6.2 The Gottman Principles in Practice

John Gottman can watch a couple argue for 15 minutes and predict with over 90% accuracy whether they’ll divorce. What does he see that we don’t? And more importantly — can we learn it?

The Science Behind the Predictions

Starting in 1986, John Gottman and his colleagues at the University of Washington began studying couples in a research facility nicknamed the “Love Lab.” They recorded conversations, measured heart rates, tracked facial expressions, and followed couples for years — sometimes decades.

The result: the most robust empirical research on relationship success and failure ever conducted.

A study of 130 newlywed couples predicted marital happiness and stability 6 years later with 83% accuracy for divorce and 80% accuracy for satisfaction.^[1] A 14-year longitudinal study identified distinct patterns for early versus late divorcing couples.^[2]

What emerged wasn’t mystical intuition. It was pattern recognition — specific, observable behaviors that distinguish couples who thrive from couples who dissolve.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

The most famous finding: four communication patterns that predict relationship failure with alarming consistency.^[3]

1. Criticism

Attacking your partner’s character rather than addressing specific behavior.

Criticism: “You never think about anyone but yourself. You’re so selfish.”

Complaint (healthy alternative): “I felt hurt when you made plans without checking with me first.”

The difference: complaints address behavior; criticism attacks character. Everyone complains sometimes. But when complaints morph into “you always” and “you never” and judgments about who your partner is, you’ve crossed into criticism.

2. Contempt

The single strongest predictor of divorce. Contempt communicates disgust and superiority through:

Eye-rolling
Sneering
Sarcasm
Mockery
Name-calling
Hostile humor

Research found contempt so toxic it even predicts physical illness — partners who receive contempt show measurable immune system suppression.^[3]

Contempt says: “I’m better than you. You’re beneath me.” No relationship survives sustained contempt.

The antidote: Build a culture of appreciation. Contempt grows from negative thoughts that ferment over time. Actively noticing and expressing gratitude for what your partner does right starves contempt of fuel.

3. Defensiveness

Self-protection through counter-attack, denying responsibility, or making excuses.

Defensive: “That’s not my fault. If you hadn’t been late, I wouldn’t have been stressed.”

Taking responsibility: “You’re right, I snapped at you. I’m sorry. I was stressed but that’s not an excuse.”

Defensiveness escalates conflict because it dismisses your partner’s concern. Even if you feel unfairly attacked, defensiveness tells your partner: “Your perspective doesn’t matter.”

4. Stonewalling

Withdrawing from interaction — going silent, physically leaving, emotionally checking out.

Stonewalling often happens when someone is “flooded” — physiologically overwhelmed, with heart rate exceeding 100 BPM. In this state, productive conversation is impossible.

Research found that the majority of stonewallers are men^[3] — likely because men tend to become flooded faster and take longer to recover physiologically.

The antidote: Take a break, but communicate it. “I need 20 minutes to calm down, then I want to continue this conversation” is very different from walking away without explanation.

The 5:1 Ratio

Perhaps the most practical finding: stable, happy couples maintain approximately 5 positive interactions for every 1 negative interaction during conflict.^[4]

Not 50:1. Not zero negative. Just 5:1.

Couples heading toward divorce showed ratios closer to 0.8:1 — nearly equal positive and negative, or worse.

What Counts as Positive

During a conflict conversation:

Showing interest (“Tell me more about that”)
Expressing affection
Demonstrating care
Showing appreciation
Finding points of agreement
Empathizing (“I can see why you’d feel that way”)
Using appropriate humor
De-escalating (“Let’s slow down”)

What Counts as Negative

The Four Horsemen (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling)
Dismissing concerns
Hostile tone
Escalating
Invalidating feelings

The ratio matters more than eliminating all negativity. Conflict is inevitable. What matters is whether positive affect outweighs negative during those conflicts.

A study of 156 couples found that even in long-term marriages, unhappy couples showed greater exchange of negative affect than happy couples.^[5] The ratio held regardless of how long they’d been together.

Turning Toward Bids for Connection

Beyond conflict, Gottman’s research identified something subtler but equally predictive: how couples respond to “bids” for connection.^[6]

A bid is any attempt to get your partner’s attention, affection, or engagement:

“Look at that sunset”
Sighing while reading something frustrating
“How was your day?”
Reaching for their hand
Sharing something you found online
Making a joke

Partners respond in one of three ways:

Turning Toward

Acknowledging and engaging with the bid.

“Wow, that is beautiful”
“What are you reading? You seem stressed”

Turning Away

Ignoring or missing the bid.

Continuing to scroll phone
“Mmhmm” without looking up
Changing the subject

Turning Against

Responding with hostility.

“Can’t you see I’m busy?”
“Why do you always interrupt me?”

The Numbers

In the “Love Lab” apartment study, couples who divorced within 6 years had turned toward bids only 33% of the time. Couples still married? 86%.^[6]

These aren’t dramatic moments. They’re mundane. A hundred small bids each day, each one a micro-choice: engage or ignore.

The accumulation builds or erodes what Gottman calls the “emotional bank account.” Couples with positive balances interpret ambiguous situations charitably. Couples overdrawn interpret the same situations as hostile.

Love Maps

Gottman uses “love maps” to describe the cognitive space you have for your partner’s inner world — their fears, dreams, stresses, joys, history, hopes.^[7]

Research on how couples view their past found that partners with detailed knowledge of each other’s inner worlds handled stress better and stayed together longer.^[8]

Love Map Questions

Do you know:

Your partner’s biggest current worry?
What they’d do if they won the lottery?
Their most embarrassing moment?
What they’re most proud of?
Their dreams for the next five years?
Who their closest friends are and why?
What stresses them most at work?

If you answered confidently, your love maps are detailed. If you hesitated or guessed, there’s room to explore.

The practice: Stay curious. Ask questions. Update your maps as your partner changes — because they will change.

Repair Attempts

Even couples who display the Four Horsemen can have stable relationships if one thing is present: effective repair attempts.^[9]

A repair attempt is any effort to de-escalate during conflict:

“Can we start over? That came out wrong”
“I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said it that way”
Using humor to lighten tension
Physical touch (reaching for their hand)
“I can see your point”
“We’re getting off track”
“I need a break but I’ll come back”

Early Repairs Work Best

Research developing new coding systems for repair found that “pre-emptive” repairs in the first 3 minutes of conflict were most effective.^[10]

Once a conflict has escalated, repairs are harder. The earlier you intervene, the better your chances.

Affective Repairs Beat Cognitive Repairs

The same research found that emotional repairs — humor, affection, self-disclosure, empathy — were more effective than cognitive problem-solving repairs.

Saying “I can hear you’re really frustrated” works better than “Let’s make a list of solutions.” Connection before correction.

Why This Matters More Than “Compatibility”

Research comparing oral history interviews found that how couples talked about their relationship history predicted outcomes better than the actual history.^[8]

Couples who described their relationship with fondness, expanded on positive memories, and used “we” language were far more likely to stay together than couples with the same events but negative narrative framing.

In other words: it’s not what happened. It’s the story you tell about what happened.

Two couples can have similar conflicts, similar stresses, similar incompatibilities. One frames them as “challenges we overcame together.” The other as “evidence we’re not right for each other.”

Same marriage. Different narrative. Different outcome.

Putting It Into Practice

Daily Habits

Turn toward bids — When your partner reaches out (even in small ways), acknowledge and engage. Put down the phone. Make eye contact. Respond.

Express appreciation — Notice what your partner does right. Say it out loud. Not just “thanks” but “I really appreciated when you…” Specific, genuine, regular.

Update love maps — Ask questions. “What’s on your mind today?” “What are you looking forward to?” “What’s stressing you?” Keep learning.

During Conflict

Soft startup — Begin difficult conversations gently, not with criticism. “I’ve been feeling disconnected” not “You never pay attention to me.”

Take breaks when flooded — If heart rate exceeds 100 BPM, you can’t think clearly. Take 20+ minutes to calm down, then return.

Make repairs early — Don’t wait until things escalate. “I’m sorry, that came out harsh” in the first minute is worth more than a long apology later.

Maintain the ratio — Even in conflict, find things to agree on. Acknowledge valid points. Express care. Keep positive interactions higher than negative.

Long-Term

Watch for the Horsemen — When you notice criticism, contempt, defensiveness, or stonewalling creeping in, address it immediately. These patterns predict failure.

Nurture fondness — Actively cultivate positive thoughts about your partner. Remember why you chose them. What you appreciate. What you admire.

Tell a good story — The narrative you construct about your relationship shapes the relationship itself. Choose interpretations that emphasize partnership over victimhood.

Reflection

Think about your relationship:

Which Horsemen show up most in your conflicts?
What’s your approximate ratio of positive to negative during disagreements?
When your partner makes a bid, do you typically turn toward, away, or against?
How detailed are your love maps? When did you last ask your partner something new?
Do your repair attempts land? Why or why not?

One Thing to Try

Track your bids for one week.

Pay attention to when you make bids for connection and how your partner responds. Notice when they make bids and how you respond.

You’ll likely discover you turn away more than you realized — not from hostility, just from distraction. A phone, a thought, a task.

The goal isn’t perfection. The goal is increasing your turn-toward percentage. From 33% (divorce territory) toward 86% (thriving territory).

Each bid is small. A hundred small choices a day. The sum of them determines whether you’re building or depleting your emotional bank account.

Gottman’s research gives us something rare: predictive power based on observable behavior. We can measure what works. We can learn it. We can practice it.

The couples who stay together aren’t luckier. They’re more skilled. And skills can be developed.

References

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrère, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5-22. doi:10.2307/353438
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737-745. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221-233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 6-15. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.61.1.6
Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 140-149. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.10.1.140
Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43(3), 301-314. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00024.x
Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S. (2017). The natural principles of love. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 9(1), 7-26. doi:10.1111/jftr.12182
Buehlman, K., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(3-4), 295-318. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.295
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). What predicts change in marital interaction over time? A study of alternative models. Family Process, 38(2), 143-158. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00143.x
Gottman, J. M., Driver, J., & Tabares, A. (2015). Repair during marital conflict in newlyweds: How couples move from attack-defend to collaboration. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 26(2), 85-108. doi:10.1080/08975353.2015.1038962

Next: Growing Together, Not Apart — how to support individual growth while staying connected.

Or go back to: Maintaining Intimacy Over Time