These findings have several implications for therapists and family educators

seeking to aid couples in developing more constructive approaches to conflict. Gottman

(1999) noted that practitioners often encourage couples to adopt an "active-listening

model" in approaching conflict, which is similar to how validating couples engage in

conflict, listening to partners' complaints and validating feelings. However, his research

found two other approaches to conflict, the volatile and conflict-avoiding couple conflict

types, were also constructive. The results from the present study are in line with

Gottman's findings. The three regulated couple conflict types seem to be relatively

similar in their abilities to negotiate satisfying roles, have satisfying marriages, and an

adequate sense of individual well-being. Couples who indicated their conflicts frequently

resemble those of the hostile couple conflict type seem to be particularly at risk of

difficulties and may represent new parents most in need of intervention.

 However, as discussed previously, validating couples may have an advantage over

the other two regulated couple conflict types. Volatile and conflict-avoiding partners may

represent the seemingly "low risk" couples Cowan and Cowan (1995; 2000) argued may

actually need more help during the transition to parenthood, but who often are not

sufficiently distressed to present for therapy. Scores for these two couple conflict types

were associated with higher role dissatisfaction and child-related task differentiation than

was the validating couple conflict type score, indicating volatile and conflict-avoiding

couples may need more assistance in negotiating satisfying roles and perhaps increasing

fathers' involvement. As discussed earlier, Gottman contended each of the three

regulated types is associated with strengths and weaknesses. Since none of the three

regulated types were significantly associated with negative outcomes in the present study,