Perceived Match or Mismatch on the Gottman Conflict Styles: Associations with Relationship Outcome Variables

Gottman has proposed that there are 3 functional styles of conflict management in couple relationships, labeled Avoidant, Validating, and Volatile, and 1 dysfunctional style, labeled Hostile. Using a sample of 1,983 couples in a committed relationship, we test the association of perceived matches or...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Family process 2009-12, Vol.48 (4), p.531-545
Hauptverfasser: BUSBY, DEAN M., HOLMAN, THOMAS B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 545
container_issue 4
container_start_page 531
container_title Family process
container_volume 48
creator BUSBY, DEAN M.
HOLMAN, THOMAS B.
description Gottman has proposed that there are 3 functional styles of conflict management in couple relationships, labeled Avoidant, Validating, and Volatile, and 1 dysfunctional style, labeled Hostile. Using a sample of 1,983 couples in a committed relationship, we test the association of perceived matches or mismatches on these conflict styles with relationship outcome variables. The results indicate that 32% of the participants perceive there is a mismatch with their conflict style and that of their partner. The Volatile‐Avoidant mismatch was particularly problematic and was associated with more stonewalling, relationship problems, and lower levels of relationship satisfaction and stability than the Validating matched style and than other mismatched styles. The most problematic style was the Hostile style. Contrary to existing assumptions by Gottman, the 3 matched functional styles were not equivalent, as the Validating Style was associated with substantially better results on relationship outcome measures than the Volatile and Avoidant styles. RESUMEN Compatibilidad o incompatibilidad percibidas en los estilos de manejo de conflictos de Gottman: Asociaciones con variables de resultado en las relaciones Gottman ha propuesto tres estilos funcionales de manejo de conflictos en las relaciones de pareja llamados evasivo, sólido e inestable, y un estilo disfuncional llamado hostil. Utilizando una muestra de 1.983 parejas que están en una relación de compromiso, evaluamos la influencia de las compatibilidades o las incompatibilidades en estos estilos de manejo de conflictos con variables de resultado en las relaciones. Los resultados indican que el 32% de los participantes perciben que existe una incompatibilidad entre su estilo de manejo de conflictos y el de su pareja. La incompatibilidad de estilos inestable‐evasivo fue particularmente problemática y se asoció con mayor obstaculización, problemas en la relación y niveles más bajos de satisfacción y estabilidad de la relación que la compatibilidad en el estilo sólido y que otras incompatibilidades de estilos. El estilo más problemático fue el hostil. Contrariamente a los supuestos actuales de Gottman, los tres estilos funcionales compatibles no fueron equivalentes ya que el estilo sólido se asoció con resultados considerablemente mejores en las medidas de resultado de las relaciones que el estilo inestable y el evasivo. Palabras clave: estilos de manejo de conflictos, Gottman, parejas
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01300.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734153300</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>60352043</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4950-fc3e2e941551db14a245233ae7f12e0ba2bd4c0082f30c3a808511caa91419163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkkuP0zAUhSMEYjoDfwFZSMAq5fqVB4uRqjJTkKZMYXgsLcd1VJckLrbDtP8eh1RFYoHwxtfyd498z3GSIAxTHNfr7RRzxlNOAaYEoJwCHsr9g2RyuniYTAAwS3Oaw1ly7v0WAFhZ5I-TM1yWFBjNJ0mz0k5p81Ov0VIGtUHWoaXx7Vh3KGw0WtgQWtmhue3qxqiA7sKh0f4NmnlvlZHB2M6jexM26JNuxuPG7NBtH5RtNfoqnZFV7HiSPKpl4_XT436RfLm--jx_l97cLt7PZzepYiWHtFZUE10yzDleV5hJwjihVOq8xkRDJUm1ZgqgIDUFRWUBBcdYSVlihkuc0Yvk1ai7c_ZHr30QrfFKN43stO29yGnUptGjSL78J5kB5SQ6FcHnf4Fb27suTiEILoqsKDMSoWKElLPeO12LnTOtdAeBQQzBia0Y8hFDPmIITvwOTuxj67Ojfl-1ev2n8ZhUBF4cAemVbGonO2X8iSME54zyYaLLkbs3jT789wPE9Wy5wqMl6ShgfND7k4B030UW_xIX3z4sxNslXc0_3jHB6C_mn8Gm</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218868962</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Perceived Match or Mismatch on the Gottman Conflict Styles: Associations with Relationship Outcome Variables</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>BUSBY, DEAN M. ; HOLMAN, THOMAS B.</creator><creatorcontrib>BUSBY, DEAN M. ; HOLMAN, THOMAS B.</creatorcontrib><description>Gottman has proposed that there are 3 functional styles of conflict management in couple relationships, labeled Avoidant, Validating, and Volatile, and 1 dysfunctional style, labeled Hostile. Using a sample of 1,983 couples in a committed relationship, we test the association of perceived matches or mismatches on these conflict styles with relationship outcome variables. The results indicate that 32% of the participants perceive there is a mismatch with their conflict style and that of their partner. The Volatile‐Avoidant mismatch was particularly problematic and was associated with more stonewalling, relationship problems, and lower levels of relationship satisfaction and stability than the Validating matched style and than other mismatched styles. The most problematic style was the Hostile style. Contrary to existing assumptions by Gottman, the 3 matched functional styles were not equivalent, as the Validating Style was associated with substantially better results on relationship outcome measures than the Volatile and Avoidant styles. RESUMEN Compatibilidad o incompatibilidad percibidas en los estilos de manejo de conflictos de Gottman: Asociaciones con variables de resultado en las relaciones Gottman ha propuesto tres estilos funcionales de manejo de conflictos en las relaciones de pareja llamados evasivo, sólido e inestable, y un estilo disfuncional llamado hostil. Utilizando una muestra de 1.983 parejas que están en una relación de compromiso, evaluamos la influencia de las compatibilidades o las incompatibilidades en estos estilos de manejo de conflictos con variables de resultado en las relaciones. Los resultados indican que el 32% de los participantes perciben que existe una incompatibilidad entre su estilo de manejo de conflictos y el de su pareja. La incompatibilidad de estilos inestable‐evasivo fue particularmente problemática y se asoció con mayor obstaculización, problemas en la relación y niveles más bajos de satisfacción y estabilidad de la relación que la compatibilidad en el estilo sólido y que otras incompatibilidades de estilos. El estilo más problemático fue el hostil. Contrariamente a los supuestos actuales de Gottman, los tres estilos funcionales compatibles no fueron equivalentes ya que el estilo sólido se asoció con resultados considerablemente mejores en las medidas de resultado de las relaciones que el estilo inestable y el evasivo. Palabras clave: estilos de manejo de conflictos, Gottman, parejas</description><identifier>ISSN: 0014-7370</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-5300</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01300.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19930437</identifier><identifier>CODEN: FAPRDG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Adaptation, Psychological ; Adult ; Analysis of Variance ; Biological and medical sciences ; Conflict ; Conflict (Psychology) ; Conflict Styles ; Couple and family ; Couples ; Couples Therapy ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Divorce ; Family Characteristics ; Family Therapy ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Gottman ; Humans ; Male ; Marital psychotherapy ; Marital Therapy ; Medical sciences ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Psychometrics ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Psychotherapies. Psychological and clinical counseling ; Social Perception ; Social psychology ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Treatments ; United States</subject><ispartof>Family process, 2009-12, Vol.48 (4), p.531-545</ispartof><rights>FPI, Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dec 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4950-fc3e2e941551db14a245233ae7f12e0ba2bd4c0082f30c3a808511caa91419163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4950-fc3e2e941551db14a245233ae7f12e0ba2bd4c0082f30c3a808511caa91419163</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1545-5300.2009.01300.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1545-5300.2009.01300.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,12829,27327,27907,27908,30982,33757,33758,45557,45558</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=22174350$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19930437$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>BUSBY, DEAN M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOLMAN, THOMAS B.</creatorcontrib><title>Perceived Match or Mismatch on the Gottman Conflict Styles: Associations with Relationship Outcome Variables</title><title>Family process</title><addtitle>Fam Process</addtitle><description>Gottman has proposed that there are 3 functional styles of conflict management in couple relationships, labeled Avoidant, Validating, and Volatile, and 1 dysfunctional style, labeled Hostile. Using a sample of 1,983 couples in a committed relationship, we test the association of perceived matches or mismatches on these conflict styles with relationship outcome variables. The results indicate that 32% of the participants perceive there is a mismatch with their conflict style and that of their partner. The Volatile‐Avoidant mismatch was particularly problematic and was associated with more stonewalling, relationship problems, and lower levels of relationship satisfaction and stability than the Validating matched style and than other mismatched styles. The most problematic style was the Hostile style. Contrary to existing assumptions by Gottman, the 3 matched functional styles were not equivalent, as the Validating Style was associated with substantially better results on relationship outcome measures than the Volatile and Avoidant styles. RESUMEN Compatibilidad o incompatibilidad percibidas en los estilos de manejo de conflictos de Gottman: Asociaciones con variables de resultado en las relaciones Gottman ha propuesto tres estilos funcionales de manejo de conflictos en las relaciones de pareja llamados evasivo, sólido e inestable, y un estilo disfuncional llamado hostil. Utilizando una muestra de 1.983 parejas que están en una relación de compromiso, evaluamos la influencia de las compatibilidades o las incompatibilidades en estos estilos de manejo de conflictos con variables de resultado en las relaciones. Los resultados indican que el 32% de los participantes perciben que existe una incompatibilidad entre su estilo de manejo de conflictos y el de su pareja. La incompatibilidad de estilos inestable‐evasivo fue particularmente problemática y se asoció con mayor obstaculización, problemas en la relación y niveles más bajos de satisfacción y estabilidad de la relación que la compatibilidad en el estilo sólido y que otras incompatibilidades de estilos. El estilo más problemático fue el hostil. Contrariamente a los supuestos actuales de Gottman, los tres estilos funcionales compatibles no fueron equivalentes ya que el estilo sólido se asoció con resultados considerablemente mejores en las medidas de resultado de las relaciones que el estilo inestable y el evasivo. Palabras clave: estilos de manejo de conflictos, Gottman, parejas</description><subject>Adaptation, Psychological</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Conflict (Psychology)</subject><subject>Conflict Styles</subject><subject>Couple and family</subject><subject>Couples</subject><subject>Couples Therapy</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Divorce</subject><subject>Family Characteristics</subject><subject>Family Therapy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Gottman</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Marital psychotherapy</subject><subject>Marital Therapy</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychotherapies. Psychological and clinical counseling</subject><subject>Social Perception</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Treatments</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0014-7370</issn><issn>1545-5300</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkkuP0zAUhSMEYjoDfwFZSMAq5fqVB4uRqjJTkKZMYXgsLcd1VJckLrbDtP8eh1RFYoHwxtfyd498z3GSIAxTHNfr7RRzxlNOAaYEoJwCHsr9g2RyuniYTAAwS3Oaw1ly7v0WAFhZ5I-TM1yWFBjNJ0mz0k5p81Ov0VIGtUHWoaXx7Vh3KGw0WtgQWtmhue3qxqiA7sKh0f4NmnlvlZHB2M6jexM26JNuxuPG7NBtH5RtNfoqnZFV7HiSPKpl4_XT436RfLm--jx_l97cLt7PZzepYiWHtFZUE10yzDleV5hJwjihVOq8xkRDJUm1ZgqgIDUFRWUBBcdYSVlihkuc0Yvk1ai7c_ZHr30QrfFKN43stO29yGnUptGjSL78J5kB5SQ6FcHnf4Fb27suTiEILoqsKDMSoWKElLPeO12LnTOtdAeBQQzBia0Y8hFDPmIITvwOTuxj67Ojfl-1ev2n8ZhUBF4cAemVbGonO2X8iSME54zyYaLLkbs3jT789wPE9Wy5wqMl6ShgfND7k4B030UW_xIX3z4sxNslXc0_3jHB6C_mn8Gm</recordid><startdate>200912</startdate><enddate>200912</enddate><creator>BUSBY, DEAN M.</creator><creator>HOLMAN, THOMAS B.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200912</creationdate><title>Perceived Match or Mismatch on the Gottman Conflict Styles: Associations with Relationship Outcome Variables</title><author>BUSBY, DEAN M. ; HOLMAN, THOMAS B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4950-fc3e2e941551db14a245233ae7f12e0ba2bd4c0082f30c3a808511caa91419163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adaptation, Psychological</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Conflict (Psychology)</topic><topic>Conflict Styles</topic><topic>Couple and family</topic><topic>Couples</topic><topic>Couples Therapy</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Divorce</topic><topic>Family Characteristics</topic><topic>Family Therapy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Gottman</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Marital psychotherapy</topic><topic>Marital Therapy</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychotherapies. Psychological and clinical counseling</topic><topic>Social Perception</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Treatments</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BUSBY, DEAN M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOLMAN, THOMAS B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Family process</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BUSBY, DEAN M.</au><au>HOLMAN, THOMAS B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Perceived Match or Mismatch on the Gottman Conflict Styles: Associations with Relationship Outcome Variables</atitle><jtitle>Family process</jtitle><addtitle>Fam Process</addtitle><date>2009-12</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>531</spage><epage>545</epage><pages>531-545</pages><issn>0014-7370</issn><eissn>1545-5300</eissn><coden>FAPRDG</coden><abstract>Gottman has proposed that there are 3 functional styles of conflict management in couple relationships, labeled Avoidant, Validating, and Volatile, and 1 dysfunctional style, labeled Hostile. Using a sample of 1,983 couples in a committed relationship, we test the association of perceived matches or mismatches on these conflict styles with relationship outcome variables. The results indicate that 32% of the participants perceive there is a mismatch with their conflict style and that of their partner. The Volatile‐Avoidant mismatch was particularly problematic and was associated with more stonewalling, relationship problems, and lower levels of relationship satisfaction and stability than the Validating matched style and than other mismatched styles. The most problematic style was the Hostile style. Contrary to existing assumptions by Gottman, the 3 matched functional styles were not equivalent, as the Validating Style was associated with substantially better results on relationship outcome measures than the Volatile and Avoidant styles. RESUMEN Compatibilidad o incompatibilidad percibidas en los estilos de manejo de conflictos de Gottman: Asociaciones con variables de resultado en las relaciones Gottman ha propuesto tres estilos funcionales de manejo de conflictos en las relaciones de pareja llamados evasivo, sólido e inestable, y un estilo disfuncional llamado hostil. Utilizando una muestra de 1.983 parejas que están en una relación de compromiso, evaluamos la influencia de las compatibilidades o las incompatibilidades en estos estilos de manejo de conflictos con variables de resultado en las relaciones. Los resultados indican que el 32% de los participantes perciben que existe una incompatibilidad entre su estilo de manejo de conflictos y el de su pareja. La incompatibilidad de estilos inestable‐evasivo fue particularmente problemática y se asoció con mayor obstaculización, problemas en la relación y niveles más bajos de satisfacción y estabilidad de la relación que la compatibilidad en el estilo sólido y que otras incompatibilidades de estilos. El estilo más problemático fue el hostil. Contrariamente a los supuestos actuales de Gottman, los tres estilos funcionales compatibles no fueron equivalentes ya que el estilo sólido se asoció con resultados considerablemente mejores en las medidas de resultado de las relaciones que el estilo inestable y el evasivo. Palabras clave: estilos de manejo de conflictos, Gottman, parejas</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>19930437</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01300.x</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0014-7370
ispartof Family process, 2009-12, Vol.48 (4), p.531-545
issn 0014-7370
1545-5300
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734153300
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Sociological Abstracts; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
subjects Adaptation, Psychological
Adult
Analysis of Variance
Biological and medical sciences
Conflict
Conflict (Psychology)
Conflict Styles
Couple and family
Couples
Couples Therapy
Cross-Sectional Studies
Divorce
Family Characteristics
Family Therapy
Female
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Gottman
Humans
Male
Marital psychotherapy
Marital Therapy
Medical sciences
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Psychometrics
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Psychotherapies. Psychological and clinical counseling
Social Perception
Social psychology
Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Treatments
United States
title Perceived Match or Mismatch on the Gottman Conflict Styles: Associations with Relationship Outcome Variables
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T09%3A50%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Perceived%20Match%20or%20Mismatch%20on%20the%20Gottman%20Conflict%20Styles:%20Associations%20with%20Relationship%20Outcome%20Variables&rft.jtitle=Family%20process&rft.au=BUSBY,%20DEAN%20M.&rft.date=2009-12&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=531&rft.epage=545&rft.pages=531-545&rft.issn=0014-7370&rft.eissn=1545-5300&rft.coden=FAPRDG&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01300.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E60352043%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218868962&rft_id=info:pmid/19930437&rfr_iscdi=true