Protecting the Marriage Relationship During the Doctoral Journey

Abstract

With doctoral programs across disciplines experiencing perennially high attrition rates, in-depth examination of factors associated with doctoral persistence is necessary. A strong marital relationship is one factor found to be central to persistence in doctoral students. Thus, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the literature on marital satisfaction, quality, and stability in order to provide doctoral students and their partners strategies for nurturing and sustaining a solid marriage throughout the stress-inducing doctoral process. Recommendations are framed by the following four factors of the Sound Marital House: (a) marital friendship, (b) creating positive sentiment override, (c) regulating conflict, and (d) creating shared symbolic meaning.

Keywords

doctoral persistence marital relationship Sound Marital House

Doctoral persistence, defined as “the continuance of a student’s progress toward the completion of a doctoral degree” (Bair, 1999, p. 8), continues to be a concern as only 40–60% of doctoral students across disciplines complete their doctoral programs (Council of Graduate Schools PhD Completion Project, 2007). To date, researchers have identified factors, both on a student and institutional level, that contribute to doctoral persistence (Golde, 2005; Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012), and a strong marital relationship is one factor central to persistence in a doctoral program (Lott, Gardner, & Powers, 2009; Price, 2006). Specifically, a supportive partner contributes to the emotional stability of the doctoral student and ultimately his or her ability to complete the program (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Consistent with the literature devoted to understanding marital satisfaction and quality, Hyun (2009) found that a solid marriage and partner support assisted female counseling doctoral students in balancing their personal lives and school in a successful manner.

Marital satisfaction and quality have been correlated with positive outcomes for individuals and families. A meta-analysis of 93 studies demonstrated a strong, positive relationship between individual well-being and marital quality (Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007). Other researchers have reported that level of marital satisfaction and quality are related to physical health (South & Krueger, 2013; Whisman & Uebelacker, 2003) and productivity (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Alternatively, poor familial relationships are associated with stress and distress (Bodenmann, 2005; Himsel & Goldberg, 2003) and contribute to doctoral students’ decision to leave a doctoral program (Lovitts, 2001). Often entrance of one partner into a doctoral program results in marital distress and negatively influences the marital relationship as areas of concern such as financial difficulties, lack of time, poor communication, and change in roles and lifestyle (Bergen & Bergen, 1978; Cao, 2001; Giles, 1983; Middleton, 2001; Norton, Thomas, Morgan, Tilley, & Dickins, 1998; Williams, 1977).

Based on the premise that understanding how to maintain marital satisfaction, quality, and stability is essential to doctoral persistence, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate how doctoral students and their partners can sustain a healthy marriage through the doctoral process by applying Gottman’s (1999) Sound Marital House concepts that purport that a satisfying and stable marriage is determined by the following four factors: (a) marital friendship, (b) creating positive sentiment override (PSO), (c) regulating conflict, and (d) creating shared symbolic meaning.

Marital Satisfaction, Quality, and Stability

Longitudinal research has established that marital satisfaction is not static but rather a phenomenon in “flux” (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). In other words, marital quality and satisfaction are fluid and multidimensional constructs (Gottman & Notarius, 2002; Gottman, Ryan, Carrère, & Erley, 2002). One theory for explaining this fluid and multidimensional concept of marital satisfaction and quality is the complex dynamical systems theory. Since marital satisfaction and stability are not considered static variables but are “moving targets,” complex dynamical systems theory suggests focusing on process is critical. The concept of the Sound Marital House (Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Notarius, 2002) provides insight into process-oriented variables that have been used to successfully predict outcome variables, thus, providing implications for doctoral students who are in an environment that may influence or threaten the marriage stability.

The Doctoral Process

Engaging in doctoral study can affect the homeostasis of the marriage relationship. While there are many stress-inducing factors associated with pursing a doctorate (e.g., statistics anxiety, financial pressure, etc.), surveying doctoral students (N = 619) across programs, Wasburn-Moses (2008) found that “doctoral students felt least satisfied [italics added] with their ability to juggle work and family with their overall workload” (p. 265). Doctoral students consistently report that enrollment in a doctoral program induces feeling of guilt, worry, and anxiety due to time away from the family (Smith, Maroney, Nelson, Abel, & Abel, 2006) and sacrificing time with spouses was a significant theme in one study investigating the experiences of individuals who had persisted and earned their doctorate in the field of education (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). These findings reinforce Wellington and Sikes’ (2006) conclusion that “family and personal relationships are sometimes strained and can even break down as a result of a student’s involvement in their studies” (p. 731). Quite simply, introducing doctoral studies to the marriage or family unit often requires a significant social adjustment as spouses may need to assume different roles and responsibilities than they are accustomed, the family’s financial situation may change, and the doctoral student may begin to differentiate from the family (e.g., seek the council of doctoral faculty or peers rather than the spouse).

The Sound Marital House

The Holmes-Rahe Stress Inventory (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) that evaluates social adjustments lists transition in work, work hours, living conditions, and other items associated with doctoral study as significant stressors. Gottman’s (1999) Sound Marital House concept is consistent with a complex dynamical systems approach and may provide protective strategies to buffer doctoral students from the stress of “major changes in the number of arguments with spouse” (rated a 35 on the Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory). The Sound Marital House purports that a satisfying and stable marriage is determined by the following four factors: (a) marital friendship, (b) creating PSO, (c) regulating conflict, and (d) creating shared symbolic meaning.

The foundation to a strong marriage needs to be marital friendship as friendship is usually characterized by behaviors that promote positive affect. Cognitive room, fondness and admiration, and actions of turning toward one’s partner are the three components that make up friendship. PSO refers to each partner’s ability to accept feedback as constructive rather than negative and critical. This approach is different than active listening. Active listening may have led to a decrease in negative interaction but was not coupled with an increase in positive interaction necessary to maintain a 5:1 ratio (Gottman et al., 2002). PSO involves attributing a positive meaning to a neutral stimuli. When the doctoral student exhibits a negative affect in the form of yelling, his or her partner is able to interpret the negativity as the partner being upset about a grade received on a paper rather than a personal attack, this neutral interpretation may be associated with a lack of negative reciprocity (Gottman et al. 2002). In the vernacular of doctoral students, this may be referred to as the “quit taking it personally” approach.

The next Sound Marital House factor, conflict regulation, allows the couple to navigate the terrain of irresolvable problems (perpetual problems, which even couples who have high levels of stability and satisfaction face) and physiologically sooth one another to avoid escalation in conflict. Finally, by creating shared symbolic meaning couples support each other’s life dreams and establish rituals, roles, goals, and symbols for the purpose of connecting (Gottman, 1999).

Entrance of one partner into a doctoral program has the potential to undermine the process of cultivating a Sound Marital House as the four factors may become difficult to maintain. When time is limited, communication is sporadic, and stress levels increase. Friendship can be harder to maintain; PSO difficult to create; conflicts can be ignored and escalate; and rituals, roles, goals, and symbols may be put on hold. If doctoral students and their partners can understand and be intentional about implementing strategies related to increasing the four Sound Marital House factors, they can increase the likelihood that they maintain a satisfied, quality, stable relationship through the doctoral journey. And, as a result of a stronger marriage relationship, the doctoral student may be more likely to persist in this program.

Strategies to Create and Maintain a Sound Marital House

A variety of strategies have been linked to building a satisfying, quality, stable marriage that may help doctoral students and their partners build a sound marital house while enrolled in a doctoral program. Following are some strategies from the literature (Gottman, 1999; Gottman et al., 2002; Gottman & Silver, 1999) that are congruent with the Sound Marital House concept that doctoral students can use for implementing and operationalizing the concepts.

Factor 1: Marital Friendship

The foundation to a strong marriage needs to be marital friendship, as friendship is usually characterized by behaviors that promote positive affect (Gottman, 1999; Gottman, Gottman, & Declaire, 2006). Fondness, admiration, and actions of turning toward one’s partner are the three components that constitute friendship. Couples may increase fondness and admiration for one another by making a list of attributes that they value about one another and placing this list in a visible location. Then as couples make an effort to express gratitude to one another on a daily basis, they are able to increase fondness and admiration while also increasing authentic happiness as an additional benefit (Seligman, 2003). In addition to meditating on valued characteristics to increase fondness and admiration to increase marital friendship, couples can also create a love map. A love map involves a mental map that includes an awareness of one’s partner’s activities (Gottman & Silver, 1999). Love maps increase knowledge about each other’s space (work, family, school, and self) and track with one another’s daily and/or weekly activities to increase intimacy. Couples may find it helpful to schedule a time, once a week or once a month, to talk about stresses, worries, and hopes, especially as they relate to the doctoral program. The following questions have been adapted from “The Love Map Questionnaire” specifically for couples completing doctoral work and are modified to be conversation questions to be answered over dinner or another time the couple schedules (see Gottman & Silver, 1999, for more details):

Who are my partner’s three closest classmates?

What are the school and work stressors my partner is facing right now?

What are my partner’s life dreams and goals related to education and work?

Share my top three stressors with my partner.

What is my partner most grateful for currently?

In addition to completing Gottman’s Love Map exercise, couples may also find “The 5 As” (Tirabassi & Tirabassi, 2011) helpful. Adapted for doctoral students, The 5 As are (a) affirmation, (b) affection, (c) apology, (d) ask, and (e) amen.

Affirmation

This includes the identification of things about the partner that the other partner appreciates (e.g., I am thankful for your __________). For the couple in the midst of the doctoral journey, this should include a list of things directly related to the doctoral process (e.g., I am thankful that you are doing the laundry and taking care of household responsibilities so I can study. I am thankful you are pursuing a terminal degree and setting a good example for our children).

Affection

This includes physical touch, sharing a comforting touch such as a hug or a kiss, and words of affection (e.g., I love you). While in a doctoral program, expressions of affection are often neglected and replaced with the business of school and life. For the couple in the midst of the doctoral journey, it is important to create habits of affection (e.g., a kiss before each partner leaves for work in the morning).

Apology

Often during the doctoral process, feelings can get hurt as one partner neglects another partner’s needs. It is important that couples check in with each other weekly and apologize for anything that has bothered or hurt the other partner.

Ask

This includes volunteering to do a small act of service for a partner (e.g., I know this is a stressful time for you. What can I do to take something off your plate right now?).

Amen

This includes encouraging a partner through words and actions (e.g., I know you had to stay up late finishing your paper because you took time to go to [our child’s] soccer game. Thank-you for prioritizing this and for the personal sacrifices you are making for our family).

Applying The 5 As is also a creative way to create love maps and may be especially helpful to doctoral students and their partners as it is a brief and efficient way to promote the 5:1 ratio, meaning there are five positive interactions manifested for every one negative, contributing to an overall positive emotional atmosphere typically found among stable/satisfied couples.

Assessments like the Love Map Questionnaire may be helpful in fostering the process of increasing positive interaction in addition to decreasing negative interaction. This two-pronged approach has a greater impact on process (Gottman et al., 2002). While doctoral students can integrate these assessments on their own, faculty can also use these assessments as experiential activities in class or as reflective homework assignments, serving a 2-fold process of self-awareness and buffering against the stress of marital tension.

Factor 2: PSO

PSO refers to each partner’s ability to accept feedback as constructive rather than negative and critical. For example, when the doctoral student receives a low grade on an assignment and shortly after exhibits a negative effect in the form of being short or yelling, his or her partner is able to interpret the negativity as the partner being upset about the grade rather than a personal attack.

There are several strategies that can be helpful in increasing PSO. “Pack away your radar system” is an example of one. If one’s radar is going off and a partner is interpreting his or her partner’s behavior as originating from negative intentions (or negative sentiment override), in order to activate PSO partners can “pack away their radar system” by taking a break from the conversation and the partner.

Another method consistent with promoting PSO is the idea of making “deposits” in a partner’s metaphorical emotional bank account. This process is referred to as “padding the emotional bank account” (Harley, 2001). Each time a partner meets the needs of his or her partner, he or she makes a deposit in the emotional bank account; conversely, each negative interaction is a withdrawal from the emotional bank account. In order to maintain a positive relationship, or in Harley’s terms, an affair proof marriage, it is important to make enough deposits to sustain a withdrawal. A negative interaction, complaint, or other relationship problem may make a withdrawal from the emotional bank account. According to Gottman (1999), in stable marriages, the ratio of positive to negative interactions is 5:1 (though it is even higher in happy marriages). So, to maintain a positive emotional atmosphere in the relationship and promote PSO, it is important to strive to make significantly more deposits than withdrawals. Harley suggests husbands and wives can make deposits by meeting the needs for husbands and wives.

Husbands can (a) provide affection (e.g., give a hug and kiss when she comes home at night from class), (b) initiate meaningful conversation (e.g., What was the best part of your day today? How did class tonight inform your dissertation plans?), (c) be honest (e.g., I am calling because this work on this paper is going to take longer than I thought and I will have to forego the movie and work long into the night after dinner in order to complete this group project.), and (d) provide family commitment (e.g., set aside a family night each week).

Wives can (a) be sensitive to her husband’s sexual needs (e.g., make time for sex even when the stress of course work and dissertation makes it difficult), (b) provide recreational companionship (e.g., find and share mutual interests and plan at least 1 day a month away from course work and the dissertation to have fun together), and (c) admire (e.g., express appreciation for what he does, Thank-you for doing the laundry while I was working on my paper tonight).

Factor 3: Conflict Regulation

Conflict regulation allows the couple to navigate the terrain of irreconcilable problems and to physiologically sooth one another to avoid escalation in conflict. Gottman (1999) suggests it is not conflict that threatens marriages, but the way the conflict is dealt with. It is important to recognize that it is okay to fight but recovery after fighting is needed. To recover, Gottman (1999) suggests implementing the following basic skills: First, practice soft start-ups to bring up problem areas. For example, rather than starting the conversation by stating, “I have asked you a dozen times to help me set up an office, and I cannot believe you haven’t done anything to help me!” a spouse could ask, “Honey, do you have some time to talk about where we can create an office space for me to work so I do not have to use the kitchen table to complete my schoolwork?” It is important to start-up conflicts in a gentle way without blaming one another. After starting the discussion regarding the source of conflict softly, couples can also use and recognize repair attempts. These repair attempts may come in the form of humor, nonverbal communication, or physical touch. For example, a light kiss, a smile, or a joke. All of these gestures serve to de-escalate the conflict and restore affection for one another.

Another basic skill Gottman (1999) recommends is compromise. Since disagreements are inevitable, especially when one partner is pursuing a degree that requires significant investment of time and resources, compromise is an important tool for resolving conflict. For example, a husband and wife may need to sit down prior to the wife entering the doctoral program and decide what their “negotiable” and “nonnegotiables” are related to household responsibilities. The husband may agree to taking care of all of the household cleaning chores so his wife can use the extra time to study but with the agreement that she will continue to cook dinner every night.

Another tool Gottman (1999) suggests for conflict regulation is implementing relaxation techniques and sooth physiological arousal during a conflict. This idea of self-soothing is consistent with the fourth branch of emotional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Cherkasskiy, 2011) that requires the ability to identify emotions in facial expressions, to use emotional information to facilitate thought, and to regulate emotion. For example, doing deep breathing exercises for several minutes or taking a time out during a conflict can help one to modify the state of physiological arousal. Gottman (1999) also emphasizes the importance of self-soothing in addition to accepting influence (Gottman et al., 2006; Madhyastha, Hamaker, & Gottman, 2011; i.e., respecting and valuing what one’s partner has to say and taking it into consideration when deciding upon or taking an action) in conflict regulation and compromise.

Applying the aforementioned strategies can facilitate the regulation of conflict. However, in addition to implementing strategies, it is also important to identify and eliminate some process. The four horsemen of the apocalypse are behaviors that predict a marriage is likely to end (Gottman, 2009) and they include the following: (a) criticism: statements that imply something is globally wrong with the partner (e.g., You are always so lazy!), (b) contempt: statements that imply superiority (e.g., You are not capable of amounting to anything!), (c) defensiveness: statements that claim innocence (e.g., This is not in any way my fault), and (d) stonewalling: withdrawing from the discussion (e.g., I’m done talking about this). It is important for partners to identify these confrontational stances in their relationship and replace with a listening stance exemplified by the prayer of peace commonly attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi, “Grant that I may not so much seek…to be understood as to understand.” In sum, spouses should look for opportunities to understand and see the issue from their partner’s perspective, recognizing that showing understanding is not necessarily agreeing.

Factor 4: Symbolic Meaning

By creating shared symbolic meaning or creating meaningful, shared experiences, couples support each other’s life dreams and establish rituals, roles, goals, and symbols for the purpose of connecting. They also reduce the likelihood on negative martial interactions and increase the chances of staying in their marital relationship (Bradley & Gottman, 2012). There are some practical strategies for increasing a couple’s shared meaning. Couples need to schedule and implement daily, weekly, or monthly rituals to connect with one another and bond (see The 5 As; Tirabassi & Tirabassi, 2011). For example, some couples plan monthly weekend getaways, a biweekly date, or simply a 30-min shared breakfast every morning to ensure that despite the busyness they have at least one event to share together daily in order to maintain connection while one spouse is in a doctoral program.

Conclusion

Promoting marital satisfaction, quality, and ultimately, stability, through the stress of a doctoral program is essential to doctoral persistence. Partners can promote marital satisfaction, quality, and stability by understanding the concept of the Strong Marital House and implementing strategies for promoting marital friendship, creating PSO, regulating conflict, and creating shared symbolic meaning.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bair

C. R.

(1999). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI Microform 9917754)

Bergen

M. B.

(1978). Quality of marriage of university students in relation to sources of financial support and demographic characteristics. The Family Coordinator, 27, 245–250.

Bodenmann

(2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revenson

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Emerging perspectives on couples coping with stress (pp. 33–50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964–980.

Bradley

R. P.

Gottman

J. M.

(2012). Reducing situational violence in low-income couples by fostering healthy relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 187–198.

Cao

(2001). How male and female doctoral students experience their doctoral programs similarly and differently. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline program data from the Ph.D. completion project. Washington, DC: Author.

Frone

M. R.

Yardley

J. K.

Markel

K. S.

(1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.

Giles

(1983). The effects of doctoral study on marriage and family: An ethnographic study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American College Personnel Association. Houston, TX.

10.

Golde

C. M.

(2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 669–700.

11.

Gottman

J. M.

(1999). The marriage clinic. New York, NY: Norton.

12.

Gottman

J. M.

Gottman

J. S.

Declaire

(2006). Ten lessons to transform your marriage: America’s love lab experts share their strategies for strengthening your relationship. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.

13.

Gottman

J. M.

Notarius

C. I.

(2002). Marital research in the 20th century and a research agenda for the 21st century. Family Process, 41, 159–197.

14.

Gottman

J. M.

Ryan

K. D.

Carrère

Erley

A. M.

(2002). Toward a scientifically based marital therapy. In Liddle

H. A.

Santisteban

D. A.

Levant

R. F.

Bray

J. H.

(Eds.), Family psychology: Science-based interventions (pp. 147–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10438-008.

15.

Gottman

J. M.

Silver

(1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.

16.

Harley

W. F.

(2001). His needs, her needs: Building an affair-proof marriage. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell.

17.

Himsel

A. J.

Goldberg

W. A.

(2003). Social comparisons and satisfaction with the division of housework: Implications for men’s and women’s role strain. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 843–866.

18.

Holmes

T. H.

Rahe

R. H.

(1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213–218.

19.

Hyun

J. H.

(2009). An exploration of the coping strategies in female counseling doctoral students’ marriages. Dissertations. Paper 37. Retrieved from http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cps_diss/37

20.

Lott

Gardner

S. K.

Powers

D. A.

(2009). Doctoral student attrition in the STEM fields: An exploration of event history analysis. The Journal of College Student Retention, 11, 247–266.

21.

Lovitts

B. E.

(2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

22.

Madhyastha

T. M.

Hamaker

E. L.

Gottman

J. M.

(2011). Investigating spousal influence using moment-to-moment affect data from marital conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 292–300.

23.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

Cherkasskiy

(2011). What is emotional intelligence and why does it matter? In Sternberg

R. J.

Kaufman

(Eds.), The handbook of intelligence (3rd ed., pp. 528–549). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Middleton

(2001). Making room: The place of academic study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

25.

Norton

L. S.

Thomas

Morgan

Tilley

Dickins

T. E.

(1998). Full-time studying and long-term relationships: Make or break for mature students? British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 26, 75–88.

26.

Price

(2006). Does a spouse slow you down?: Marriage and graduate student outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.

27.

Proulx

Helms

Buehler

(2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 576–593.

28.

Seligman

(2003). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: Atria Books.

29.

Smith

R. L.

Maroney

Nelson

K. W.

Abel

A. L.

Abel

H. S.

(2006). Doctoral programs: Changing high rates of attrition. Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development, 45, 17–31.

30.

South

Krueger

(2013). Marital satisfaction and physical health evidence for an orchid effect. Psychological Science, 24, 373–378.

31.

Spaulding

L. S.

Rockinson-Szapkiw

A. J.

(2012). Hearing their voices: Factors doctoral candidates attribute to their persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 199–219. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume7/IJDSv7p199-219Spaulding334.pdf

32.

Tirabassi

(2011). Little changes big results for crazy busy couples. Newport Beach, CA: Little Changes Big Results LLC.

33.

Wasburn-Moses

(2008). Satisfaction among current doctoral students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 259–268.

34.

Wellington

Sikes

(2006). “A doctorate in a tight compartment”: Why do students choose a profes-sional doctorate and what impact does it have on their personal and professional lives? Studies in Higher Education, 31, 723–734. doi:10.1080/03075070601004358

35.

Whisman

M. A.

Uebelacker

L. A.

(2003). Comorbidity of relationship distress and mental and physical health problems. In Snyder

D. K.

Whisman

M. A.

(Eds.), Treating difficult couples: Helping clients with coexisting mental and relationship disorders (pp. 3–26). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

36.

Williams

R. E.

(1977). The perception of the impact of a doctoral program upon the marriage relation-ships of doctoral students at the University of Northern Colorado (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 132.