Gottman, J. (1994) | References | Narcissus and the Child

What This Research Found

John Gottman's What Predicts Divorce? represents one of the most influential bodies of research in relationship science. Published in 1994 after two decades of observational studies at the University of Washington, it identifies specific interaction patterns that predict whether marriages will thrive or fail—with remarkable accuracy.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Through meticulous observation of thousands of couples, Gottman identified four communication patterns so destructive they earned this apocalyptic name. These are not merely unhelpful behaviours; they are relationship killers that, when present, predict dissolution with over 90% accuracy:

Criticism: Attacking the partner's character rather than addressing specific behaviours. "You never think about anyone but yourself" rather than "I felt hurt when you forgot our anniversary."
Defensiveness: Responding to complaints with counter-complaints, excuses, or victimhood. "It's not my fault—you're the one who never tells me what you need."
Contempt: Communicating disgust, superiority, or disrespect through tone, facial expression, or words. Eye-rolling, sneering, mocking, sarcasm, and name-calling all qualify.
Stonewalling: Withdrawing from interaction entirely—shutting down, refusing to engage, giving the silent treatment.

Contempt is the ultimate relationship killer. Of the Four Horsemen, contempt emerged as the single most corrosive behaviour. Gottman found that contempt alone predicted divorce better than the other three combined. This makes psychological sense: criticism attacks what you did; contempt attacks who you are. When a partner communicates through tone, expression, or words that you are beneath them—worthy of disgust rather than respect—they assault your fundamental sense of worth. The research showed that even brief expressions of contempt (an eye roll, a sneer, a mocking tone) during conflict predicted relationship failure.

Physiological flooding explains why repair becomes impossible. Gottman's research integrated behavioural observation with physiological measurement, discovering that contempt and stonewalling trigger "flooding"—a state of physiological hypervigilance where heart rate elevates, stress hormones surge, and rational processing becomes impossible. When partners become flooded, they cannot hear each other, cannot process new information, and cannot engage in productive problem-solving. Contemptuous partners chronically flood their victims; stonewalling partners flood themselves to escape.

The cascade toward relationship death is predictable. Gottman's longitudinal research revealed that failing relationships follow a predictable cascade: complaints become criticisms, criticisms become contempt, contempt triggers defensiveness, defensiveness leads to stonewalling, and stonewalling leads to emotional disengagement. Once this cascade is in motion, couples become adversaries rather than partners. Each partner begins to see the other's behaviour through a negative lens—what Gottman calls "negative sentiment override"—where even neutral or positive actions are interpreted negatively. At this point, the relationship has entered its death spiral.

How This Research Is Used in the Book

Gottman's research on contempt appears in Chapter 3: Anxious Sibling—Borderline to explain the predictable deterioration of narcissistic relationships. In describing how narcissistic partners devalue those they once idealised, the book states:

"Devaluation follows predictable, almost banal stages. First comes irritation, then criticism, then contempt—the ultimate relationship killer. The narcissist views the borderline with disgust; the borderline sees the narcissist as evil."

The citation anchors the clinical observation in rigorous research: the book's description of narcissistic devaluation cycles maps directly onto Gottman's empirically-validated cascade. What survivors experience as devastating emotional abuse is documented in relationship science as the single most destructive interpersonal behaviour. The book uses this research to validate survivors' experiences—when they describe the contemptuous sneer, the eye roll, the tone of superiority, they are describing something that science has identified as uniquely harmful.

The reference also serves to illuminate the narcissistic relationship pattern: narcissists typically begin relationships with idealisation (love-bombing), then shift to criticism as partners inevitably fail to maintain perfect supply, then escalate to contempt as partners are devalued. Gottman's research explains why this trajectory feels so devastating—and why relationships rarely recover once contempt takes hold.

Why This Matters for Survivors

Your experience of contempt was not oversensitivity—it was documented harm. If your partner sneered at you, rolled their eyes at your emotions, spoke to you with superiority and disgust, you experienced something that research identifies as the most destructive behaviour in any relationship. When you felt devastated by these "small" behaviours, you were responding appropriately to genuine psychological assault. Gottman's research validates what your nervous system already knew: contempt is poisonous.

The gradual nature of the deterioration makes sense now. Many survivors struggle to explain how they ended up tolerating treatment they would have found unacceptable at the relationship's start. Gottman's cascade model explains the mechanics: criticism becomes normalised, then contempt becomes normalised, then stonewalling becomes normalised. Each step prepares you for the next. By the time you realised how bad things had become, you had been gradually conditioned to accept the unacceptable. You did not fail to protect yourself; you were systematically trained not to.

Your hypervigilance about tone and facial expression was rational. Survivors often describe becoming experts at reading their partner's micro-expressions—the slight tightening of the jaw, the particular quality of silence, the subtle shift in tone that predicted incoming contempt. This vigilance develops because contempt is genuinely dangerous to your wellbeing. Your nervous system learned to monitor for threat signals because those signals reliably predicted harm. This was not anxiety distorting your perception; it was accurate threat detection.

The research explains why you couldn't "just communicate better." When partners become contemptuous, they have already concluded that you are beneath them—unworthy of respect, understanding, or genuine engagement. No communication technique can bridge contempt because contempt has already decided the conversation's outcome. You may have read books, tried "I-statements," asked for couples counselling, and nothing worked—not because you failed, but because contempt cannot be communicated away. The contemptuous partner must first decide you are worthy of respect, and narcissistic partners rarely make that decision.

Clinical Implications

Assessment must include systematic observation of contempt. Gottman's research provides clinicians with specific, observable markers of relationship dysfunction. When couples present for therapy, observe: Does one partner roll their eyes when the other speaks? Is there sneering, mocking, or sarcasm? Do subtle facial expressions communicate disgust? In individual sessions, ask directly about feeling respected. When contempt is present, traditional couples therapy may be contraindicated—it requires a baseline of mutual respect that contemptuous relationships lack.

Distinguish between conflict-based contempt and dominance-based contempt. In ordinary unhappy couples, contempt may emerge during specific conflicts and decrease during calmer periods. In narcissistic relationships, contempt functions differently: it serves to maintain dominance and may intensify precisely when the partner asserts needs or boundaries. Clinicians should assess whether contempt increases when the target partner expresses independent preferences—a pattern suggesting the behaviour serves control rather than conflict management. This distinction has treatment implications: conflict-based contempt may respond to skills training, while dominance-based contempt typically does not.

Recognise stonewalling as active harm, not passive withdrawal. Clinicians may misinterpret stonewalling as conflict avoidance or emotional shutdown, missing its aggressive function. Gottman's research shows that stonewalling leaves the other partner in a state of unresolved physiological arousal—flooded but unable to achieve resolution. In narcissistic relationships, stonewalling often serves as punishment: the silent treatment communicates "you are not worth responding to" while leaving the partner desperate for engagement. Treatment must address stonewalling as a form of harm rather than a coping mechanism to be gently understood.

Consider individual therapy before couples work when contempt is entrenched. Gottman's research suggests that relationships characterised by contempt have a poor prognosis for traditional couples therapy. When one partner holds the other in contempt—particularly when this reflects characterological narcissism rather than situational distress—bringing them into couples therapy may simply provide a new arena for abuse. Individual therapy for the contemptuous partner (rarely sought by narcissists) and the target partner (essential for recovery) may be more appropriate than conjoint work.

The physiological dimension has treatment implications. Gottman's research on flooding suggests that trauma-focused and somatic approaches may be necessary for partners who have been chronically exposed to contempt. These individuals often present with nervous system dysregulation that cognitive approaches alone cannot address. The amygdala has learned that intimate relationship equals danger; the body must learn safety through bottom-up interventions, not just top-down insight.

Broader Implications

The Intergenerational Transmission of Contempt

Children who witness contempt between parents learn that this is how intimate relationships work. Gottman's research has significant implications for intergenerational trauma: the Four Horsemen are transmitted across generations not through genetics but through modelling. The child may become a golden child who learns to deploy contempt, or a scapegoat who learns to expect it. A child who watches their narcissistic father sneer at their mother learns that partners are appropriate targets for contempt. A child who watches their mother stonewall learns that withdrawal is an acceptable response to conflict. Breaking these patterns requires conscious awareness and deliberate skill-building—the patterns do not simply disappear when the child leaves home.

Relationship Patterns in Adulthood

Adult survivors of narcissistic homes often find themselves either perpetuating contempt patterns or being drawn to contemptuous partners. The familiarity of contempt can masquerade as intensity or passion; the absence of contempt can feel boring or "too easy." Understanding Gottman's research helps survivors recognise contempt when they encounter it and understand why its absence may initially feel strange. The goal is not to find relationships without conflict, but to find relationships without contempt—a distinction that Gottman's work makes clear.

Workplace and Organisational Dynamics

Gottman's Four Horsemen appear in workplace relationships as well, particularly when supervisors or colleagues have narcissistic traits. The contemptuous boss who sneers at employees' ideas, the colleague who stonewalls collaboration, the team dynamic characterised by criticism and defensiveness—these patterns predict team dysfunction just as they predict marital dissolution. Organisations that tolerate contempt in leadership are training employees that this behaviour is acceptable, creating cultures where psychological safety is impossible.

Legal and Policy Considerations

Gottman's research has implications for family courts assessing relationship dysfunction. Contempt between co-parents affects children's wellbeing; stonewalling during co-parenting makes coordination impossible. Courts evaluating custody arrangements might consider the Four Horsemen as markers of an adult's capacity for healthy co-parenting. Additionally, the research provides empirical grounding for understanding coercive control: contempt and stonewalling are mechanisms of psychological abuse that may not leave visible marks but cause documented harm.

Therapeutic Relationship Quality

Gottman's findings apply to therapy itself. Clients are exquisitely attuned to any hint of contempt from their therapist—an eye roll, a dismissive tone, a subtle expression of superiority. For survivors of narcissistic abuse, who have been trained to detect contempt for survival, these signals are impossible to miss. Therapists must maintain genuine respect for clients even when clients behave in ways that challenge the therapist's patience. The therapeutic relationship that replicates the contempt of the client's past relationships will harm rather than heal.

Cultural and Media Representation

The normalisation of contempt in media—sitcom couples who constantly trade sarcastic barbs, romantic comedies where partners demean each other as "banter"—shapes cultural expectations about relationships. This normalisation is particularly dangerous for survivors recovering from narcissistic abuse. Gottman's research provides empirical pushback: these behaviours are not evidence of clever wit or passionate connection. They are markers of relationship dysfunction. Media literacy that includes Gottman's findings might help viewers distinguish between entertaining fiction and relationship patterns that would prove destructive in real life.

Limitations and Considerations

Sample characteristics limit generalisability. Gottman's original research oversampled middle-class, white, heterosexual married couples in the Pacific Northwest. While subsequent research has extended the findings to more diverse populations, questions remain about how the Four Horsemen manifest across cultures, relationship structures, and socioeconomic contexts. What looks like contempt or stonewalling may have different meanings and functions in different cultural contexts.

Prediction accuracy claims require context. The famous "90% accuracy" claim has generated methodological debate. Some researchers note that prediction accuracy is higher when couples are already in distress at study entry—the model may describe unhappy relationships better than it predicts which currently stable marriages will eventually fail. Additionally, early analyses may have had statistical issues later addressed. The core finding that contempt is uniquely destructive remains robust, but specific accuracy percentages should be interpreted cautiously.

The model describes behaviour, not underlying psychology. Gottman's research identifies what destructive communication looks like but does not fully explain why some individuals engage in it. This is where personality psychology and attachment theory become essential. A narcissistic individual engages in contempt for different reasons (maintaining superiority, punishing failures to provide supply) than someone whose contempt emerges from unprocessed resentment about solvable relationship problems. Treatment implications differ accordingly.

Individual differences in sensitivity to contempt exist. While contempt is harmful across populations, individuals with histories of narcissistic abuse or attachment disruption may be more devastated by contempt than those with secure attachment histories. Research applying Gottman's findings to trauma populations should account for these differences in baseline vulnerability and physiological reactivity.

Historical Context

When Gottman began his research in the 1970s, relationship science was largely theoretical and retrospective—clinicians worked with couples already in crisis and theorised about what had gone wrong. Gottman revolutionised the field by bringing the laboratory to relationships: observing couples in real-time, measuring physiological responses, and tracking outcomes over years.

His "Love Lab" at the University of Washington became legendary. Couples would come in, discuss areas of disagreement, and be recorded while wearing physiological monitors. Trained observers coded every behaviour. Then Gottman followed these couples for years, tracking who divorced and who stayed together. This methodology allowed him to identify which specific behaviours predicted which outcomes—moving relationship science from speculation to prediction.

The publication of What Predicts Divorce? in 1994 synthesised this research for clinical and academic audiences. The book's claims generated both excitement and controversy. Some researchers questioned the statistical analyses and prediction claims. Others worried that reducing relationship quality to observable behaviours missed deeper dynamics. But the core findings—particularly the toxicity of contempt—have been replicated extensively and become foundational to evidence-based couples therapy.

Gottman's subsequent work developed intervention approaches (the Gottman Method) based on his research findings, including programmes like "Bringing Baby Home" that teach couples to avoid the Four Horsemen during the stressful transition to parenthood. His research has been cited thousands of times and influenced how clinicians worldwide understand and treat relationship problems.

What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes

APA Citation