IX Coach

Coaching approaches

The Gottman Method: Research-Based Relationship Coaching

The Gottman Method, applied in coaching, takes one relationship and works on it through a small number of structured conversations, using findings from research on how couples talk, disagree and repair. The research behind it comes from John Gottman and Julie Schwartz Gottman's studies of couples, many of them newlywed couples followed over years. The studies are peer-reviewed, but I did not verify a controlled trial of the coaching itself, and the randomised trials I found test a neighbouring form of couples therapy.

What it is

A relationship coaching session takes one relationship and looks at it through a few structured conversations. The coach uses findings from research on couples to choose what to look at: how a conversation starts, how small attempts to connect are answered, and how each partner repairs after a disagreement.

It is aimed at couples who want to stay together and handle conflict and closeness better. The coach is not a therapist and does not judge whether a relationship should continue.

Where it comes from

The research programme of John Gottman and Julie Schwartz Gottman studied couples in conversation, including newlyweds followed over several years. Two examples are a 1992 study of marital processes and later dissolution by John Gottman and Robert Levenson, and a 1999 study by Sybil Carrère and John Gottman that followed couples for six years.

John Gottman set out a theory of marital dissolution and stability in 1993. The name used for the teaching programme is held as a trademark by its owners; this page documents the method and is not affiliated with them.

The principles underneath

A conversation can show the relationship

In one study of 124 newlywed couples, the first three minutes of a conflict discussion predicted divorce over six years (Sybil Carrère and John Gottman, 1999).

Repair during conflict

A 2015 study by John Gottman, Janice Driver and Amber Tabares examined how newlywed couples move from attack and defence toward collaboration during conflict.

Everyday exchanges matter

A 1998 study by John Gottman, James Coan, Sybil Carrère and Catherine Swanson used newlywed interactions to study later marital happiness and stability.

Behaviour, physiology and health

The 1992 study by John Gottman and Robert Levenson looked at marital behaviour alongside physiology and health.

How a session runs

  1. The coach asks each partner, one at a time, what they want from the work and what they have noticed.
  2. The coach helps the couple talk about a recent disagreement in a way that starts gently, and watches how each responds.
  3. Together they identify the moments when the conversation turned, and what happened just before.
  4. The coach suggests one or two practices for the week, such as a regular check-in conversation, and agrees how they will review them.
  5. The next session starts with what the couple tried and what changed, however small.

When it tends to fit

  • You and your partner keep returning to the same argument, and each conversation ends in the same place.
  • One of you wants to repair after a hard moment and does not yet know how to start.
  • You want a structured conversation about the relationship rather than an open-ended one.

What the research shows

Evidence: Some peer-reviewed studies

The research behind the approach is peer-reviewed and largely observational. Studies of newlywed couples followed over years tested whether what couples do in conversation predicts later happiness, stability or divorce (John Gottman and Robert Levenson, 1992; John Gottman and colleagues, 1998; Sybil Carrère and John Gottman, 1999). A 2015 study by John Gottman, Janice Driver and Amber Tabares examined how newlywed couples repair during conflict. I did not verify a randomised trial of the coaching or of the programme it draws on. The randomised evidence I found is a meta-analysis of trials of behavioural marital therapy, a neighbouring form of couples therapy (Shadish and Baldwin, 2005), which does not test this approach.

Where the evidence is thin: Predicting which couples divorce is not the same as showing that coaching changes outcomes. The newlywed studies describe research samples, and the coaching has not been tested in a controlled trial that I could verify. The meta-analysis concerns a different form of couples therapy.

Sources

  1. Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 57-75.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. Carrère, S., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38(3), 293-301.
  5. 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.
  6. Shadish, W. R., & Baldwin, S. A. (2005). Effects of Behavioral Marital Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(1), 6-14.

Where it stops

This is not couples therapy, and a coach does not assess a relationship for danger. If there is physical violence, threats, coercion or fear of a partner, the first step is a specialist service for safety, not a coaching conversation.

Coaching does not replace treatment for depression, addiction, trauma, or an affair or betrayal that is still unresolved. A couples therapist or individual clinician is better placed to help with those.

Practices for this approach

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice

This page documents a coaching approach for educational purposes. IX Coach is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the approach's originators or any organization that trains or certifies in it; their names appear only to identify the approach and credit its source.