the differences in variance accounted for in the two populations. A more thorough

assessment of the Most Recent Relationship is necessary in order to further understand how

the current model operates with this population.

Providing further evidence of the role that the Four Horsemen play in college student

dating relationships, t-test comparing individuals who answered items based on their current

relationship to those who answered items based on their most recent relationship, which by

definition had already ended, revealed significantly higher levels of each of the Four

Horsemen in those responding according to their most recent ended relationship. However,

the proposed model accounted for less of the variance in relationship satisfaction scores for the

Most Recent Relationship group as compared to the Current Relationship Group, which

indicates factors other than the Four Horsemen not captured by the model may have played a

more significant role in the relationship satisfaction scores of the Most Recent Relationship

Group. Given the nature of data collection and analyses, the ending of the relationship cannot

be attributed directly to higher levels of each of the Four Horsemen, but this finding does
 74

suggest that the past relationships may have contained significantly higher amounts of the Four

Horsemen compared to current relationships, which are still ongoing. The significantly higher

amounts of the Four Horsemen provide one possible explanation for why these relationships

might have ended.

Alternatively, another possible explanation for the differences in the amounts of the

Four Horsemen is that participants in the Current Relationship group may have more

relationship experience, may be older, and may have had more opportunities to learn from

previous experiences. Unlike in the Most Recent Relationship Group, the Current

Relationship group is responding about a relationship with at least one college-aged partner,

and the relationship is currently taking place while the respondent is in college. Because

information about the nature and quality of the relationships of Most Recent Relationship

group was not assessed, these individuals may be responding about past relationships that took

place during their high school or even junior high years. These past relationships may have

taken place when the participants were younger and at a different developmental level than the

typical college student. It may be the case that the Four Horsemen are simply more prevalent

in adolescent relationships or in individuals with less relationship experience, and this could

account for the difference in the Four Horsemen between the Current Relationship and Most

Recent Relationship groups.

Similarly, another possible explanation for the significantly higher amounts of the Four

Horsemen in the Most Recent Relationship group may be due to the fact that these participants

are recalling aspects of a relationship that has ended, as opposed to the Current Relationship

group that is reporting aspects of a current relationship. It may be that past relationships are

recalled in a more negative light, especially for individuals who experienced difficult break-

ups, and this may result in higher amounts of the Four Horsemen being reported.
 75

Future research should assess the presence of the Four Horsemen in younger

adolescent dating relationships so that the possible changes in these negative communication

patterns over time and through different developmental periods can be assessed. In addition to

comparing younger adolescent relationships to college dating relationships, longitudinal

designs may be utilized to assess the presence of the Four Horsemen and how these negative

communication patterns change over time in a sample of the same individuals. If information

about past relationship is to be obtained, careful consideration should be made in order to

assess specific information about the quality and duration of the relationship, including when

the relationship began and ended, how the relationship ended, and why. This information is

important if any conclusions are to be drawn in comparing past relationships to current ones.

Similarly, one area of interest that could be captured by longitudinal designs, and one

that would assist in further understanding the Four Horsemen, involves the role that

personality may play in the presence of the Four Horsemen in relationships. The Four

Horsemen are discussed in the context of interactive behavior that occurs in marital and dating

relationships. However, it may be the case that personality traits make one partner more likely

to exhibit certain negative communication patterns in the context of romantic relationships as

well as in other relationships including friendships, relationships with parents, and

relationships with children. For example, McCrae and Costa (1997) discuss the five-factor

model of personality, otherwise known as The Big Five. It may be the case that individuals

who score high on one or some combination of these factors, which include neuroticism,

extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, are more likely to engage in the

Four Horsemen in their relationships, and this likelihood may be stable over time regardless of

the behavior of one's partner. A longitudinal design would allow researchers to observe how

the Four Horsemen are present over time in relation to personality characteristics.
 76

In support of the first hypothesis, results provide evidence that Gottman's Four

Horsemen are a suitable framework for discussing relationship problems with dating college

students in a clinical setting when criticism and contempt appear to be present in their

concerns. Gottman's theory, therapeutic techniques, and interventions are highly publicized

and accessible, and they provide a clear and understandable framework for clients to work

with. However, because they are marketed for married couples, these techniques may not

often be applied to dating college students, and they may often be overlooked and

underutilized in college counseling centers and other agencies treating college students. The

current study provides further evidence that Gottman's theory and interventions may be useful

when working will college students who are not only married by are also in committed dating

relationships. Furthermore, because the Four Horsemen are present in college student dating

relationships, psychoeducation and workshops including the Four Horsemen, specifically

Criticism and Contempt, and Gottman's techniques may prove useful in enhancing the

relationships and communications of college students.

Unfortunately, not all of the Four Horsemen were significant predictors of relationship

satisfaction in the sample. Further research is needed to understand the role that

Defensiveness and Stonewalling might play in student dating relationships, especially given

that Gottman (1999) suggests defensiveness occurs in response to criticism and stonewalling

occurs when individuals become emotionally overwhelmed. Because the Four Horsemen may

occur in response to each other, the current findings highlight the importance of assessing both

members of the relational dyad in assessing the role the Four Horsemen play in relationships.

Furthermore, the applicability of the Four Horsemen to individuals at different developmental

levels was previously mentioned. One possibility is that Criticism and Contempt impact

college student dating relationships in ways that Defensiveness and Stonewalling do not, but
 77

this may change over the course of time as individuals mature, have more practice

communicating with their partners, and develop a more stable sense of identity. Another

possibility is that a generational shift has occurred in terms of how the Four Horsemen impact

the dating relationships of college students, and Defensiveness and Stonewalling no longer

play the significant role they once did. As previously noted, more research is needed on how

the Four Horsemen impact relationships over the course of the lifetime in order to further

understand their impact in relationships.

The second aim of the study was to show that higher amounts of each of the Five

Facets of mindfulness, which include Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness,

Nonjudgment of Inner Experience, and Nonreacting to Inner Experience, would be associated

with higher relationship satisfaction in the sample of dating college students. A multiple linear

regression analyses was conducted in order to test whether any of the five facets of

mindfulness would be able to predict relationship satisfaction scores after controlling for

demographic variables, length of current relationship, whether or not the current relationship

was long distance, and whether or not one had undergone previous training in mindfulness.

Although the model was significant, the Five Facets of mindfulness accounted for only 5% of

the variance in relationship satisfaction scores. Surprisingly, none of the Five Facets of

mindfulness were significant predictors of relationship satisfaction. However, whether or not

one had ever received forming mindfulness training was in fact a significant predictor of

relationship satisfaction.

These findings are in direct contrast to previous research on the role mindfulness may

play in relationship satisfaction. Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, and Rogge (2007)

utilized a sample of 82 dating college students and found that both state and trait mindfulness

predicted higher relationship satisfaction and greater capacities to respond to relationship

 78

distress. Carson, Carson, Gil, and Baucom (2004) evaluated the Mindfulness-Based

Relationship Enhancement program and found that mindfulness improved relationship

distress, relationship happiness, and relationship satisfaction. It is unclear why the results of

the current project are not consistent with findings from previous studies, but multiple

possibilities exist.

First, considering both the fact that none of the Five Facets of mindfulness were

significant predictors of relationship satisfaction and whether or not one had ever received

forming mindfulness training was in fact a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction, it

would appear as though at least one component of formal mindfulness training, other than the

Five Facets, is associated with increased relationship satisfaction. For example, it may be that

taking initiative and putting effort into learning a skill in order to improve one's relationship is

meaningful in and of itself, and this results in increased satisfaction with one's relationship.

The more one has invested in the relationship, the more likely they may be to report being

satisfied. In other words, if a couple attends the Mindfulness-Based Relationship

Enhancement program, it may not necessarily be increased mindfulness skills that improve

their relationship, but instead they may derive a sense of happiness or comfort with knowing

that they made an effort to improve the relationship. Further research is necessary in order to

explore what factors of mindfulness training other than the Five Facets may result in increased

relationship satisfaction.

Additionally, it may be the case that possessing mindfulness skills alone does not result

in increased relationship satisfaction, but being trained on how to formally utilize those skills

in the contact of a romantic relationship does. It is possible the Five Facets do actually have

the potential to provide increases in relationship satisfaction for college students, but college

students do not think to utilize these skills in the context of interpersonal communication and
 79

conflict discussions until the benefits of doing so are pointed out during formal mindfulness

training. For example, an individual may possess the ability to calmly observe and describe

their anxiety, and they may be able to resist reacting to this anxiety in an intrapersonal context,

such as prior to taking an exam. However, they may not be aware of how to utilize these skills

in an interpersonal context like a negative conflict discussion with their partner. A

mindfulness training program may orient them to utilizing their skill set in a way that improves

their relationship satisfaction.

Another possible explanation for these finding might be the lack of diversity in the

current sample, which unlike other studies, includes mostly white, heterosexual freshman and

sophomore college students. Other studies in which mindfulness was found to predict

relationship satisfaction include samples that are older and more racially and ethnically

diverse, even when those samples involve college students. It may be the case that individuals

learn to utilize mindfulness skills in their relationships more over time. Even in a college

sample it is possible that college juniors and seniors, who have undergone more socialization

on campus and have had more time to date during college compared to freshman and

sophomores, utilize more mindfulness skills in an effort to improve their relationships. In this

way, samples containing more diversity may produce different results in terms of the

relationship between mindfulness and relationship satisfaction.

Evidence from the current study does not support the use of mindfulness interventions

alone for helping college students who are struggling with the Four Horsemen in their dating

relationships. As previously noted, research has shown the clinical utility of mindfulness

interventions and their positive impact on relationship satisfaction, but in terms of this sample

of young dating college students, they may not be effective as a primary treatment for treating

communication problems in romantic relationships with this population. Given the growing
 80

amount of literature on mechanisms of mindfulness action and the positive benefits of

mindfulness in emotional regulation and relationship satisfaction, it is surprising to find that

mindfulness accounted for only a small portion of the variance (5%) in relationship

satisfaction scores. Furthermore, results indicate that although mindfulness did not impact

relationship satisfaction in meaningful ways, mindfulness training had a small but significant

impact on satisfaction scores. Further examination of mindfulness programs and their impact

on relationship satisfaction is warranted, as results indicate that aspects of mindfulness training

unrelated to the five facets of mindfulness may enhance relationship satisfaction in college

students in dating relationships.

The third and final hypothesis was that mindfulness facets would mediate the

relationship between the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and relationship satisfaction. In

order to test this hypothesis, a blocked regression analyses was conducted that included

demographic variables in the first block, the Four Horsemen in the second block, and

mindfulness facets and whether or not one had previous training in mindfulness in the third

block. Consistent with previous analyses, the first block containing demographic variables

was not statistically significant. Although this study was not focused on the effect of

demographic characteristics on relationship satisfaction, it is notable that demographic

variables including gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation, were not found to influence

these college students’ satisfaction with their dating relationship. Although race/ethnicity and

sexual orientation were quite limited in the sample, gender was not (33.7% male). The

literature has yet to reach a strong conclusion regarding the impact of gender on relationship

satisfaction. Although pop culture continues to highlight the differences between genders in

romantic relationships, various studies report no significant differences among genders in

relationship satisfaction (Karantzas, Goncalves, Feeney, & McCabe, 2011; Kurdek, 2005).
 81

The current study supports previous research findings in that gender was not a significant

predictor of relationship satisfaction.

The second block containing the Four Horsemen was significant and accounted for

38% of the variance in relationship satisfaction scores. Again, criticism and contempt were

significant predictors of relationship satisfaction, while defensiveness and stonewalling were

not. Although the third block including mindfulness facets was significant, the addition of the

mindfulness factors accounted for only a 1% increase in the amount of variance accounted for

by the model. Furthermore, the amount of variance accounted for by the Four Horsemen went

relatively unchanged with the addition of the mindfulness factors, which does not support the

hypothesis that mindfulness may mediate the relationship between the Four Horsemen and

relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest that mindfulness has a statistically significant

but practically negligible impact on relationship satisfaction in the sample, and this impact

does not affect the relationship between the Four Horsemen and relationship satisfaction.

In order to further evaluate this third hypothesis that mindfulness may mediate the

relationship between the Four Horsemen and relationship satisfaction, a similar blocked

regression analysis was conducted using the data from individuals who answered items

according to their most recent ended relationship. Demographic variables including length of

relationship were included in the first block, while the Four Horsemen were included in the

second block. The third block contained the five facets of mindfulness as well as whether or

not one has had formal mindfulness training. Results were largely consistent with the previous

analysis involving the current relationship group. After controlling for demographics, the

second model containing the Four Horsemen was significant and accounted for 20% of the

overall variance in relationship satisfaction scores. Again, both Criticism and Contempt were

significant predictors, while Defensiveness and Stonewalling were not. While the third model
 82

was significant, the addition of the mindfulness facets actually accounted for a 1% decrease in

the variance explained by the model. Furthermore, the impact of the Four Horsemen went

mostly unchanged. Again, these findings suggest that mindfulness has a statistically

significant but practically meaningless impact on satisfaction in the sample, and this impact

does not affect the relationship between the Four Horsemen and relationship satisfaction.

Limitations

The current research study has a number of limitations. First, the sample lacks

diversity, which inhibits the generalizability of the findings. The sample is 84% White, 95%,

Heterosexual, and 71% first-year students. This lack of diversity is not surprising given the

demographics of the university from which the sample was taken and the fact that most

participants were involved in an introductory psychology course, but this information should

be considered when interpreting results. On this basis, the findings of the current study may

not be generalizable to the general population of college students and may instead only apply

to first or second year college students at universities with similar demographics. Performing

a replication study of the current model at a larger, more diverse university, and recruiting

subjects through means other than only introductory psychology courses would likely produce

a more diverse sample and allow researchers to answer further questions about the impact the

sample has on the current study.

Additionally, of the demographic information collected, Length of Relationship may

provide some interesting information regarding the applicability of findings to the college

student population. The current study set out to assess how the Four Horsemen and

mindfulness play a role in college student dating relationship satisfaction. However, with 71%

of the participants being freshman, the average age being nineteen, and the average length of

the current relationship being twenty-three months, much of what is being assessed are
 83

communications and interactions that took place during the high school years prior to college.

Again, this calls into question the generalizability of findings, and a replication model of the

current study with a more diverse group of dating college students would allow for more

affirmative conclusions to be made regarding the generalizability of findings.

Furthermore, the proposed model performs differently for those individuals currently in

a relationship as compared to those who were asked to recall information about their most

recent relationship, accounting for nearly twice the amount of variance in relationship

satisfaction for those individuals currently in a relationship. For those individuals responding

about their most recent relationship, other variables account for 80% of this variance. In order

to assess the impact of the Four Horsemen and mindfulness on individuals whose relationships

have already ended, a more intentional focus with more specific research questions regarding

the relationship is needed.

Additionally, although there was evidence of face validity regarding the Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire, factor analysis failed to provide evidence for the

construct validity of the measure for the current sample. A two-factor structure was found,

which calls into question the utility of the instrument with this particular population. Thus,

any conclusions drawn about the role the Four Horsemen play in the current sample of dating

college students can be brought into question on the basis of the existing measure. Further

research, especially in terms of providing evidence for validity, is warranted in order to

develop the subscales of Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire for individual

analysis.

Similarly, some questions exist in the literature as to how to best capture a construct

such as relationship or marital satisfaction. Bradbury, Fincham, and Beach (2000) outline

some of the pros and cons of using brief global measures versus more complex measures that
 84

may capture different aspects of relationship satisfaction. The authors caution researchers that

more lengthy measures of satisfaction may actually be capturing overlapping constructs that

are either related to or represent different aspects of relationship satisfaction. However, more

global measures of relationship satisfaction may represent an oversimplification and may not

capture the complexity of the construct. As previously noted, Hendrick's (1988) Relationship

Assessment Scale is a widely used measure of relationship satisfaction that was suitable for

use in the current study. However, it is possible that a more complex measure of satisfaction

could have captured unique aspects of relationship satisfaction in the current sample of dating

college students.

Another possible limitation of the current study is that only individuals were assessed

as opposed to both members of the relationship dyad. Therefore, results are based on the

perceptions of only one member of the relationship, and these perceptions cannot be compared

to those of the other partner. This is especially significant in terms of the Four Horsemen of

the Apocalypse Questionnaire, which includes questions about one's own behavior as well as

the behavior of one's partner. Gottman (1999) described how one of the Four Horsemen may

occur in response to another. For example, defensiveness may occur in response to criticism.

If one partner is a frequent criticizer but is not often defensive, only one part of the Four

Horsemen may be captured in the present study.

Furthermore, any impact that gender may have on the interaction between members of

the same relationship dyad cannot be assessed in the current study. Gottman suggests that

gender may play an important role in the presence of the Four Horsemen and relationship

satisfaction in relationship dyads. For example, Gottman states that men are more likely to

respond to criticism by stonewalling. In other research, Gottman (1998) suggests that a

husband's ability to self-soothe in response to relationship conflict, which is one mechanism of

 85

mindfulness action and is likely related to the Four Horsemen, was a predictor of marital

stability among newlyweds. The same was not found for wives. Although an independent

samples t-test revealed no gender differences for the Four Horsemen in the current sample,

Gottman's previous findings illustrate the importance of examining the impact of gender as

well as both members of the relationship dyad. Future studies should include a more complex

research design that includes collecting data from college-student couples who are currently in

a dating relationship. Doing so will allow for the analysis of the interaction between members

of relationship dyads, which can allow for conclusions to be drawn about the possible

patterned ways the Four Horsemen present in relationships, including any gender affects that

may be present in the relationships dyad. Although gender was treated as a control variable in

the current study, information about the impact gender may play in the interaction between

members of the same dyad cannot was not obtained.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationships between Gottman's Four

Horsemen of the Apocalypse, mindfulness, and relationship satisfaction in a sample of dating

college students. The current study had multiple goals, which included (1) exploring the

relationship between the Four Horsemen negative communication patterns of criticism,

defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling and relationship satisfaction in a sample of dating

college students, (2) examining the relationship between the different facets of mindfulness

and relationship satisfaction in the sample of dating college students, and (3) determining if the

facets of mindfulness mediate the relationship between the Four Horsemen and relationship

satisfaction.

Regarding the relationship between the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and

relationship satisfaction, results support the hypothesis that the Four Horsemen are related to
 86

relationship satisfaction in significant ways and provide evidence that Gottman's techniques

are a suitable framework for discussing relationship problems with dating college students in a

clinical setting. More specifically, a multiple linear regression analysis showed that two of the

Four Horsemen, Criticism and Contempt, were significant predictors of relationship

satisfaction. Similarly, another multiple linear regression was run with participants who

responded about their most recent relationships. Again, Criticism and Contempt were both

significant predictors of relationship satisfaction. Consistent with Gottman's previous findings

(1999), Contempt was found to be the biggest predictor of relationship satisfaction. In general,

as criticism and contempt increase in a relationship, the satisfaction with the relationship

decreases. Additional support for the significant role the Four Horsemen may play in college

student dating relationships was found in an independent samples t-test, which revealed

significantly higher amounts of each of the Four Horsemen in participants responding about

their most recent relationship compared to participants responding about their current

relationship. Taken together, these results show support for utilizing Gottman's techniques

with dating college students, especially when the negative communication patterns of

Criticism and Contempt are present in their relationships.

The second aim of the study was to show that higher amounts of each of the Five

Facets of mindfulness, which include Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness,

Nonjudgment of Inner Experience, and Nonreacting to Inner Experience, would be associated

with higher relationship satisfaction in the sample of dating college students. Results do not

support the use of mindfulness interventions for college students who are struggling with

romantic relationship problems. A multiple linear regression analyses was conducted in order

to test whether any of the five facets of mindfulness would be able to predict relationship

satisfaction scores. Surprisingly, none of the Five Facets of mindfulness were significant
 87

predictors of relationship satisfaction. However, whether or not one had ever received forming

mindfulness training was in fact a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction. These

findings are in direct contrast to previous research that found a relationship between

mindfulness and relationship satisfaction (Carson et al., 2004; Barnes et al., 2007). Results of

the current study suggest that some aspect of formal mindfulness training other than the Five

Facets of mindfulness may improve relationships.

The third and final hypothesis was that mindfulness facets would mediate the

relationship between the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and relationship satisfaction.

Results do not support this hypothesis. In order to test this hypothesis, a blocked regression

analyses was conducted that included demographic variables in the first block, the Four

Horsemen in the second block, and mindfulness facets and whether or not one had previous

training in mindfulness in the third block. Again, Criticism and Contempt were significant

predictors of relationship satisfaction, while defensiveness and stonewalling were not.

Although the third block including mindfulness facets was statistically significant, the addition

of the mindfulness factors accounted for only a 1% increase in the amount of variance

accounted for by the model, and the amount of variance accounted for by the Four Horsemen

went relatively unchanged with the addition of the mindfulness factors. These findings do not

support the hypothesis that mindfulness may mediate the relationship between the Four

Horsemen and relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest that mindfulness has a

statistically significant but practically negligible impact on relationship satisfaction in the

sample, and this impact does not affect the relationship between the Four Horsemen and

relationship satisfaction. Results do not support the use of mindfulness interventions with

college students who struggle with negative communication patterns like the Four Horsemen

in their dating relationships.

 88

In addition to the aforementioned contributions to the literature base, the current study

provides a proposed methodology for scoring and utilizing the subscales of the Four Horsemen

of the Apocalypse Questionnaire. To date no studies utilizing the subscales of this measure

include a methodology for assigning items to the subscales and computing subscale scores.

The current study provides one possible solution to this gap in the literature. Unfortunately,

attempts to establish the construct validity of the instrument were not successful, and face

validity was obtained using inter-rater reliabilities from five raters who were trained in

Gottman's techniques. Although a method is provided, further study is needed in order to

establish the validity of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire and its subscales

with a dating college student population.

 89

References

Ackerman, N. W. (1970). Family psychotherapy today. Family Process, 9, 123-126.

American Educational Research Association. (2014). Standards for educational and

psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.

Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emotion regulation

following a focused breathing induction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1849-

1858.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through

the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480.

Astin, J. A. (1997). Stress reduction through mindfulness meditation. Psychotherapy and

Psychosomatics, 66, 97-106.

Austrian, S. G. (2008). Developmental theories through the life cycle. New York, NY:

Columbia University Press.

Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness-based treatment approaches. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Baer, R. A., & Huss, D. B. (2008). Mindfulness- and acceptance-based therapy. Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report:

The Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191–206.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report

assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., ...Williams, M. G.

(2008). Construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in meditating

and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329-342.

 90

Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). The role

of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship

stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 482-500.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, D., ... Devins, G.

(2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science

and Practice, 11(3), 230-241.

Boska, A. (2005). The dynamics of conflict and violence in adolescent heterosexual romantic

relationships. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses. (UMI No. 3177405)

Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York, NY: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2000). Research on the nature and

determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 62(4), 964-980.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role

in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-

848.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations

and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211-237.

Busby, D. M., & Holman, T. B. (2009). Perceived match or mismatch on the Gottman conflict

styles: Associations with relationship outcome variables. Family Process, 48(4), 531-

545.

Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of

individuals in long-term relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 113-118.

 91

Buccheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindfulness in insight

meditation (vipassana) and meditation-based psychotherapy: The development of the

Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal for Meditation and Meditation

Research, 1, 11-34.

Carmody, J., Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L., & Olendzki, N. (2009). An empirical study of the

mechanisms of mindfulness in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Journal

of Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 613-626.

Carrere, S., & Gottman, J.M., (1999). Predicting the future of marriages. In E. M.

Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting and remarriage: A risk and

resiliency perspective, (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carson, J. W. (2002). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for relationship enhancement.

(Unpublished dissertation). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Mindfulness-based

relationship enhancement. Behavior Therapy, 35, 471-494.

Carson, L. E., Speca, M., Patel, K. D., & Goodey, E. (2003). Mindfulness-based stress

reduction in relation to quality of life, mood, symptoms of stress, and immune

parameters in breast and prostate cancer outpatients. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 571-

581.

Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-

term marriage. Psychology and aging, 10(1), 140-149.

Chadwick, P., Hember, M., Mead, S., Lilley, B., & Dagnan, D. (2005). Responding mindfully

to unpleasant thoughts and images: Reliability and validity of the Mindfulness

Questionnaire. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(4), 451-455.

 92

Chang, V. Y., Palesh, O., Caldwell, R., Glasgow, N., Abramson, M., Luskin, F., & Koopman,

C. (2004). The effects of a mindfulness-based stress reduction program on stress,

mindfulness self-efficacy, and positive states of mind. Stress and Health: Journal of

the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 20, 141-147.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L (1999). Interventions for couples. Annual Review of

Psychology, 50, 165-190.

Cook, J., Tyson, R., White, J., Rushe, R., Gottman, J., & Murray, J. (1995). Mathematics of

marital conflict: Qualitative dynamic modeling of marital interaction. Journal of

Family Psychology, 9, 110-130.

Cornelius, T. L., & Alessi, G. (2007). Behavioral and physiological components of

communication training: Does the topic affect outcome? Journal of Marriage and

Family, 69(3), 608-619.

Cornelius, T. L., Shorey, R. C., & Beebe, S. M. (2010). Self-reported communication variables

and dating violence: Using Gottman's marital communication conceptualization.

Journal of Family Violence, 25(4), 439-448.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,

16(3), 297-334.

DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores:

Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research &

Evaluation, 14(20), 1-11.

Doherty, W. J., & Simmons, D. S. (1996). Clinical practice patterns of marriage and family

therapists: A national survey of therapists and their clients. Journal of Martial and

Family Therapy, 22, 9-25.

 93

Ekman, P., Schwartz, G., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Electrical and visible signs of facial action.

San Francisco, CA: Human Interaction Laboratory, University of California San

Francisco.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.

Feldman, G. C., Hayes, A. M., Kumar, S. M., Greeson, J. M., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007).

Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the

Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of

Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177-190.

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49(4), 797-809.

Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological

Bulletin, 76(5), 378-382.

Gambrel, L. E., & Keeling, M. L. (2010). Relational aspects of mindfulness: Implications for

the practice of marriage and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 32(4),

412-426.

Garson, G. D. (2008). Factor analysis. Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved

from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm

Ginott, H. G. (1965). Between parent and child. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Goldenberg, H., & Goldenberg, I. (2008). Family therapy: An overview. New York, NY:

Thomson.

Gottman, J. M. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47-52.

 94

Gottman, J. M. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology,

and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221-233.

Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family

Psychology, 7(1), 57-75.

Gottman, J.M., (1994). An agenda for marital therapy. In S. Johnson & L. Greenberg (Eds.),

The heart of the matter: Perspectives on emotion in marital therapy, (pp. 256-293).

New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York,

NY: Norton.

Gottman, J. M. (2001). Meta-emotion, children’s emotional intelligence, and buffering

children from marital conflict. In C. Ryff & B. Singer (Eds.), Emotion, social

relationships and health, Series in affective science, (pp. 23-40). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Gottman, J. M. (2006). Ten lessons to transform your marriage: America’s love lab experts

share their strategies for strengthening your relationship. New York, NY: Three

Rivers.

Gottman, J. M. (2012). Reliability and validity of the sound relationship house scales

introduction. Retrieved from http://www.johngottman.net/wp

content/uploads/2011/05/Reliability.pdf

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2002). The seven principals for making marriage work. New

York, NY: Three Rivers.

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(1),

5-22.
 95

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C., (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the

emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family

Psychology, 10(3), 243-268.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). How stable is marital interaction over time?

Family Process, 38(2), 159-165.

Gottman, J. M., Murray, J., Swanson, C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. (2005). The mathematics

of marriage: Nonlinear dynamic models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gottman, J. M., Swanson, C., & Swanson, K. (2002). A general systems theory of marriage:

Nonlinear difference equation modeling of marital interaction. Personal and Social

Psychology Review, 6(4), 326-340.

Gurman, A. S., & Messer, S. B. (2003). Essential psychotherapies: Theory and practice. New

York, NY: Guilford.

Hanh, T. N. (1976). The miracle of mindfulness. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An

experiential approach to behavior change. New York, NY: Guilford.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 50(1), 93-98.

Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(1), 137-142.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 30(2), 179-185.

Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Gortner, E., Berns, S., & Shortt, J. W. (1998). The

longitudinal course of battering: When do couples split up? When does the abuse

decrease? Violence and Victims, 11(4), 371-392.

 96

Johnson, S. M. (1996). The practice of emotionally focused marital therapy. New York, NY:

Brunner/Mazel.

Johnson, S. M., & Greenburg, L. S. (1995). The emotionally focused approach to problems in

adult attachment. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), The Clinical Handbook of

Martial Therapy (2nd ed., pp. 121-146). New York, NY: Guilford.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients

based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and

preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33-47.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind in

everyday life. New York, NY: Delacorte.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1993). Mindfulness meditation: Health benefits of an ancient Buddhist

practice. In D. Goleman & J. Gurin (Eds.), Mind/Body Medicine (pp. 259-275).

Yonkers, NY: Consumer Reports Books.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday

life. New York, NY: Hyperion.

Kabat-Zinn, J., Lipworth., & Burney, R. (1985). The clinical use of mindfulness meditation for

the self-regulation of chronic pain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8, 162-190.

Kabat-Zinn, J., Massion, A. O., Kristeller, J., Peterson, L.G., Fletcher, K. E., Pbert, L., et al.

(1992). Effectiveness of a meditation-based stress reduction program in the treatment

of anxiety disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 939-943.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.

Karantzas, G., Goncalves, C., Feeney, J., & McCable, M. (2011). Investigating gender

differences in romantic relationships. Family Relationships Quarterly, 18, 6-9.

 97

Keim, J. (1999). Brief strategic marital therapy. In J. Donovan (Ed.), Short-term couple

therapy (pp. 265-290). New York, NY: Guilford.

Keim, J. (2000). Strategic therapy. In F. Dattilio & L. Bevilacqua (Eds.), Comparative

treatments for relationship dysfunction (pp. 58-78). New York, NY: Springer.

Keim, J., & Lappin, J. (2002). Structural-strategic marital therapy. In A. S. Gurman & N. S.

Jacobson (Eds), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 86-117). New York,

NY: Guilford.

Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 14(5), 251-254.

Ladesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in

EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out Parallel Analysis. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1-11.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1997). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical

data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.

Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). Influence of age and gender on

affect, physiology and their interrelations: A study of long-term marriages. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 56-68.

Levenson, R.W., & Gottman, J.M., (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and

affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 587-597.

Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change in

relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 85-94.

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Skills Training Manual for Treating Borderline Personality

Disorder. New York, NY: Guilford.

 98

Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2014). POLYMAT-C: A comprehensive SPSS program

for computing the polychoric correlation matrix. Behavior Research Methods. doi:

10.3758/s13428-014-0511-x.

Malarkey, W. B., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Pearl, D., & Glaser, R. (1994). Hostile behavior during

marital conflict alters pituitary and adrenal hormones. Psychosomatic medicine, 56(1),

41- 51.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.

American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

Merson, D. (2011). Critical empirical examination of the construct of campus climate.

(Unpublished dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

Newlon, C. (2013, Octover 17). College students still often find spouses on campus. Retrieved

from http://www.usatoday.com/story/new/nation/2013/10/15/college-marriage-

facebook/2989039/

O’Malley, M. N., & Greenberg, J. (1983). Sex differences in restoring justice: The down

payment effect. Journal of Research in Personality, 17(2), 174-185.

Ormiston, A. E. (2011). The role of attachment security and mindfulness in relationship

satisfaction and responses to relationship conflict. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3459543)

Redl, F., & Wineman, D. (1965). Controls from within: Techniques for the treatment of the

aggressive child. New York, NY: Free Press.

Segal, Z. V., Teasdale, J. D., Williams, J. M., & Gemar, M. C. (2002). The mindfulness-based

cognitive therapy adherence scale: Inter-rater reliability, adherence to protocol and

treatment distinctiveness. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 9(2), 131-138.

 99

Sell, D. M. (2009). The development and initial validation of a relational health scale.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No.

3391781)

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of

mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373-386.

Speca, M., Carlson, L. E., Goodey, E., & Angen, M. (2000). A randomized, wait-list

controlled clinical trial: The effect of a mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction

program on mood and symptoms of stress in cancer patients. Psychosomatic Medicine,

62, 613-622.

Stanley, S. M., Bradbury, T. N., & Markman, H. J. (2000). Structural flaws in the bridge from

basic research on marriage to intervention for couples: Illustrations from Gottman,

Coan, Carrerre, and Swanson (1998). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 256-

264.

Tell, S., Pavkov, T., Hecker, L., & Fontaine, K. (2006). Adult survivors of abuse: An

application of John Gottman's sound marital house theory. Contemporary Family

Therapy, 28(2), 225-238.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York, NY: Braziller.

Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulness and emotion

repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4),

464-481.

Walker, S. (2005). Jealousy and Gottman's four horseman: Addressing the missing link.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No.

3215605)
 100

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number

of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432-442.

 101

Appendix A

Demographics Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions:

1. Age:______________

2. Please select the choice that best fits your sex/gender:

a. Female
b. Male
c. Other (Please specify)

3. Please select what you consider to be your race/ethnicity (check as many as apply):
a. Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander
b. Black/African/African American/Black American
c. Hispanic/Latino(a)/Spanish/Hispanic American/Latino(a) American
d. Native American/Alaska Native
e. White American/Caucasian (non-Hispanic)
f. Middle Eastern
g. Biracial (please specify)_______________
h. Other (please specify)_______________

4. Please select the choice that best fits your sexual orientation:
a. Heterosexual
b. Homosexual
c. Bisexual (Attracted to men and women)
d. Pansexual (Attracted to all variants of gender)
e. Other (please specify)___________________

5. Year in school:
a. Freshman
b. Sophomore
c. Junior
d. Senior
e. Other (please specify)_____________________

6. Are you currently in a romantic relationship?

a. Yes
b. No
 102

7. If you are currently in a romantic relationship, how long is your current relationship?
a. (Please Specify)___________

8. If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, have you ever been in a romantic
relationship?
a. What is the length of your most recent romantic relationship?
(Please Specify______________)

9. Have you ever had formal or informal training in mindfulness or mindful-meditation?

a. No
b. Yes (please specify)______________________________________________
 103

Appendix B

Relationship Assessment Scale

Read each statement and answer according to your CURRENT ROMANTIC

RELATIONSHIP. If you are not currently involved in a romantic relationship, please answer
according to your MOST RECENT ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP. Please mark on the
answer sheet the letter for each item which best answers that item for you.

1. How well does your partner meet your needs?

A B C D E
Poorly Average Extremely well

2. In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?

A B C D E
Unsatisfied Average Extremely satisfied

3. How good is your relationship compared to most?

A B C D E
Poor Average Excellent

4. How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten in this relationship?

A B C D E
Never Average Very often

5. To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations:

A B C D E
Hardly at all Average Completely

6. How much do you love your partner?

A B C D E
Not much Average Very much

7. How many problems are there in your relationship?

A B C D E
Very few Average Very many

NOTE: Items 4 and 7 are reverse scored. A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5. You add up the items and
divide by 7 to get a mean score.
 104

Appendix C

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

Instructions: Please rate each of the following 39 statements using the scale provided.
Write the number in the blank that best describes your own opinion of what is generally
true for you.

1 2 3 4 5
never or very Rarely sometimes often very often or
rarely true True true true always true

1. When I’m walking, I deliberately notice the sensations of my body moving.

2. I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings.

3. I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions.

4. I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them.

5. When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted.

6. When I take a shower or bath, I stay alert to the sensations of water on my

body.

7. I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations into words.

8. I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because I’m daydreaming, worrying, or
otherwise distracted.

9. I watch my feelings without getting lost in them.

10. I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling.

11. I notice how foods and drinks affect my thoughts, bodily sensations, and
emotions.

12. It’s hard for me to find the words to describe what I’m thinking.
 105

1 2 3 4 5
never or very Rarely sometimes often very often or
rarely true True true true always true

13. I am easily distracted.

14. I believe some of my thoughts are abnormal or bad and I shouldn’t think that
way.
__ 15. I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face.

__16. I have trouble thinking of the right words to express how I feel about things

17. I make judgments about whether my thoughts are good or bad.

18. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.

19. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I “step back” and am aware of the
thought or image without getting taken over by it.

20. I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds chirping, or cars
passing.

21. In difficult situations, I can pause without immediately reacting.

22. When I have a sensation in my body, it’s difficult for me to describe it because
I can’t find the right words.

23. It seems I am “running on automatic” without much awareness of what I’m

doing.

24. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I feel calm soon after.

25. I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I’m thinking.

26. I notice the smells and aromas of things.

27. Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into words.
 106

1 2 3 4 5
never or very Rarely sometimes often very often or
rarely true True true true always true

28. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.

29. When I have distressing thoughts or images I am able just to notice them
without reacting.

30. I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel
them.
31. I notice visual elements in art or nature, such as colors, shapes, textures, or
patterns of light and shadow.

32. My natural tendency is to put my experiences into words.

_____ 33. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I just notice them and let them go.

_____34. I do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I’m doing.

35. When I have distressing thoughts or images, I judge myself as good or

bad, depending what the thought/image is about.

36. I pay attention to how my emotions affect my thoughts and behavior.

37. I can usually describe how I feel at the moment in considerable detail.

38. I find myself doing things without paying attention.

39. I disapprove of myself when I have irrational ideas

 107

Appendix D

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire

Read each statement and answer according to your CURRENT ROMANTIC

RELATIONSHIP. If you are not currently involved in a romantic relationship, please answer
according to your MOST RECENT ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP. Place a check mark in
the appropriate TRUE or FALSE box.

When we discuss our relationship issues: Response:

I feel attacked or criticized when we talk True (1) False (2)
I usually feel like my personality is being assaulted True (1) False (2)
In our disputes, at times, I don't even feel like my partner likes me very much. True (1) False (2)
I have to defend myself because the charges against me are so unfair. True (1) False (2)
I often feel unappreciated by my partner. True (1) False (2)
My feelings and intentions are often misunderstood. True (1) False (2)
I don't feel appreciated for all the good I do in this relationship True (1) False (2)
I often just want to leave the scene of an argument. True (1) False (2)
I get disgusted by all the negativity between us. True (1) False (2)
I feel insulted by my partner at times. True (1) False (2)
I sometimes just clam up and become quiet. True (1) False (2)
I can get mean and insulting in our disputes. True (1) False (2)
I feel basically disrespected. True (1) False (2)
Many of our issues are not just my problem. True (1) False (2)
The way we talk makes me want to just withdraw from the whole relationship. True (1) False (2)
I think to myself, "who needs all this conflict?" True (1) False (2)
My partner never really changes. True (1) False (2)
Our problems have made me feel desperate at times. True (1) False (2)
My partner doesn't face issues responsibly and maturely. True (1) False (2)
I try to point out flaws in my partner's personality that need improvement. True (1) False (2)
I feel explosive and out of control about our issues at times. True (1) False (2)
My partner uses phrases like "you always" or "you never" when complaining. True (1) False (2)
I often get the blame for what are really our problems. True (1) False (2)
I don't have a lot of respect for my partner's position on our basic issues. True (1) False (2)
My partner can be quite selfish and self-centered. True (1) False (2)
I feel disgusted by some of my partner's attitudes. True (1) False (2)
My partner gets far too emotional. True (1) False (2)
I am just not guilty of many of the things I get accused of. True (1) False (2)
Small issues often escalate out of proportion. True (1) False (2)
Arguments seem to come out of nowhere. True (1) False (2)
My partner's feelings get hurt too easily. True (1) False (2)
I often will become silent to cool things down a bit. True (1) False (2)
My partner has a lot of trouble being rational and logical. True (1) False (2)
 108

Appendix E

Informed Consent

You are invited to participate in this research study, which is being conducted through Indiana
University of Pennsylvania. You have been randomly selected from the Psychology Subject Pool
to participate in this study. The following information is provided in order to help you to make
an informed decision about whether or not to participate. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to ask the researcher.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between communication,
mindfulness, and relationship satisfaction. Participation in this study involves filling out a brief
set of questionnaires using the online link that has been provided to you. Your responses will be
recorded by the online software but will not be linked to your name or identification, and all
information will be kept confidential. Your participation in this study should require
approximately 10-15 minutes. You will receive research participation credit for your
participation in this study.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to decide not to participate in this
study or to withdraw at any time without adversely affecting your relationship with the
investigator(s), with IUP, or your psychology professor. If you choose to participate, you may
withdraw at any time by simply exiting out of the survey on your computer. Upon your request
to withdraw, all information pertaining to you will be destroyed. If you choose to participate, all
information will be held in strict confidence. The information obtained in this study may be
published in scientific journals or presented at scientific meetings but your identity will always
be kept strictly confidential and your responses will not be connected to your name.
If you are willing to participate in this study, please indicate so below by typing your name in the
box and clicking the icon to indicate you understand this agreement. If you choose not to
participate, simply indicate so below and close out of the internet program.

To obtain further information please contact:

Student Researcher: Faculty Sponsor:

Michael Lute, M.A. Derek Hatfield, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychology Doctoral Student Associate Professor of Psychology
Uhler Hall Uhler Hall, Rm. 238A
1020 Oakland Avenue 1020 Oakland Avenue
Indiana, PA 15705 Indiana, PA 15705
724-357-2426 724-357-4527

This project has been approved by the Indiana University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review
Board for the Protection of Human Subjects (Phone: 724-357-7730).
 109

Appendix F

Debriefing Form

The Relationships Between Communication, Mindfulness, and Relationship Satisfaction

Thank you for your participation in this study.

At the beginning of this study, you were informed that the purpose of the study is to investigate
the relationship between communication, mindfulness, and relationship satisfaction. More
specifically, the study aimed to look at how particular negative patterns of communication
known as the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” affect relationship satisfaction in college
students and the possible roles that mindfulness skills play in this relationship.

Because the term “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” may have a negative connotation, this was
referred to more generally in the study as “communication.” It is important to note that research
suggests that these communication patterns are present in varying levels in all relationships, and
the presence of these communication patterns do not indicate anything in and of themselves.

By participating in this study, you contributed to research that can help inform clinicians and
may eventually assist clinicians in helping college students work through their relationship
problems. It is my hope that you feel proud to have participated in the study, and I thank you for
your time and effort.

All of the information disclosed by participants during this study will be kept confidential. If
you have any questions or would like further information about this study, including the results
when the study has been completed, please contact the following individuals:

Student Researcher: Faculty Sponsor:

Michael Lute, M.A. Derek Hatfield, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychology Doctoral Student Associate Professor of Psychology

Uhler Hall Uhler Hall, Rm. 238A

1020 Oakland Avenue 1020 Oakland Avenue
Indiana, PA 15705 Indiana, PA 15705
724-357-2426 724-357-4527
 110

Appendix G

Referral Sources

IUP Counseling Center……………………………...…………… (724) 357-2621

Center for Applied Psychology…………………………………... (724) 357-6228

Neuropsychiatric Assoc. INC PC………………………………… (724) 464-0270

Community Guidance Center……….……………………………. (724) 465-5576

Indiana Psychology Associates…………………………………... (724) 349-8021

Professional Psychologists and Associates.…….………………... (724) 349-7580

Open Door Counseling and Crisis Center……..……………..…... (724) 465-2605

24-hour hotline…...…………….…………………….………... (800) 794-2112

Alice Paul House………………………..………………..………. (724) 349-4444

Domestic Violence or Rape Crisis...…………………………... (800) 435-7249

Clarion Psychiatric Center…..……..………………...………....... (800) 253-4906

 111

Appendix H

List of Additional Tables

Table 10

Eigenvalues for 4-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Items on the Four Horsemen of
the Apocalypse Measure (N=406)

Cumulative Proportion
Variable Eigenvalue Proportion of Variance of Variance
1 7.75148 0.23489 0.23489
2 2.38249 0.07220 0.30709
3 1.85829 0.05631 0.36340
4 1.67430 0.05074 0.41414
5 1.53824 0.04661
6 1.45232 0.04401
7 1.37497 0.04167
8 1.33708 0.04052
9 1.09396 0.03315
10 1.06501 0.03227
11 0.99536 0.03016
12 0.92093 0.02791
13 0.88112 0.02670
14 0.79557 0.02411
15 0.73907 0.02240
16 0.70901 0.02149
17 0.68159 0.02065
18 0.65297 0.01979
19 0.61819 0.01873
20 0.58825 0.01783
21 0.54207 0.01643
22 0.47973 0.01454
23 0.45356 0.01374
24 0.42055 0.01274
25 0.36407 0.01103
26 0.34125 0.01034
27 0.30693 0.00930
28 0.28760 0.00872
29 0.24043 0.00729
30 0.18179 0.00551
31 0.15660 0.00475
32 0.11079 0.00336
33 0.00443 0.00013
 112

Table 11

Parallel Analysis for 4-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse Questionnaire (N = 406)

95th Percentile of
Real Data % of Mean of Random % Random % of
Variable Variance of Variance Variance
1 24.2* 6.7 7.1
2 7.3* 6.2 6.6
3 5.7 5.8 6.1
4 5.2 5.5 5.8
5 4.6 5.2 5.5
6 4.3 5.0 5.2
7 4.2 4.8 5.0
8 4.0 4.6 4.8
9 3.4 4.3 4.6
10 3.3 4.2 4.3
11 3.1 4.0 4.1
12 2.9 3.8 4.0
13 2.7 3.6 3.7
14 2.5 3.4 3.6
15 2.3 3.3 3.4
16 2.2 3.1 3.2
17 2.1 2.9 3.1
18 2.0 2.8 2.9
19 1.9 2.6 2.7
20 1.8 2.4 2.6
21 1.7 2.3 2.4
22 1.4 2.1 2.3
23 1.3 1.9 2.1
24 1.2 1.8 1.9
25 1.0 1.6 1.8
26 0.9 1.4 1.6
27 0.9 1.3 1.5
28 0.8 1.2 1.3
29 0.5 0.9 1.1
30 0.4 0.7 0.9
31 0.3 0.5 0.7
32 0.1 0.3 0.5
33 0.0 0.0 0.0
 113

Table 12

Subscales of the 28-item Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Questionnaire

Subscale Item α (N = 406)

Criticism .701
1. I feel attacked or criticized when we talk.
3. In our disputes, at times, I don't even feel like my partner likes me
very much.
10. I feel insulted by my partner at times.
17. My partner never really changes.
22. My partner uses phrases like "you always" or "you never" when
complaining.
25. My partner can be quite selfish and self-centered.
27. My partner gets far too emotional.
31. My partner's feelings get hurt too easily.
Defensiveness .800
4. I have to defend myself because the charges against me are so unfair.
6. My feelings and intentions are often misunderstood.
7. I don't feel appreciated for all the good I do in this relationship
14. Many of our issues are not just my problem.
23. I often get the blame for what are really our problems.
28. I am just not guilty of many of the things I get accused of.
29. Small issues often escalate out of proportion.
30. Arguments seem to come out of nowhere.
Contempt .780
9. I get disgusted by all the negativity between us.
12.I can get mean and insulting in our disputes.
13. I feel basically disrespected.
19. My partner doesn't face issues responsibly and maturely.
24. I don't have a lot of respect for my partner's position on our basic
issues.
26. I feel disgusted by some of my partner's attitudes.
33. My partner has a lot of trouble being rational and logical.
Stonewalling .654
8. I often just want to leave the scene of an argument.
11. I sometimes just clam up and become quiet.
15. The way we talk makes me want to just withdraw from the whole
relationship.
16. I think to myself, "who needs all this conflict?"
32. I often will become silent to cool things down a bit.
 114

Table 13

of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Subscales (N=406)

Four Four Four

Horsemen Horsemen Four Horsemen Horsemen Four Horsemen
Scale Total Score Criticism Defensiveness Contempt Stonewalling

4H Total Score 1 .900** .906** .871** .759**

4H Criticism .900** 1 .753** .716** .615**

4H Defensiveness .906** .753** 1 .717** .517**

4H Contempt .871** .716** .717** 1 .549**

4H Stonewalling .759** .615** .517** .549** 1

** p < .01
 115

Appendix I

List of Figures

Figure 1. Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residual, dependent variable RAS total
score.
 116

Figure 2. Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residual, dependent variable RAS total
score.
 117

Figure 3. Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residual, dependent variable RAS total
score.
 118

Appendix J

Permissions
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:13:31 -0800
ALAN KUNOVSKY <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Michael,

The Gottman Institute gives you permission to include the Four Horsemen Questionnaire in your dissertation
research. Please quote Dr. Gottman as the author of the questionnaire where appropriate. Best of luck with your
studies.

Thanks
Alan Kunovsky
CEO
The Gottman Institute
www.gottman.com
(206)-607-8691

From: Michael R Lute [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Request to Use Gottman Measure in Dissertation

Hello, my name is Michael Lute, and I am currently a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at the Indiana
University of Pennsylvania. I am a big fan of The Sound Marital House, and I would like to include the Four
Horsemen Questionnaire in my dissertation research. I can provide as much information on my project as needed,
but briefly stated it involves looking at the prevalence of the Four Horsemen in dating college students and the
relationships between the Four Horsemen, Mindfulness skills, and Relationship Satisfaction. Administration
involves a giving a simple packet of questionnaires to subjects, and analysis involves correlation (regression).

If this is not the correct place to request permission to include the measure in my research, could you please direct
me to the appropriate person? Thank you very much for your time!

Best Regards, Michael Lute

Michael Lute, M.A.

Doctoral Candidate
Clinical Psychology
Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Policy regarding e-mail communications: E-mail is neither secure nor confidential - other people may have access
to your e-mail communications, even if you do not intend for them to have access. For this reason, e-mail
communications should be limited to scheduling or canceling appointments, or similar administrative tasks. It is
generally not advisable to share personal or "clinical" information (information about your problems or concerns,
your functioning, your emotional state, crises that you may be experiencing, etc.) via e-mail.