In response to our study regarding the generalizability of the affective process models that were proposed by Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (1998) to predict relationship status and satisfaction in the Oregon Youth Study couples sample (Kim, Capaldi, & Crosby, 2007), Coan and Gottman (2007, Volume 69) question whether tests of generalizability of their findings are an appropriate scientific undertaking, particularly when the Oregon Youth Study sample had characteristics that were so different from those of the Gottman et al. (1998) sample. They argue that the Oregon Youth Study sample is so specialized as to have limited generalizability to other U.S. couples. Coan and Gottman further argue that their affective process models were not meant to be generalizable to other samples, which included cohabiting couples and couples who are predominantly from low-income and at-risk backgrounds. We believe that the majority of scholars in this field (e.g., Heyman, 2001), as well as other fields (e.g., Mihalic, Irwin, Elliott, Pagan, & Hansen, 2001), consider tests of generalizability critical to move the field forward in credibility and applicability to prevention work. Thus, the degree to which affective process functions similarly (or dissimilarly) for couples from heterogeneous backgrounds is an important question, so that any limits to generalizability may be clearly understood. As Gottman's work has drawn considerably more attention from the media, as well as clinicians and the general public, than is typical in the field, testing generalizability is particularly important. We believe our research contributes to the understanding of factors involved in functional and dysfunctional communication in couples by extending Gottman's frontier work on dynamic affective processes to couples from at-risk and low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. Below, we address several issues that were raised by Coan and Gottman (2007, Volume 69) in their critique. In particular, we present evidence (a) of the relatively high relevance of the Oregon Youth Study couples sample to a large segment of U.S. couples, (b) that cohabiting couples within the Oregon Youth Study couples sample did not account for the differences in findings between the Gottman et al. (1998) and Kim et al. studies, and (c) of the importance of examining process during discussion of both men's and women's problem issues. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF AT-RISK SAMPLE A major argument by Coan and Gottman (2007, Volume 69) is that the Oregon Youth Study sample was selected to represent a relatively rare population and that it likely represented the more aggressive tail of the Newlywed Study distribution. In contrast, they argue that the sample utilized in Gottman et al. (1998) was representative of the greater Seattle area. As was pointed out by Heyman and Hunt (2007, Volume 69), however, the newlywed sample, which responded to advertising and thus was not recruited according to a specific sampling frame, was selected to match the racial and ethnic demographics of the metropolitan Seattle area only (Carrere, Buehlman, Gottman, Coan, & Ruckstuhl, 2000; Hawkins, Carrere, & Gottman, 2002). The mean education level reported for both husbands and wives was a 4-year college degree, which is relatively high. The Oregon Youth Study sample original recruitment involved all fourth-grade boys from schools in a medium-sized metropolitan area. Schools were selected on the criterion of having a relatively high incidence of delinquency in the neighborhoods for that area. As indicated by Heyman and Hunt, Eugene/Springfield in Oregon is an area with a relatively low level of violent crime (Cooper, 2006) and very little organized gang crime. It is not a high-crime area, such as an inner-city area. The sample was potentially at risk by virtue of living in higher crime areas, which differs considerably from a high-risk sample with all participants showing elevated conduct problems at the time of recruitment. …