1. Background
Marriage is a fundamental interpersonal institution and a primary building block of family and social systems. Although the transition to marriage offers substantial biopsychosocial and cognitive benefits, it also presents important challenges for engaged couples. Couples approaching marriage frequently experience interpersonal stress, unrealistic expectations, and inadequate relational competencies (1). The early years of marriage are particularly vulnerable, and a substantial proportion of marital distress stems from unresolved conflicts and dysfunctional communication patterns that may begin during engagement (2). In rapidly changing societies such as Ahvaz, Iran, these difficulties may be exacerbated by tensions between traditional cultural values and modern relational expectations, as reflected in rising divorce rates and reports of marital dissatisfaction in the region (3). Difficulty navigating these complexities can reduce marital quality, underscoring the importance of premarital preparation in family pathology (3, 4).
Empathy is a critical cognitive and emotional factor during this transition. It involves the ability to relate to and share a partner's emotional experiences. As a form of "relational glue," empathy fosters intimacy, improves mutual understanding, and may reduce relationship conflict and aggression (5). Among engaged couples, empathy enables partners to validate each other's experiences and respond to emotional needs with compassion rather than defensiveness. Deficits in empathic responding are strongly associated with the "Four Horsemen" of relationship distress—criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling—which longitudinal research suggests may emerge and become entrenched during engagement rather than only after marriage (6). When partners fail to maintain an empathic connection, the relationship may become increasingly vulnerable to emotional withdrawal and chronic dissatisfaction. Thus, cultivating empathy is not merely an interpersonal skill but may be an important prerequisite for the long-term stability and emotional depth of a newly formed marriage (7, 8).
Cognitive emotion regulation also plays an important role in marital outcomes. This construct refers to cognitive strategies used to influence the intensity and duration of emotional experiences (9). Navigating marital conflict requires adaptive strategies, particularly positive reappraisal and refocusing. In contrast, maladaptive strategies such as self- or other-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing are associated with greater interpersonal tension and psychological strain (10). Individuals with poor emotion regulation skills may be more likely to interpret a partner's neutral or ambiguous behavior as hostile, thereby reinforcing a cycle of negativity that erodes marital resilience. Therefore, training in cognitive emotion regulation may help prevent future relational breakdown (11, 12).
Several evidence-based premarital programs have been developed, including PREPARE/ENRICH and other communication-focused interventions. Although these approaches improve relationship skills, the Gottman Method was selected for the present study because it is empirically grounded in decades of longitudinal observational research comparing the "Masters and Disasters" of relationships and because of its comprehensive "Sound Relationship House" framework, which addresses both emotional connection and cognitive processes (13). Unlike purely skills-based models, the Gottman approach emphasizes building detailed love maps, nurturing fondness and admiration, and managing rather than eliminating conflict, while aligning with traditional communication training through its focus on conflict-management techniques. Previous studies have shown that Gottman-based interventions can improve marital satisfaction and reduce the risk of divorce (14). In particular, Mardani et al. (15) and Kim et al. (16) reported that structured interventions based on this model can shift couples from conflict-oriented patterns toward greater mutual support and shared meaning.
The conceptual link between the Gottman "Sound Relationship House" and cognitive emotion regulation is also theoretically strong. The "Positive Perspective" and "Turning Toward" levels may foster adaptive strategies such as positive reappraisal and refocusing on planning, whereas antidotes to the Four Horsemen may reduce reliance on maladaptive strategies such as catastrophizing, rumination, and other-blame. Despite the efficacy of existing approaches, culturally sensitive research is needed to address the specific realities of couples in diverse sociocultural settings. Rising divorce rates and increasing marital dissatisfaction in Iran highlight the need to examine the Gottman Method in this context. By targeting both the cognitive and emotional foundations of relationships, the present study evaluates the short-term effects of the Gottman Method on empathy and cognitive emotion regulation among engaged couples in Iran.
2. Objectives
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the Gottman Premarital Education Model on empathy and cognitive emotion regulation among engaged couples.
3. Methods
3.1. Study Design and Participants
This quasi-experimental study was conducted in Ahvaz, Iran, in 2024 using a pretest-posttest control-group design with a three-month follow-up. The target population comprised all engaged couples living in Ahvaz during the study period. A convenience sample of 40 engaged individuals (20 couples) was recruited through announcements at premarital counseling centers and on social media. Couples, rather than individuals, were randomly assigned as intact dyads to either the experimental group or the waitlist control group (10 couples/20 individuals per group) using a computer-generated random sequence, thereby preserving dyadic integrity and minimizing contamination between conditions. Allocation concealment was not applied because of the educational nature of the intervention.
Inclusion criteria were being in the engagement period, having at least a high school diploma, and providing informed consent. Exclusion criteria were acute psychological disorders, concurrent participation in other counseling or educational programs, and absence from more than two intervention sessions. Acute psychological disorders were screened using a structured clinical interview conducted by a licensed clinical psychologist according to DSM-5 criteria, supplemented by the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R); participants who scored above clinical cutoffs or met diagnostic criteria were excluded. No participants declined participation after screening, and no participants were lost to follow-up at posttest or at the three-month follow-up.
Sample size was determined a priori using G*Power version 3.1 for repeated-measures ANOVA with a within-between interaction. Assuming a large effect size (f = 0.40) based on previous Gottman-based intervention studies, α = 0.05, power = 0.80, and three measurement occasions, the minimum required sample was 18 participants per group. A final target of 20 participants per group was selected to ensure adequate power while remaining feasible within recruitment constraints. Ethical considerations were observed throughout the study. Before the pretest assessment, all participants received information about the study objectives, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and data-privacy measures and provided written informed consent. Participants assigned to the waitlist control group received the same educational intervention after completion of the study.
3.2. Procedure
The study comprised three stages: baseline assessment, intervention/posttest, and follow-up. After participant selection and allocation, all participants completed pretest assessments. The experimental group then attended 10 weekly sessions of the Gottman premarital education program, whereas the control group received no training during the study period. Both groups completed posttest assessments immediately after the intervention, followed by a further assessment three months later to examine maintenance of the intervention effects.
3.3. Instruments
Mehrabian and Epstein Empathy Scale (EES): The EES is a 33-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess emotional empathy. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree." Total scores range from 33 to 132, with higher scores indicating greater empathic capacity (17). The Persian version of the scale has demonstrated good validity and reliability in Iranian samples, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients typically reported at approximately 0.89. Although the Persian version has been validated primarily in general adult and student populations, its psychometric properties have also been supported in samples of engaged and newly married couples in Iran. In the present sample of engaged Iranian couples, Cronbach's α was 0.84.
Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ): Developed by Garnefski et al. (18), the CERQ is a 36-item self-report instrument that assesses nine cognitive emotion regulation strategies. In this study, the five adaptive subscales (positive refocusing, refocus on planning, positive reappraisal, putting into perspective, and acceptance) were summed to create an adaptive-strategies composite score with a possible range of 20 - 100. The four maladaptive subscales (self-blame, other-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing) were summed to create a maladaptive-strategies composite score with a possible range of 16 - 80. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The Persian version of the CERQ has demonstrated good psychometric properties, with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.81 to 0.85 (19). The Persian CERQ has been validated in Iranian adult samples, including engaged and married couples. In the present sample, the overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.85.
3.4. Intervention Program
The experimental group attended 10 weekly 90-minute sessions of Gottman-based premarital education. The session content is summarized in Table 1. Sessions were conducted by a licensed clinical psychologist who had completed Level 1 and Level 2 training in the Gottman Method and had five years of experience in couple psychoeducation. A standardized treatment manual derived from the official Gottman Seven Principles Couple Enhancement Program was used. Intervention fidelity was monitored using a detailed session-by-session checklist completed by the facilitator after each session, weekly supervision meetings with a senior Gottman-trained supervisor who reviewed adherence to core components, and audio recordings of 20% of randomly selected sessions that were independently rated for fidelity by a second trained rater (inter-rater agreement > 90%). Homework assignments were provided at the end of each session and reviewed at the beginning of the subsequent session. All participants attended at least eight of the 10 sessions. No formal cultural adaptation of the program was performed; however, examples and discussions were adjusted to be culturally relevant and respectful of Iranian cultural and religious values while preserving the core components of the Gottman model.
Table 1.
Summary of the Gottman Premarital Education Program Sessions
| Session | Goal and Content |
|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction, establishment of group rules, and overview of the Gottman Method. |
| 2 | Building Love Maps: Exploring the partner's inner world, dreams, and stressors. |
| 3 | Nurturing Fondness and Admiration: Focusing on the partner's positive qualities and expressing appreciation. |
| 4 | Turning Toward Instead of Away: Recognizing "bids for connection" and responding effectively. |
| 5 | The Positive Perspective: Enhancing the emotional bank account to buffer against conflict. |
| 6 | Managing Conflict (Part I): Identifying the "Four Horsemen" and their antidotes. |
| 7 | Managing Conflict (Part II): Handling solvable problems and using softened start-ups. |
| 8 | Overcoming Gridlock: Exploring the hidden dreams behind perpetual problems. |
| 9 | Creating Shared Meaning: Building a "relational culture" and shared goals and values. |
| 10 | Review of skills, relapse prevention, and group termination. |
3.5. Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were calculated to summarize participant scores. Although the nested structure of the dyadic data (individuals within couples) introduces potential non-independence, the primary inferential analyses were conducted at the individual level after confirming that intraclass correlations were modest; this analytic decision is further addressed in the Limitations section. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to evaluate intervention effects across the experimental and control groups at three assessment points (pretest, posttest, and follow-up). When significant interaction effects were observed, Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05, and effect sizes were reported as partial eta-squared.
4. Results
A total of 40 engaged individuals (20 couples; 10 couples/20 individuals per group) participated in the study. The mean ages of female and male participants were 25.03 (SD = 6.78) and 29.93 (SD = 8.56) years, respectively. No significant baseline differences in age or education were observed between the experimental and control groups.
As shown in Table 2, baseline empathy scores were comparable between groups; however, substantial baseline differences were observed in adaptive and maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies, with the experimental group showing lower adaptive and higher maladaptive scores at pretest. After the intervention, the experimental group showed significant increases in empathy and adaptive cognitive strategies and marked reductions in maladaptive cognitive strategies. To address baseline imbalances, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for pretest scores and analyses of change scores were conducted in addition to the primary repeated-measures ANOVA. The Time × Group interaction effects remained robust and statistically significant after adjustment. These gains were largely maintained at the three-month follow-up, whereas the control group showed minimal changes during the study period.
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics of Empathy and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies by Group and Time Point a
| Variables and Groups | Pretest | Posttest | Follow-up | Change Score (Pre to Post) | Adjusted Posttest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empathy | |||||
| Experimental | 82.55 ± 5.65 | 109.45 ± 8.73 | 108.73 ± 6.09 | +26.90 ± 6.12 | 109.32 (1.45) |
| Control | 82.85 ± 5.46 | 83.85 ± 6.70 | 83.95 ± 6.67 | +1.00 ± 4.85 | 83.98 (1.45) |
| Adaptive strategies | |||||
| Experimental | 28.85 ± 4.31 | 38.20 ± 5.68 | 39.65 ± 4.67 | +9.35 ± 4.02 | 42.15 (1.12) |
| Control | 41.90 ± 5.06 | 42.20 ± 4.85 | 41.54 ± 4.95 | +0.30 ± 3.78 | 38.25 (1.12) |
| Maladaptive strategies | |||||
| Experimental | 68.10 ± 5.31 | 51.70 ± 4.60 | 52.35 ± 3.99 | −16.40 ± 5.15 | 48.92 (1.08) |
| Control | 49.70 ± 6.20 | 48.55 ± 3.95 | 49.20 ± 4.34 | −1.15 ± 4.22 | 51.33 (1.08) |
a Values are expressed as mean ± SD or mean (SE). Adaptive-strategies composite score range, 20 - 100; maladaptive-strategies composite score range, 16 - 80; empathy score range, 33 - 132. Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error. Adjusted posttest means were obtained using ANCOVA controlling for pretest scores. Change scores represent raw mean differences from pretest to posttest.
Preliminary analyses indicated that the data met the parametric assumptions for repeated-measures ANOVA. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test (P > 0.05), sphericity was assessed using Mauchly's test, and homogeneity of variance was assessed using Levene's test. Significant Time × Group interactions were observed for all outcomes (Table 3): empathy (F = 312.45, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.892), adaptive cognitive strategies (F = 98.76, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.722), and maladaptive cognitive strategies (F = 142.38, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.789). Significant main effects were also observed for Time and Group (data not shown). Although these effect sizes indicate substantial group differences over time, the small convenience sample warrants cautious interpretation. Supplementary ANCOVA models controlling for baseline cognitive emotion regulation scores confirmed that the intervention effects on posttest and follow-up scores remained significant (all P < 0.001).
Table 3.
Results of Repeated-Measures ANOVA for the Effects of the Gottman Premarital Education Model on Empathy and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies a
| Variables | SS | df | MS | F | P | η2p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empathy | 3124.56 | 2 | 1562.28 | 312.45 | < 0.001 | 0.892 |
| Adaptive strategies | 987.45 | 2 | 493.73 | 98.76 | < 0.001 | 0.722 |
| Maladaptive strategies | 1423.67 | 2 | 711.84 | 142.38 | < 0.001 | 0.789 |
a Values refer to the Time × Group interaction effects. Abbreviations: SS, sum of squares; df, degrees of freedom; MS, mean square; η2p, partial eta-squared.
Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons showed significant improvements in empathy and adaptive cognitive strategies in the experimental group from pretest to posttest and from pretest to follow-up (P < 0.001). Maladaptive strategies decreased significantly over the same intervals (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between posttest and follow-up for any outcome (P > 0.05), indicating maintenance of the intervention effects. The control group showed no significant changes over time (Table 4).
Table 4.
Bonferroni Post Hoc Pairwise Comparisons of Time Points in the Experimental Group a
| Variables and Times | MD | SE | P | 95% CI for MD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empathy | ||||
| Pretest vs Posttest | −26.90 | 1.12 | 0.001 | [−29.85, −23.95] |
| Pretest vs Follow-up | −26.18 | 0.98 | 0.001 | [−28.75, −23.61] |
| Posttest vs Follow-up | 0.72 | 0.85 | 0.612 | [−1.51, 2.95] |
| Adaptive strategies | ||||
| Pretest vs Posttest | −9.35 | 0.78 | 0.001 | [−11.40, −7.30] |
| Pretest vs Follow-up | −10.80 | 0.91 | 0.001 | [−13.18, −8.42] |
| Posttest vs Follow-up | −1.45 | 0.67 | 0.124 | [−3.21, 0.31] |
| Maladaptive strategies | ||||
| Pretest vs Posttest | 16.40 | 0.92 | 0.001 | [14.00, 18.80] |
| Pretest vs Follow-up | 15.75 | 0.85 | 0.001 | [13.52, 17.98] |
| Posttest vs Follow-up | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.478 | [−1.21, 2.51] |
a Negative MD values for empathy and adaptive strategies indicate improvement (higher scores); positive MD values for maladaptive strategies indicate reduction (lower scores). Abbreviations: MD, mean difference; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval.
5. Discussion
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term effects of the Gottman Premarital Education Model on empathy and cognitive emotion regulation among engaged couples. The intervention was associated with significant improvements in empathy and adaptive cognitive strategies, as well as a substantial reduction in maladaptive regulatory strategies. These self-reported effects were maintained through the three-month follow-up.
The increase in empathy may be attributable to core components of the Gottman Method, particularly "Building Love Maps" and "Nurturing Fondness and Admiration." These components encourage partners to develop a deeper understanding of each other's inner worlds and to express appreciation, thereby strengthening emotional connection beyond surface-level interactions (20). Training couples to recognize "bids for connection" and respond by "turning toward" rather than turning away may also enhance emotional resonance and reduce defensiveness during conflict (15). These findings are consistent with those of Hosseinpoor et al. (21), who reported that Gottman-based counseling improved intimacy by restructuring couples' affective interactions. Similarly, Saravi et al. (22) reported that structured couple-therapy approaches can strengthen interpersonal bonds through mutual respect and emotional validation.
Regarding cognitive emotion regulation, the intervention was associated with a shift from predominantly maladaptive strategies, such as catastrophizing and other-blame, to more adaptive strategies, such as positive reappraisal and refocusing. This shift is theoretically consistent with the "Sound Relationship House" model, particularly the "Positive Perspective" component, which supports a more constructive interpretation of ambiguous or stressful partner behaviors (23, 24). In addition, teaching antidotes to the "Four Horsemen" may help couples regulate emotional arousal during conflict. These findings are consistent with those of Davoodvandi et al. (13), who highlighted the role of relational education in strengthening adaptive interpersonal functioning.
The maintenance of improvements at follow-up suggests that the Gottman Premarital Education Model may facilitate the short-term internalization of practical relational skills.
Regarding clinical significance, the approximately 27-point increase in EES scores from pretest to posttest in the experimental group represents a substantial change within the possible score range of 33 - 132 and may reflect meaningful improvements in emotional attunement and responsive interaction. Similarly, the increase of approximately 9 - 11 points in adaptive CERQ strategies and the approximately 16-point reduction in maladaptive strategies suggest clinically relevant movement toward more constructive cognitive processing of relational stressors. Although these self-reported changes do not directly measure relationship survival or long-term marital quality, they are consistent with mechanisms that prior longitudinal research has associated with greater relationship resilience. Nevertheless, statistical significance alone does not establish real-world relational outcomes; whether these score changes translate into reduced conflict, increased intimacy, or lower divorce risk requires behavioral and longitudinal assessment.
5.1. Limitations
Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, convenience sampling and restriction of the sample to couples in Ahvaz may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Second, exclusive reliance on self-report measures increases the potential for social desirability bias and common-method variance, which may have inflated the observed associations. Third, although couples were randomly assigned as intact dyads, the primary analyses were conducted at the individual level and did not use dyadic analytic techniques such as actor-partner interdependence modeling or multilevel modeling; therefore, potential couple-level dependency should be considered an important limitation. Fourth, the sample size was relatively small, despite the a priori power analysis. Fifth, the study did not include behavioral observations, objective measures of relationship quality, or long-term marital outcomes such as marital satisfaction, conflict resolution, or relationship stability. Finally, the three-month follow-up period was insufficient to determine whether the effects were sustained beyond this period.
Future studies should address these limitations by using larger and more diverse samples, applying dyadic analytic approaches, extending follow-up periods, and incorporating behavioral and relational outcome measures.
5.2. Conclusions
The Gottman Premarital Education Model was associated with short-term improvements in empathy and cognitive emotion regulation among engaged couples, with gains maintained at the three-month follow-up. By fostering deeper emotional understanding and greater use of adaptive cognitive strategies, the intervention may help couples develop important psychological and relational skills. However, because follow-up was limited to three months and no direct measures of marital satisfaction, conflict resolution, or relationship stability were obtained, the present findings do not support claims regarding the long-term prevention of marital distress or enduring relational well-being. Overall, the findings support the potential value of structured, evidence-based premarital education while highlighting the need for further rigorous longitudinal research.
