wCHAP.9b1

(7/22/01)

CHAPTER IX. B.1

HOW TO KEEP A PARTNER

After one understands the elements of affiliate love -- what to expect of a love relationship and its important features (Chapter VII) -- finds the person of their dreams (Chapter VIII), and they become married, then there is the challenge to stay married. Where is the guidance to help make this a satisfying and successful marriage? Fortunately, such guidance is available. John Gottman, Ph.D., with Nan Silver provides instruction, recommendations, and counsel in his amazing book, WHY MARRIAGES SUCCEED OR FAIL [1].

As the author says in the preface (p. 11), "This book is not about me, nor is it just another opinion about how to have a good marriage. My expertise is in the scientific observation of couples. Over the course of more than twenty years of research with hundreds of couples, I have found that many of my personal ideas about what holds a couple together -- and much of the conventional wisdom among professionals -- has been wrong. But the power of doing research is that you can go far beyond your limited intuitions or the hunches of a lone therapist. With impartial observations and statistics you can hear nature tell you what is true. The couples who have participated in my studies, who share their stories in these pages, have revealed the hidden natural laws of relationships.

"These couples have shared their pain, but they have also shared their joy, showing me the splendid possibilities of a relationship -- the sense in which, as Ecclesiastics has it, 'Two are better than one.' It is as though each of us were singing a solo in some grand, mysterious choir, and our voices rose to the heavens the moment we found a partner to blend with in two-part harmony."

Gottman's book is not only an invaluable resource to help couples improve their marriage. It is also an almost perfect model for one aspect of how a Wisdom Group should function. Like Gottman, working to understand the elements of a stable marriage, a Wisdom Group would be working to understand the elements of a SFLIHM (Sustainable Feeling that one's LIfe Has Meaning). It would need to conduct research and draw on the research of others. It would assemble, organize, and analyze this research so it could be utilized by individuals desiring to become Enlightened Persons.

From this research and study it should become clear whether or not different individual styles exist that require different approaches in order to achieve the SFLIHM state. Secondly it might be able to develop a series of tests comparable to Gottman's that would help any person assess their progress toward becoming their best self. Third, it would develop the resources necessary to help individuals develop in whatever ways are necessary to achieve a SFLIHM. At each step they would have assistance to evaluate their growth and learn what is needed to continue their development.

Gottman's book should be analyzed in depth, his research and ideas expanded as necessary, and used as a guide and inspiration for developing and applying a Science of Ethics.

P. 15[1]: "Today, as we witness the dissolution of so many marriages, it becomes more crucial than ever to find an answer [to what makes marriages work]. And finding that answer has been the mission of my research these past two decades. Through intense, detailed observations of hundreds of couples... I have charted the invisible emotional currents between husbands and wives, underground streams of feeling that can burst to the surface either as a spring of harmony or a well of discontent."

"In pursuit of the truth about what tears a marriage apart or binds it together, I have found that much of the conventional wisdom -- even among many marital therapists -- is misguided or dead wrong. For example, some marital patterns that even professionals often take as a sign of a problem -- such as having intense fights, or avoiding conflict altogether -- I have found can signify highly successful adjustments that will keep a couple together. And fighting -- when it airs grievances and complaints -- can be one of the healthiest things a couple can do for their relationship (indeed, how you fight is one of the most telling ways to diagnose the health of your marriage). You will see more clearly why such conventional assumptions are dead wrong as you read my explanation of the often elusive emotional dynamics of marriage, dynamics I have mapped in a simple model that can serve as a template for seeing your own marriage with new eyes."

"The good news is that if you become familiar with these maps of what shapes the emotional currents in marriage for better or worse, the seemingly elusive forces that are at work in your own relationship need not be so mysterious to you, nor are you at their mercy anymore. In this book I will show you how to detect these forces in your own relationship so that you can see the hidden emotional profile of your marriage as though through an X ray. By making these hidden forces visible, you can start to control the direction of your marital journey -- calling a final truce on destructive arguments, corrosive ways of thinking about each other, and the downward spiral of reactions that can destroy a marriage. Instead, you can open the door to a more vital, fulfilling relationship."

RESPONSE: And a critical question for a Science of Ethics is, does Gottman's models provide clues about the range of styles for Enlightened Persons, or would Enlightened Persons find any of Gottman's styles limiting for their growth and development? I personally feel more congruent with the model provided by Dr. Polly Young-Eisendrath in Part A of this chapter.

P. 16: "...[T]he reason marriage and its troubles seem so mysterious is really quite simple; until recently, almost no scientific studies of this complex relationship had been done. The vast majority of books of advice to couples have been based, at best, on the insights marital therapists have gained from the couples they happened to see, and, at worst, on mere anecdote and theoretical musings."

"The solution, of course, is to conduct solid experiments that examine stable and troubled marriages, systematically tracing the emotional currents that lead one couple to drift apart and another to flow through life together. For the past two decades my research teams have been doing just that. The result has been a number of surprising, scientifically sound findings that go a long way to filling in the knowledge gap. I have written this book to share our latest results with you and to offer my best understanding of just how you can strengthen your marriage, no matter how rocky it may seem."

"Of course, not all couples ought to stay married. But I do think it's disturbing that the majority of people marrying today will be unsuccessful at nurturing and holding onto their most precious relationship -- all the more disturbing because, I believe, an accurate diagnosis of the fault lines in a marriage can help any couple build a stronger union."

RESPONSE: It seems to me that a great deal needs to be said on the issue, "not all couples ought to stay married." First, individuals need help of the kind a Wisdom Group would provide to establish nurturing relationships of a loving and sexual nature which have the potential for long term existence. Secondly, they need greater clarity in finding out what to expect in a relationship and how to keep it satisfying and how to know when to end it.

P. 19: In the early 1970s "...[S]ound, systematic research had not been conducted among divorced and stable couples, to ease out the differences between them. Trained as a mathematician and a research psychologist, I decided to take such an approach. Using scientific methods, I would observe the conversations of husbands and wives, distilling out of the mists and confusions of anger, frustration, and isolation the differences that lead some couples to stay married and others to divorce."

P. 20: "Two decades later, this strategy has reaped an enormous reward. For the first time we can name with precision the subtle early warning signs of a troubled marriage, and tell you how to put these insights to good use, setting your own marriage on the right track and keeping it there for years to come."

"My laboratory conducts what amounts to the most intensive studies of couples interacting ever attempted.... My research teams have compared, microsecond to microsecond, how couples talk to one another. We've examined their facial expressions, monitored how much they fidget, and how they gesture. We've asked what happens to partners' heart rates when they try to work out their conflicts together. Do unstable couples express more sarcasm or contempt in these situations than stable couples? Do they breathe harder? Do they find it more difficult to listen? How well do they understand one another's emotions? And what about discrepancies in the way couples describe the history of their relationships? Does it make any difference if he recalls she wore yellow the first time he saw her? Does it matter whether they laugh when they reminisce about hard times?"

"What we have found is that all of this matters. What's more, gathering such information has allowed us to identify the specific processes that lead to the dissolution of a marriage, and those that weld it more firmly together. To use the heart disease analogy, again, preventing heart attacks requires an ability to predict the events leading up to the crisis: plaque formation on arteries, high blood pressure, chest pain, and so on. Divorce prevention requires this same foresight. That's why I have geared my research to identifying which responses, thoughts, and physiological reactions place couples on a path toward divorce. In doing so, we have been able to predict with startling accuracy which couples will stay together and which couples will split."

RESPONSE: As indicated before Gottman has performed a tremendous service to humanity. His procedures would be of value not just for studying marriages, but for studying all areas of human living. His model could be used to study family living and child rearing practices, work environments, athletics and other social events, etc.

P. 23: "At first glance, it seems to make sense that compatibility would be a necessary foundation for a successful marriage. Take the research conducted by David H. Olson, professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota. He has developed a premarital test called PREPARE that detects differences between prospective husbands and wives. Administered by clergy during premarital counseling, this 125-item questionnaire covers eleven areas of the couple's life including personality issues, finances, sexual matters, children, and religious orientation. The goal is to predict areas of conflict in a marriage, supposedly to avoid disharmony and eventual divorce. Olson's questionnaire does a fairly good job of identifying potential hot spots and predicting marital satisfaction. Checking in on couples three years after they were married, Olson reported that those who were currently satisfied had indeed scored higher on the PREPARE test before their wedding than those who were dissatisfied or divorced."

"What his evaluation could not predict, however, was which among the many dissatisfied couples in his study were destined to stay married and which were headed for a fall."

"Olson assumed similarity in opinions safeguards against divorce. That does no seem to be true. In my research, where I actually observed couples hashing out disagreements and then traced them down years later to check on how stable their marriages were, I found that couples who initially had complaints about each other's attitudes were among the most stable marriages as the years went on. My research shows that much more important than having compatible views is how couples work out their differences. In fact, occasional discontent, especially during a marriage's early years, seems to be good for the union in the long run."

P. 24: "Clearly, marital bliss and perfect compatibility are not the only glue that holds couples together -- and may not even be the most important glue. The challenge for my research teams has been to identify the truly crucial ingredients to a sound marriage. That's quite a tall order. It required us to follow marriages over a very long period of time. There is simply no shortcut to staying in touch with the same couples for many years if you want to find out which will go on to live happy, fulfilled lives together and which will end up separating."

RESPONSE: Somehow, the above argument doesn't hang together for me. I am not willing to believe that fighting style is the key issue. Rather, this only becomes important as a next step. First, a couple has to get together. So we need to understand this process. What brings two people together in the first place? Is it physical attraction? Is it common interest in something of great importance to each? Is it lust? Is it a need to be married? Or, what? This is the issue tackled in Chapter VIII. And it is the issue that Gottman takes for granted in the above discussion.

At the same time "basic values" seems like a big can of worms. If both persons have very different values, but believe in "live and let live," that's one thing. If either or both believe others need to share key beliefs in order to permit intimacy that is something very different. It seems to me that this kind of thing is the core and probably is the real basic value rather than religion, politics, etc.

"IN THE MARRIAGE LAB: It's 6:30 on a Thursday night when Phil and Diane Thompson (not their real names) arrive at our facilities on the University of Washington campus in Seattle. After walking down a spare corridor in the office building that houses our lab, they seem surprised to see what lies before them: a comfortably furnished studio apartment, complete with a hide-a-bed, kitchen facilities, and a view of the canal that connects Portage Bay to Lake Washington. Once inside, the only clues that the Thompsons haven't escaped to some cozy Northwest getaway are the three remote-control video cameras perched in corners of the ceiling. It's here that we observe couples who want to get at the heart of what makes their marriage tick."

"After a brief get-acquainted session with two research assistants, the Thompsons complete a form that asks them to describe how much they disagree about topics that often trouble couples -- issues like money, in-laws, sex, and religion. By now the couple is used to such probing questions; as volunteer study participants, they've already responded to several questionnaires and interviews regarding the state of their marriage. If they continue their involvement in our research, they'll receive phone calls and questionnaires from time to time, asking them about the status of their relationship. This is how we track the progress of couples over the years."

"Once they fill out the form, the Thompsons are taken to an adjacent room to be seated in opposing chairs surrounded by an array of electronic equipment specially designed to gather physical and psychological information about couples as they interact. A shifting platform beneath each chair measures how much each partner wiggles during the session. Two more video cameras are suspended above, filming every visible movement from the waist up."

P. 25: "'This feels like an electric chair,' Phil jokes, as a research assistant wraps a strap across his chest to measure how deeply he's breathing."

"'Or a lie detector,' Diane muses. Actually, she's got it right. Various electronic gadgets will measure the nervous system's response to all sorts of psychological stimuli in much the same way that a polygraph test would. Electrodes are placed on the pair's chest to track heart rates. Devices are taped to their fingers, monitoring their pulse and how much they sweat in response to stress. Sensors are clipped to their ear lobes to tell how fast blood flows from their hearts to their extremities. Finally, microphones are hung from their clothes to capture every sound they utter."

"When all the equipment is arranged, a research assistant reviews the questionnaire with Phil and Diane, helping them to decide which 'area of disagreement' they will discuss for fifteen minutes. (In some of our studies, the couple begins by simply discussing the events of their day, after having been apart for at least eight hours.) According to Phil and Diane's answers, sex is a problem in their relationship; conflicts arise because Phil wants to make love more frequently than Diane does. Both agree it's a topic ripe for discussion."

"This decided, the staff members disappear into an adjoining room stacked with computer equipment and video monitors. As instructed, the couple sits quietly for five minutes while the researchers gather baseline data. Than a blinking light on a nearby display panel appears -- the couple's cue to begin talking."

"They start by discussing their respective families. Neither were terrific models of affection, they agree. Then the subject switches to their courtship. They reminisce about the thrill of those first few months, and how the magic faded. Soon, Diane is complaining about Phil's work, which seems to consume him. She says if he would express more affection outside the bedroom, maybe she'd find the prospect of sex more appealing. Phil falls silent for a while and then brings up their child. 'Things might be better if you didn't let Jason stay up until eleven o'clock every night.' Diane concedes that Jason is an obstacle. Then she suggests that they get some books on love-making. Phil offers a weak smile. 'We've been over all this before,' he sighs."

P. 26: "When fifteen minutes have passed, the lights on the panel fades and a research assistant reappears. She sets up a screen to block the couple's view of one another. She directs their attention to a video monitor where they can see a split-screen image of the conversation that's just transpired. Using a dial that turns 180 degrees from 'positive' to 'neutral' to 'negative,' Phil and Diane watch the tape twice. The first time, they rate their own feelings at the time the conversation unfolded -- how positive or negative they felt moment to moment. The second time, they use the dial to guess how their partner was feeling minute by minute. This exercise evaluates how accurately the couple can 'read' one another's emotions."

"Later, the same tape will be viewed by psychologists specially trained to analyze the emotional content of people's words, facial expressions, and gestures. Using a dial with settings that range from 'disgust,' 'contempt,' and belligerence' to 'validation,' 'affection,' and 'joy,' these researchers will code every moment of the conversation, assigning a label to each nuance. If a researcher sees Diane's lips tighten when Phil mentions her permissiveness with Jason, the record will register her anger and just how long it lasted. If Phil sighs deeply as she tells him she wishes he would work less, the record will show his sadness. And if either one shuts down, unable or unwilling to respond to what the other is saying, there will be a record of withdrawal as well."

"These codes, when correlated with data from the couple's physiological responses, as well as their answers to various questionnaires and interviews, produce a gold mine of information about a couple's interaction. Combined with a multitude of data we've collected from hundreds of other couples in the past two decades, Phil and Diane's simple conversation lends tremendous insight to our understanding of the hidden emotional dynamics of marriage. It is from this mountain of data that I have distilled a scientific model of the often invisible forces that hold a marriage together or tear it apart -- a model I want to share with you, so you can get a reading of these forces in your own marriage."

P. 28: "...[T]his book will share with you the essence of what I've learned over the years, and show you practical ways you can put our findings to work in your own relationship."

"If there is one lesson I have learned from my years of research it is that a lasting marriage results from a couple's ability to resolve the conflicts that are inevitable in any relationship. Many couples tend to equate a low level of conflict with happiness and believe the claim 'we never fight' is a sign of marital health. But I believe we grow in our relationships by reconciling our differences. That's how we become more loving people and truly experience the fruits of marriage."

"But there's much more to know than how to fight well. Not all stable couples resolve conflicts in the same way. Nor do all couples mean the same thing by 'resolving' the conflict. In fact, I have found that there are three different styles of problem solving into which healthy marriages tend to settle. In a validating marriage couples compromise often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as they arise. In a conflict-avoiding marriage couples agree to disagree, rarely confronting their differences head-on. And finally, in a volatile marriage conflicts erupt often, resulting in passionate disputes."

P. 29: "...[O]ur current research suggests that all three styles are equally stable and bode equally well for the marriage's future." Chapter 2 discusses these three styles in depth.

"...[F]ollowing one of these three styles won't guarantee a happy marriage. These adaptations work only to the degree that they allow you to achieve the right balance between positive and negative interactions with your spouse. Amazingly, we have found that it all comes down to a simple mathematical formula: no matter what style your marriage follows, you must have at least five times as many positive as negative moments together if your marriage is to be stable."

"If you and your spouse do not arrive at a stable equilibrium, when this balance, or 'marital ecology,' becomes upset, you and your mate will find yourselves frustrated, sniping or lost in a dead end, quarreling more and more. These are the signs of the failure to find a stable marital style you both find comfortable."

"In chapters 3 and 4, I will map out for you the downward spiral that begins in couples who are unable to find the equilibrium of a stable type of marriage. And in chapter 5 I will show how strong differences between men and women in how they handle emotions can feed this process. Negativity builds, with increasingly damaging results. It begins as laughter and validation disappear, and criticism and pain well up. Your attempts to soothe one another's hurt feelings and get communication back on track seem useless. Partners become lost in hostile and negative thoughts and feelings, as their bodies react to the stress, making it harder to think rationally, to respond calmly. Soon, the destructive interactions I call 'The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' take over. They are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and withdrawal. At this point, unless a couple makes changes, they are likely to find themselves sliding helplessly toward the end of their marriage. In chapter 6, I'll help you review the results of your analysis of your own marriage, to see the ways in which these destructive forces have begun to eat away at your marriage."

"Is the solution simply to be nice the next time your spouse insults your sister, readjusts the thermostat, shrinks your favorite shirt, or engages in some other crazy-making behavior? Hardly. But there are specific steps you can take to resolve conflicts constructively and strengthen the positive side of your marriage. And if you follow them regularly, they should inoculate your relationship against the forces that can lead to divorce."

P. 30: "...[Y]ou'll need a thorough understanding of where your relationship stands today. That's why the book also includes several tests to help you assess and diagnose what kind of marriage you prefer, as well as the character of your present bond. These tests are not meant to predict whether you're headed for divorce, but they can help you identify the trouble spots in a way that will clarify the antidotes you need to try. In the second half of the book, each of the difficulties you've diagnosed in your marriage will be matched with a specific remedy, something you can change to strengthen your marriage."

Marriage is an extremely complex relationship and there is no single test that can predict its survival or dissolution with 100 percent accuracy. You and your partner are the only ones who know the sacrifices and rewards of you marriage, and you are the only ones who can decide its future."

CHAPTER TWO: VALIDATING, VOLATILE, OR AVOIDANT MARRIAGES

P. 35: "VALIDATORS: in the midst of disagreement they still let their partner know that they consider his or her opinions and emotions valid, even if they don't agree with them."

P. 36: "When validating couples air their differences you tend to hear a lot of 'Mmm-hmmms' and 'I sees.' Often, the listener will also mirror the speaker's facial expressions of worry and distress. But this validation doesn't necessarily mean the partner agrees. Rather, the listener is saying, 'Okay, go on. I'm interested and listening to your feelings. I may have my own point of view on this issue, but I want to hear yours.'"

"This expression of mutual respect tends to limit the number of arguments couples need to have. Validator couples, we've found, tend to pick their battles carefully. Those flare-ups that do occur end up sounding more like a problem-solving discussion than a hostile call to arms."

P. 37: "Although not every validator argument follows a similar script, these couples do tend to display a particular pattern during their conflicts, whatever the topic. In fact, this pattern is one of the identifying characteristics of a validating couple. Usually they begin by listening as each other says their piece....Once they both feel they have fully aired their opinions, they move to phase two: attempting to persuade each other of the rightness of their position."

"Though they still don't see eye to eye, their attempts to convince each other are good-natured. There is no arm-twisting or insistence that their perspective alone is valid."

"Finally, in the third phase, they negotiate a compromise both like or can at least live with."

P. 38: "In studying validating couples we have found that they tend to share other characteristics as well as the validation/persuasion/compromise sequence of argument.... Validating couples seem to be good friends who value the 'we-ness' of their marriage over their individual goals and values. It's not uncommon for them to finish each other's sentences. Among the qualities they value highly in their relationship are communication, verbal openness, being in love, displaying affection, sharing their time, activities, and interests with each other. These couples tend to consider 'what's mine is yours.' In their homes, they rarely have off-limit zones or a great need for privacy."

P. 39: "Of course, validating couples don't necessarily have marriages made in heaven. Even happy unions have their share of problems. I suspect the risk for validating couples is that they may turn their marriage into a passionless arrangement in which romance and selfhood are sacrificed for friendship and togetherness. In such a scenario they may end up forgoing personal development in favor of keeping their bond strong. I have noticed that when these couples do argue, the topic often has to do with balancing individual desires with the shared needs of the marriage. For example, one husband wanted to spend more time painting and acting, but his wife worried that his creative pursuits would squeeze out his time with her and the children."

"Still, a validating marriage appears likely to be a solid one. And that probably shouldn't be surprising. After all, when both partners feel their grievance gets a sympathetic hearing, compromise is a lot easier."

RESPONSE: This sounds like a pretty good model to me. It would be interesting to know about the relative maturity of those who follow different styles to see if all styles are in fact equal. Just because each style leads to a stable marriage doesn't necessarily mean that they all are equally congruent with becoming an Enlightened Person. But of course, conjecture is one thing, facts are often something different.

VOLATILE: The content of their arguments is so minor, it's hard to imagine [anyone]... wasting time on it. How can people... who seem to thrive on skirmishes live happily together? The truth is that not every couple who fights this frequently has a stable marriage. But we call those who do volatile. Such couples fight on a grand scale and have an even grander time making up. An uninvolved or withdrawn partner does not exist in a volatile marriage. These relationships are marked by a high level of engagement during discussions."

"...[V]olatile couples... have little interest in hearing each other's point of view in the heat of argument -- and I do mean heat! In essence, volatile couples simply skip the validator's first phase of discussing a delicate issue: they jump right into part two: trying to persuade. While validators tend to spend little time in the persuasion mode, for volatile couples, winning is what it's all about."

"While arguing...may seem like a sure route to marital disaster, my research has found otherwise. It turns out that these couples' volcanic arguments are just a small part of an otherwise warm and loving marriage. The passion and relish with which they fight seems to fuel their positive interactions even more. Not only do they express more anger but they laugh and are more affectionate than the average validating couple. They express more negative and more positive emotions. These couples certainly do not find making up hard to do -- they are masters at it. As intense as their battles may be, their good times are that much better."

"Despite the vitriol, volatile couples are able to move to phase three: resolving their differences."

P. 42: "Just as validators tend to have certain qualities in common, volatile-like couples also share psychological characteristics. More than the other types, they see themselves as equals. They are independent sorts who believe that marriage should emphasize and strengthen individuality. While validating couples tend to finish each other's sentences, volatiles are more likely to interrupt each other with questions. At home they tend to have separate personal spaces and respect each other's privacy. They both consider themselves analytical. He also sees himself as nurturing; she is expressive. Indeed, they are very open with each other about their feelings -- both positive and negative. The ease with which they disclose their innermost thoughts and emotions fuels both their battles and their romance. These marriages tend to be passionate and exciting, as if the marital punch has been spiked with danger."

Perhaps even more than the validating style, a volatile marriage has plenty of potential pitfalls. If the couple loses sight of the boundaries, they could slide from the stability of a volatile marriage into a style far more likely to destroy their bond. The overall danger is that their constant quarreling and bickering will consume the marriage, overwhelming their happy times together. If this occurs, even violence is possible in extreme cases. Of course, at that point we would no longer consider them to have a volatile marriage, but a highly unstable one."

P. 43: "Volatile couples seem to enjoy playfully teasing one another, but this brand of humor is also risky. Sometimes the playful teasing can hit a tender area and inadvertently lead to hurt feelings."

"Also, because volatile couples tend to believe strongly that honesty in all matters is very important in a marriage, they censor very few of their thoughts. Their relentless commitment to honesty at whatever cost can be exhilarating and brave, but it can also be terrifying since it leaves no hurt unstated. It's easy to see how some hurts could arise that are difficult to heal and that therefore endanger the high levels of positivity that keep their marriage afloat."

P. 44: "AVOIDANT: Moving from a volatile to an avoidant style marriage is like leaving the tumult of a hurricane for the placid waters of a summer lake. Not much seems to happen between husband and wife in this type of marriage. A more accurate name for them is probably conflict minimizers because they make light of their differences rather than resolving them.... these couples will claim that they have disagreements, but when you actually explore what they mean by conflict you realize that they conspire to dodge and hedge. We've seen that validators listen to each other's point of view before trying to persuade, while volatile couples jump right in, advocating for their opinion. But when avoidant couples air their differences very little gets settled. The phrase that comes up time and again when you speak with these couples about their marriage is that they end their friction by 'agreeing to disagree.' By this they usually mean that they avoid discussions they know will result in a deadlock."

P. 45: "...[T]hey do air their conflicts, but they follow up with only minimum attempts to convince each other of their point. They resolve their issues by avoiding or minimizing them."

"Rather than resolve conflicts, avoidant couples appeal to their basic shared philosophy of marriage. They reaffirm what they love and value in the marriage, accentuate the positive, and accept the rest. In this way, they often end an unresolved discussion still feeling good about one another."

P. 46: "This type of successful coupling flies in the face of conventional wisdom that links marital stability to skillful 'talking things out.' So it seems a marriage can work even if a couple does not resolve their disputes. In contrast to the validating style, an avoidant style leads to a different sense of 'we-ness': -- it's as if the couple knows their bond is so strong they can overlook their disagreements. Yet there is a low level of companionship and sharing in the marriage. They value separateness and maintain autonomy in their use of space. These couples tend to live calm, pleasant lives. Though they display little of the intense passion of a volatile couple and less even than a validating couple, they face little of the risk that comes from testing their marriage as the other two types do."

"One potentially problematic quality of the avoidant style, however, is that it leaves husband and wife very unschooled in how to address a conflict should they someday be forced to do so. If an issue develops that is too overwhelming to be handled through 'agreeing to disagree,' their marriage could end up like a fish washed up on shore, flailing about outside of its element. The result could be that negativity overwhelms their interaction and the marriage falls apart."

"Another hazard of this type of marriage is that it can become lonely. These marriages are marked by a low degree of introspection or psychological sophistication. As a consequence, husband and/or wife may eventually feel that the other doesn't really know or understand them. This can occur when neither spouse is deeply aware of the real emotional basis of their upsets. In essence, they keep missing each other. If this becomes extreme, an avoidant marriage can get off course."

P. 47: "Clearly, though, there are drawbacks to an avoidant marriage just as there are to a volatile or validating one. It may well be that these different types of couples could glean a lot from each other's approach -- for example, the volatile couple learning to ignore some conflicts and the avoidant one learning how to compromise. No matter how well suited husband and wife are, they may still need to work on their union to keep the balance intact and the love alive....But the prognosis for these types of marriages is quite positive. In fact, I believe a successful marriage generally evolves into one of these three types -- they are each healthy adaptations to living intimately with another human being."

"The three types of stable couples will each say that they discuss feelings fully in their marriage and resolve issues. But they differ vastly on these dimensions and on what feels like a satisfying resolution. What is far more important than actually solving the issue or problem is feeling good about the interaction itself, and each of these types of couples has its own way to do that."

RESPONSE: And, maybe these three different styles captures something fundamental and basic to differences in people. However, it's also possible that if these persons were working for their own self-growth -- to become their best self -- that they might move to other styles, or at least bring a greater range into their style.

P. 50: "NEGOTIATING A TYPE OF STABLE MARRIAGE: Every couple probably goes through a negotiation starting early in their relationship for what style they will have. Partners often differ in the level of emotional intensity they are most comfortable with, and in their preferred way of handling emotional strife. It may seem unlikely that someone who would be most comfortable in an avoidant marriage would select someone who would be most comfortable in a volatile marriage, but I have seen it happen. Opposites do attract, at least sometimes. For example, I know a very emotionally controlled man who married a very expressive woman. She loved his stability and he loved her fire. After a while, though, he wished that she would be less explosive, more rational, and show more emotional control, and she wished he would be more spontaneous, responsive, and expressive. He wanted more privacy, psychological space, and autonomy than she found comfortable. They had trouble negotiating a marital style with which they could each live."

"This negotiation is a hard task, but essential if you are to find stability. I think it may be possible to borrow from each marital style and create a viable mixed style. Being aware of the styles available to you may help in finding your own balance. But so long as you and your partner desire different types of marriage you will be at special risk for the emergence of what I call 'The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' in your marriage."

P. 50: "SELF-TEST: YOUR MARITAL STYLE: My research classifies stable couples into three types based on how they act toward each other: how expressive they are emotionally and the amount and timing of their attempts to persuade each other during conflict. But couples who fall into one of the three stable types of marriages differ not only in their actions but also in the thoughts and attitudes with which they feel comfortable. The questionnaire below will help you explore this less tangible dimension of your marriage. It asks about both the way your marriage is now, and your opinions or preferences for how you think a marriage should be."

P. 51: "Whatever the current status of your marriage, it can help to have a sense of which type of relationship would ideally work best for you. Please think of these items only as a general guide. Your scores on this questionnaire may indicate that the optimum kind of marriage for you may be a hybrid rather than one of these three basic types. That's okay. Probably the best way to think of this test is as a story you tell yourself about what aspects of these three types appeal to you. Think of them as primary colors that you can use to form your own palette."

"I want you to take the following test, and also have your partner take it. If your partner is unable or unwilling to take the test, then you can take it twice -- first answering for yourself, then again as you would imagine your partner would answer. Comparing your scores may show you the differences or similarities in how you perceive your marriage or he direction you'd like it to take. And that can be the basis for discussing what accommodations you might make to find your own most agreeable ways to handle conflicts."

"DIRECTIONS: Answer 'yes' or 'no' to each statement below depending on how much you generally agree with it." Answer first for yourself and then for how you think your partner would answer it for each question:

"PART I -- Is the Conflict Avoider Style of Marriage Right for You?"

1. I will often hide my feelings to avoid hurting my spouse.

2. When we disagree, I don't believe there is much point in analyzing our feelings and motivations.

3. When we disagree, we often solve the problem by going back to our basic beliefs about the different role of men and women in marriage.

4. We have a lot of separate friends.

5. It is important to attend a church or synagogue regularly.

6. Many marital conflicts are solved just through the passing of time.

7. We each do a lot of things on our own.

8. During a marital conflict, there is not much to be gained from figuring out what is happening on a psychological level.

9. Our religious values give us a clear sense of life's purposes.

10. When I'm moody I prefer to be left alone until I get over it.

11. I don't feel very comfortable with strong displays of negative emotion in my marriage.

12. We turn to our basic religious or cultural values for guidance when resolving conflicts.

13. I just accept most of the things in my marriage that I can't change.

14. We often agree not to talk about things we disagree about.

15. In our marriage there is a fairly clear line between the husband's and wife's roles.

16. We just don't seem to disagree very much.

17. When we have some difference of opinion we often just drop the topic.

18. We hardly ever have much to argue about.

19. A lot of talking abut disagreements often makes matters worse.

20. There are some personal areas in my life that I prefer not to discuss with my spouse.

21. There is not much point in trying to persuade my partner of my viewpoint.

22. There's not much to be gained by getting openly angry with my spouse.

23. Thinking positively solves a lot of marital issues.

24. In marriage it is usually best to stick to the traditional values about men and women.

25. I prefer to work out many of my negative feelings on my own.

26. Going over a lot of negative feelings in a marital discussion usually makes things worse.

27. If you just relax about problems, they have a way of working themselves out.

28. When we talk about our problems we find they just aren't that important in the overall picture of our marriage.

29. Men and women ought to have separate roles in a marriage.

p. 53: "SCORING: Total up the number of items you checked 'Yes." If the number is greater than eight, you probably feel comfortable with a conflict-avoider marriage philosophy."

p. 54: "PART II -- Are You Comfortable With a Volatile, or Validator Style of Marriage?"

1. I think it's a good idea for my partner and me to have a lot of separate friends.

2. I believe in honestly confronting disagreements, whatever the issue.

3. We often do things separately.

4. The feeling of togetherness is very central to our marriage.

5. Marriage partners should be direct and honest no matter what the results.

6. I feel quite comfortable with a strong expression of negative feelings.

7. Sometimes I enjoy a good argument with my spouse.

8. The most important aspect of marriage is companionship.

9. Jealousy is sometimes an issue in our marriage.

10. It is important to be a separate individual in a marriage.

11. I think we should argue but only about important issues.

12. We often will eat separately.

13. Our marriage is based on being one another's best friend.

14. I enjoy trying to persuade my spouse when we have a disagreement.

15. The religious and other beliefs we share are basic to our marriage.

16. I believe in keeping our marriage very romantic.

17. We often look back at our photo albums together.

18. We cultivate a sense of we-ness in our marriage.

19. We share all things personal and emotional in our marriage.

20. All the spaces in our home are shared spaces.

21. I would never take a separate vacation from my spouse.

22. At times I enjoy expressing anger.

23. I believe it is important to fight even about small matters.

24. I enjoy working out our values through thorough arguments.

25. There is nothing personal that I do not share with my spouse.

26. I am comfortable only with a moderate amount of emotional expression.

27. It is essential to have a strong sense of togetherness in marriage.

28. Keeping a certain amount of distance in a marriage helps the romance.

29. A strong sense of traditional values is good for a marriage.

30. There are few issues in a marriage worth arguing about.

p. 55: SCORING: In the Validator and Volatile listings below, check the number of each question you answered 'yes' to above. Add up all the marks separately in each group. Divide each sum by 15. This will give you percentage scores for your comfort level with each style. For example, you may wind up with a 53 percent score on the Volatile scale and an 80 percent score on the Validator scale. This suggests that you are mostly comfortable with a validator philosophy of marriage, although there are elements of the volatile type with which you are also comfortable.

VOLATILE: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 24, 28.

VALIDATOR: 4, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30.

They present an excellent model for helping any given individual assess all the important issues relevant to becoming a Good Person.

P. 56: "...[H]appiness isn't found in a particular style of fighting or making up. Rather, our research suggests that what really separates contented couples from those in deep marital misery is a healthy balance between their positive and negative feelings and actions toward each other."

"Across the board we found there was a very specific ratio that exists between the amount of positivity and negativity in a stable marriage, whether it is marked by validation, volatility, or conflict avoidance."

"That magic ratio is 5 to 1. In other words, as long as there is five times as much positive feeling and interaction between husband and wife as there is negative, we found the marriage was likely to be stable. It was based on this ratio that we were able to predict whether couples were likely to divorce: in very unhappy couples, there tended to be more negative than positive interaction."

P. 58: "What were the negative emotions? You will read all about them in this book, particularly criticism and contempt, defensiveness and withdrawal, loneliness and isolation. But the list does not include anger! ....I found that anger only has negative effects in marriage if it is expressed along with criticism or contempt, or if it is defensive."

"What exactly were these stable couples doing with each other to maintain a positive balance for their negative emotions? For one thing, by and large -- even in the volatile couples -- they were far less negative than the couples who eventually split up. When they brought up disagreements, they were less extreme in expressing feelings like anger or frustration. They complained and got angry, to be sure, but they were less critical of their spouse, less defensive, less contemptuous, and they were engaged -- not disapproving -- listeners. Even the men in conflict-avoiding marriages, who were not very engaged as listeners, were very positive when it became their turn to speak; their withdrawal as listeners was not the sullen type that leads to being a defensive speaker."

P. 59: "What was even more striking was the many ways, large and small, that stable couples showed their positivity. It translates into a useful list of ways to put more weight on the positive side of the equation in your marriage. For example:"

Show interest. Be actively interested in what your partner is saying.

Be affectionate. You can show affection in low-key subtle ways simply through quiet acts of tenderness: touching or holding hands while you watch TV, intertwining your feet while you read the Sunday paper together."

Show you care. Small acts of thoughtfulness are a powerful way to boost the positivity in your marriage.

Be appreciative. You put positive energy into the marriage simply through appreciating it...."

Show your concern. Whenever your partner tells you about something distressing or troubling, express your concern."

"Be empathic. Empathy, showing your partner an emotional resonance, is a potent form of affection."

"Be accepting. Even if your partner is saying something you don't agree with, let your partner know what he or she is saying makes sense and is important -- that you respect it."

"Joke around. Playful teasing, wittiness, silliness, and just having an uproarious time together is especially nourishing."

"Share your joy. When you're feeling delighted, excited, or just having a really good time, let your partner know it."

P. 61: "Of course, you probably do much or most of this spontaneously. But it may be helpful to remember that these are the marks that keep your marriage on the positive side of that 5-to-1 ratio. And while all of this comes naturally when things are good between you, an intentional effort during rocky periods can help you get back to a more positive balance."

"In our study of long-term marriages we recruited couples from a wide range of backgrounds who had been married twenty to forty years to the same partner. Despite the wide differences in occupations, lifestyles, and the details of their day-to-day lives, I sense a remarkable similarity in the tone of their conversations. No matter what style of marriage they have adopted, their discussions, for the most part, are carried along by a strong undercurrent of two basic ingredients: love and respect."

"These are the direct opposite of -- and antidote for -- contempt, perhaps the most corrosive force in marriage. But all the ways partners show each other love and respect also ensure that the positive-to-negative ratio of a marriage will be heavily tilted to the positive side."

P. 62: "The abundance of love and respect in these long-term marriages is evident everywhere. Watching the tapes, I see a great deal of affection exchanged through gestures, eye contact, and facial expressions."

P. 63: PART III -- Self-test: Is There Enough Love and Respect in Your Marriage?

1. My spouse seeks out my opinions.

2. My spouse cares about my feelings.

3. I don't feel ignored very often.

4. We touch each other a lot.

5. We listen to each other.

6. We respect each other's ideas.

7. We are affectionate toward one another.

8. I feel that my partner takes good care of me.

9. What I say counts.

10. I am important in our decisions.

11. There's lots of love in our marriage.

12. We are genuinely interested in one another.

13. I just love spending time with my partner.

14. We are very good friends.

15. Even during rough times, we can be empathetic.

16. My spouse is considerate of my viewpoint.

17. My spouse finds me physically attractive.

18. My partner expresses warmth toward me.

19. I feel included in my partners's life.

20. My spouse admires me.

"SCORING: If you checked 'yes' fewer than seven items, then it is likely you are not feeling adequately loved and respected in your marriage. You need to be far more active and creative in adding affection to your relationship."

P. 64: "...[C]ertain kinds of negativity may actually have some positive function in marriages. For example, some degree of negativity may help keep sexual passion in a marriage. Many couples have experienced the aphrodisiacal effect of a good fight -- once it's time to make up."

P. 66: "Our research suggests.... [that] for a marriage to have real staying power, couples need to air their differences, whether they resolve them in a volatile, validating, or minimizing style. For example, we found that couples who fought were less satisfied with their marriages than those who described their interactions as peaceful. But when we checked on these couples three years later, we found the situation had reversed. Those who did not fight earlier on were less likely to have maintained stable marriages than those who were more confrontational. The originally 'happy' couples were more likely to be on the trajectory toward divorce, or even be divorced, than the others."

P. 67: "A certain amount of conflict is necessary to help couples weed out actions and ways of dealing with each other that can harm the marriage in the long run. Even avoidant couples do air their conflicts -- they just have an avoidant way of resolving them. I don't believe their marriages would be stable if they didn't talk over their complaints at all."

"It's important to keep in mind that negativity comes in many different guises. A marriage can be harmed by too much of it or certain types of it. Namely, when negative energy includes great stubbornness, contempt, defensiveness, or withdrawal from interaction, the results on the marriage can be devastating. And when a couple fails to find the equilibrium of a stable marital style, then they are vulnerable to having those corrosive, negative forces eat away at their marriage."

THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE: WARNING SIGNS

P. 68: "Although my work has introduced me to plenty of volatile couples ....whose passions have mostly added joy to their marriages, I've met too many others whose heated exchanges were not compensated for by humor or affection. If you listened to such couples argue, at first glance they might not sound much different from a volatile couple. But unlike volatile couples, they don't spend far more time laughing and joking, touching, caressing, loving each other than they do locking horns. Even more damaging, their frequent arguments are marked by toxic types of negativity such as contempt and defensiveness."

"These are couples who have failed to find an equilibrium in one of the three stable types of marriage. Their emotional ecology is in trouble and their marriage is beginning to spin out of control. Such couples are trapped in one of two destructive, unbalanced types of unions my research has uncovered. These marriages offer snapshots of a marital meltdown in progress."

"These unions, I found, are almost certain to end in divorce as the years go on."

P. 70: "If, after taking the self-test on page 51, you have concluded that your marriage does not fall neatly into one of the three successful adaptations, don't despair. You can still sustain a rewarding, happy coupling. However, such a marriage may be at higher risk of instability, unless when trouble strikes you understand what is going wrong and why. I think it is certainly possible to develop this sort of insight. In fact, much of our research has focused on mapping exactly how marriages go from good to bad to worse. We have been able to chart fairly specific sequences of reactivity and negative emotions that become increasingly destructive, building force and momentum as a marriage goes farther and farther down the wrong track. By knowing the warning signs and dangers of these cascades you have a far better chance of avoiding them or extricating your marriage if the downward roll has already begun. If you do so, I believe that eventually your marriage will end up resembling one of the three satisfying types that my research has linked to long-term happiness."

P. 71: "...[U]nhappy marriages... resemble each other in important ways. True, each has its own personality and idiosyncracies, but they share one overriding similarity: they followed the same, specific, downward spiral before coming to a sad end. This spiral includes a distinct cascade of interactions, emotions, and attitudes that, step by step, brought these couples close to separation, divorce, or an unhappy, lonely life together. Rather than settling into one of the three stable marital styles, their relationships went into a freefall as they were consumed by negativity. By identifying this trajectory toward marital dissolution, my research team has been able to predict with remarkable accuracy which marriages are likely to endure happily and which are more apt to run aground."

"Being able to predict what emotions and reactions tend to lead a couple into troubled waters is crucial to improving a marriage's chances."

P. 72: "The first cascade a couple hits as they tumble down the marital rapids is comprised of 'The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,' my name for four disastrous ways of interacting that sabotage your attempts to communicate with your partner. In order of least to most dangerous they are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. As these behaviors become more and more entrenched, husband and wife focus increasingly on the escalating sense of negativity and tension in their marriage. Eventually they may become deaf to each other's efforts at peacemaking. As each horseman arrives, he paves the way for the next. Here is how the horsemen can slowly, insidiously override a marriage that started out full of promise."

THE FIRST HORSEMAN: CRITICISM -- When couples feel that their complaints are not causing change, they often take the next step and begin to criticize the other person.

P. 73: "On the surface, there may not seem to be much difference between complaining and criticizing. But criticism involves attacking someone's personality or character -- rather than a specific behavior -- usually with blame. Example: "You always do things like that -- just think about yourself, of your needs." One is then assaulting the individual, not just their actions.

"Since few couples can completely avoid criticizing each other now and then, the first horseman often takes up long-term residence even in relatively healthy marriages. One reason is that criticizing someone is just a short hop beyond complaining, which is actually one of the healthiest activities that can occur in a marriage. Expressing anger and disagreement -- airing a complaint -- though rarely pleasant, makes the marriage stronger in the long run than suppressing the complaint."

P. 74: "You may find it difficult at first to differentiate between complaints and criticism. As a general rule, a criticism entails blaming, making a personal attack or an accusation, while a complaint is a negative comment about something you wish were otherwise. To oversimplify, complaints could easily begin with the word I, and criticisms with the word you....A criticism is also more likely than a complaint to make your partner defensive."

P. 75: "Unlike complaints, criticism also tend to be generalizations. A telltale sign that you've slipped from complaining to criticizing is if global phrases like 'you never' or 'you always' start punctuating your exchanges."

P. 76: "Being critical is not evil; it can begin innocently enough and is often the expression of pent-up, unresolved anger. It may be one those natural self-destruct mechanism inherent in all personal relationships. Problems occur when criticism becomes so pervasive -- or one partner is so sensitive to it -- that it corrodes the marriage. When that happens it heralds the arrival of the other, more foreboding horsemen that can drag you toward marital difficulty."

P. 77: "To get a sense of whether you or your spouse is overly critical, try answering the following questions soon after an argument."

"SELF-TEST: ARE YOU A CRITIC? In the discussion that just occurred:

1. I thought it was very important to determine who was at fault.

2. I saw it as my job to present all of my complaints.

3. I tried to see patterns and analyze my partner's personality as part of my complaint.

4. I didn't complain until I felt very hurt.

5. I tried to make a general point instead of being specific about one situation or action.

6. I analyzed my partner's personality in addition to discussing specific actions that bothered me.

7. I let things build up for a long time before I complained.

8. I didn't censor my complaints at all. I really let my partner have it full force.

9. When I complained my emotions were very intense and powerful.

10. I complained in part to get things off my chest.

11. I did not state my complaints in a neutral manner.

12. I didn't try to be very rational when I stated what I thought was wrong.

13. When I complained I felt explosive inside.

14. When I complained I brought up my partner's faults.

15. There's no stopping me once I get started.

16. I resented having to bring up these issues in the first place.

17. I regret my tactless choice of words when I complained.

18. Whenever I bring up a problem I know I'm basically right.

19. Whenever I bring up a problem it is my goal to get my partner to see how I'm right.

20. It was my goal to get my partner to accept some blame for the problem.

21. When I complained I used phrases like 'You always' or "You never.'"

SCORING: If you checked 'yes' on more than seven items you are probably a good candidate for being a critic. Remember, criticism by itself is not malevolent -- it's easy to shift from complaining to criticizing."

P. 79: THE SECOND HORSEMAN: CONTEMPT

"What separates contempt from criticism is the intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner. With your words and body language, you're lobbing insults right into the heart of your partner's sense of self. Fueling these contemptuous actions are negative thoughts about the partner -- he or she is stupid, disgusting, incompetent, a fool. In direct or subtle fashion, that message gets across along with the criticism."

When a problem area goes unresolved, anger begins to pervade other areas of the couple's interaction. "When this happens they often cease being able to admire each other, or to remember why they had fallen in love in the first place. As a consequence, they rarely compliment each other anymore, or express mutual admiration or attraction. The major characteristic of the relationship becomes abusiveness."

"When contempt begins to overwhelm your relationship you tend to forget entirely your partner's positive qualities, at least while you're feeling upset. You can't remember a single positive quality or act. This immediate decay of admiration is an important reason why contempt ought to be banned from marital interactions."

P. 80: "Recognizing when you or your spouse is expressing contempt is fairly easy. Among the most common signs are:

Insults and Name-calling. These barbs are hard to miss: bitch, bastard, jerk, wimp, fat, stupid, ugly. Etc."

Hostile Humor. Here the contempt is covered with the thin veil of comic relief.

Mockery. This is the art of the subtle put-down.

Body Language. In its most subtle form, contempt is communicated with a few swift changes of the facial muscles. Signs of contempt or disgust include sneering, rolling your eyes, and curling your upper lip. At times in our research, facial expressions offered the clearest clue that something was amiss between a couple."

P. 81: SELF-TEST: NO RESPECT

1. When we were discussing an issue in our marriage, I couldn't think of much of anything I admired in my partner.

2. When I got upset I could see glaring faults in my partner's personality.

3. I just don't respect some of the things my partner does.

4. I tried to point out ways in which my partner was inadequate in a particular situation.

5. I found it hard to have much pride in my partner's qualities.

6. During the discussion I found myself putting my partner down.

7. There's not a whole lot to look up to in the way my partner goes about things.

8. My spouse can be pretty arrogant at times.

9. When my partner got negative I found myself thinking of insulting things to say back.

10. My spouse can be pretty smug at times.

11. My spouse was too stubborn to compromise.

12. When my partner was upset with me I wanted to turn the tables and counterattack.

13. I can't help feeling that there's a lot of stupidity in my partner's behavior.

14. It's hard for me to see my partner's point of view when I don't agree.

15. I often have no respect for my partner when we are discussing an issue.

16. I just get fed up with all the negativity.

17. I felt disgusted by my partner's attitudes.

18. My spouse can be pretty stupid at times.

19. I disapprove of my partner's behavior.

20. My spouse can be pretty inept at times.

21. It was hard to respect my partner when he or she was being that incompetent.

22. When my partner is upset with me I think of all the ways I've been let down in this marriage.

23. My spouse can be very selfish.

24. I often feel a sense of righteous indignation when my partner is expressing something negative.

25. When I get dumped on I think of ways to get even.

26. When I see a glaring fault in my partner I can't recall my partner's positive qualities.

SCORING: If you answered 'yes' to more than seven items you are probably a good candidate for using contempt."

P. 83: "Remember that it is easy to feel overly critical at times, even in the best relationships, and it is human to state criticism in a contemptuous way now and then. If your score suggests that contempt is a problem for you, be sure to read about internal scripts in the next chapter. This will help you understand why you often respond to your spouse with contempt, and set you on the road to changing."

P. 84: "In brief, the best way to neutralize your contempt is to stop seeing arguments with your spouse as a way to retaliate or exhibit your superior moral stance. Rather, your relationship will improve if you approach your spouse with precise complaints (rather than attacking your partner's character) and express a healthy dose of admiration -- the opposite of contempt -- for your spouse."

THE THIRD HORSEMAN: DEFENSIVENESS -- When either partner acts contemptuously, it is common for the other to respond defensively, which just makes matters worse. Each feels victimized by the other and neither is willing to take responsibility for setting things right. In effect, they both constantly plead innocent.

P. 85: "The fact that defensiveness is an understandable reaction to feeling besieged is one reason it is so destructive -- the 'victim' doesn't see anything wrong with being defensive. But defensive phrases, and the attitude they express, tend to escalate a conflict rather than resolve anything. If you are being defensive (even if you feel completely righteous in your stance), you are adding to your marital troubles."

"Sometimes people aren't aware of how defensive they are when their spouse attempts to communicate with them....Remember that however it is expressed, defensiveness is fundamentally an attempt to protect yourself and ward off a perceived attack. It doesn't mean that you and your spouse are bad people or intentionally sabotaging your relationship. By becoming familiar with these signs of defensiveness in its various forms, you'll be better able to recognize them for what they are when they occur in your discussions:

Denying Responsibility. No matter what your partner charges, you insist in no uncertain terms that you are not to blame.

Making Excuses. In this defensive maneuver you claim that external circumstances beyond your control forced you to act in a certain way.

Disagreeing with Negative Mind Reading. Sometimes, your spouse will make assumptions about your private feelings, behavior, or motives.

Cross-Complaining. This is a grown-up version of 'so's your old man.' You meet your partner's complaint (or criticism) with an immediate complaint of you own, totally ignoring what your partner has said."

P. 87: "Rubber Man/Rubber Woman. Remember that old playground saw, 'I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you'? In one move you manage to not only defend yourself from attack but blame your partner."

"Yes-Butting: A yes-but is any statement that starts off agreeing but ends up disagreeing."

P. 88: "Repeating Yourself. Rather than attempting to understand the spouse's point of view, couples who specialize in this technique simply repeat back their own position to each other again and again."

P. 89: "Whining. This refers less to what you say than how you say it -- childishly, with a high-pitched nasal tone and stressing one syllable toward the end of the sentence."

"Body Language. Among the physical signs of defensiveness are a false smile (the corners of the mouth rise, but the eyes don't change), shifting the body from side to side (as if avoiding a punch), and folding your arms across your chest. Sometimes women who are feeling defensive play with their neck as if they were wearing a necklace."

P. 90: SELF-TEST: HOW DEFENSIVE ARE YOU?

This quiz looks at whether you respond defensively when your partner brings up an issue. Try to recall your actual behavior, feelings, and thoughts just after an argument. It's very important that you be honest with yourself.

P. 91:

1. When my partner complained, I felt unfairly picked on.

2. I felt misunderstood.

3. I don't feel that I get credit for all the positive things I do.

4. What went wrong was actually not that much my responsibility.

5. To avoid blame, I had to explain why and how the problem arose.

6. I felt unfairly attacked when my partner was being negative.

7. When my partner complained, I realized that I also had a set of complaints that needed to be heard.

8. My partner's negativity got too intense, too much, too out of proportion.

9. My partner was too touchy, got feelings hurt too easily.

10. There was some truth to my partner's complaints, but it was not the whole truth.

11. When my partner complained, I thought, 'I am innocent of these charges.'"

12. When my partner complained I felt that I had to 'ward off' these attacks.

13. I felt obligated to deny the complaints against me that were inaccurate.

14. When I listened to my partner's complaints I thought of complaints of my own that weren't getting attention.

15. My partner's views of the problem were too self-centered.

16. I thought, 'What you say only bounces right off me.'"

17. When my partner complained I tried to think of ways to protect myself.

18. When my partner complained I thought of a way to reexplain my position.

19. When my partner complained I thought that if my position were really understood we wouldn't have all these issues.

20. It seems that all my partner can do is find fault with me.

21. Sometimes it feels like my partner is coming at me with a baseball bat.

22. During a hot argument I kept thinking of ways to retaliate.

P. 92: SCORING: If you've checked 'yes' for seven or more items, then you are probably a good candidate for being defensive. It is easy to feel unfairly attacked at times, even in the best relationship. People who score high in defensiveness often operate with an internal scrip of thoughts that maintain their distress. This is explained in more detail in the next chapter. In general, the defensive person feels like an innocent victim: wronged, misunderstood, unfairly treated, and not appreciated.

"The first step toward breaking out of defensiveness is to no longer see your partner's words as an attack but as information that is being strongly expressed. Try to understand and empathize with your partner. This is admittedly hard to do when you feel under siege, but it is possible and its effects are miraculous. Research shows that if you are genuinely open and receptive when your partner is expecting a defensive response, your partner is less likely to criticize you or react contemptuously when disagreements arise."

P. 93: THE FOURTH HORSEMAN: STONEWALLING -- When either or both of the partners feels overwhelmed by the other they may stop responding. The marriage then goes from being marred by poor communication to being virtually destroyed by none.

P. 94: "When we've interviewed stonewallers they often claim that they are trying to be 'neutral' and not make things worse. They do not seem to realize that stonewalling itself is a very powerful act: it conveys disapproval, icy distance, and smugness. It is very upsetting to speak to a stonewalling listener. This is especially true when a man stonewalls a woman, and much less true when a woman stonewalls a man. Most men don't seem to get physiologically aroused when their wives stonewall them, but wives' heart rates go up dramatically when their husbands stonewall them. Furthermore, most stonewallers (about 85 percent of them) are men! So this is mainly a problem women have with their men."

P. 95: "If either spouse refuses to communicate whenever conflict arises, it can be hard to heal a marriage."

"The fourth horseman need not mark the end of a relationship. But if your interactions have deteriorated to this extent you are at great risk of caterwauling even farther down the marital cascade -- becoming so overwhelmed by the negativity in your relationship that you end up divorced, separated, or living lonely, parallel lives in the same home. Once the fourth horseman becomes a regular resident, it takes a good deal of hard work and soul searching to save the marriage."

"Our research has shown that men are more likely to become stonewallers than are women. The reason, I believe, may be biological. Men tend to be more physiologically overwhelmed than women by marital tension -- for example, during confrontations a man's pulse rate is more likely to rise, along with this blood pressure. Therefore, men may feel a greater, perhaps instinctive, need to flee from intense conflict with their spouse in order to protect their health....But once either spouse develops into a habitual stonewaller, the marriage becomes fragile."

P. 96: "SELF-TEST: STONEWALLING -- This short quiz will help you determine whether you are apt to stonewall during marital conflict.

1. When my partner complained I felt that I just wanted to get away from this garbage.

2. I had to control myself to keep from saying what I really felt.

3. I thought, 'It's best to withdraw to avoid a big fight.'

4. I withdrew to try to calm down.

5. When we have a big blowup, I just want to leave.

6. At times when my spouse is very negative, I think it is best just not to respond at all.

7. I'd rather withdraw than get my feelings hurt.

8. I think that sometimes withdrawing is the best solution.

9. I wondered why small issues suddenly became big ones.

10. I withdrew when my partner's emotions seemed out of control.

11. I thought, 'I don't have to take this kind of treatment.'

12. I didn't want to fan the flames of conflict, so I just sat back and waited.

13. I hate it when things in our discussions stop being rational.

P. 97: SCORING: If you checked 'yes' to four or more items you are probably a good candidate for being a stonewaller."

"It is easy to feel overwhelmed and to want to run away from conflict at times, or to feel like not responding out of fear of increasing tension. Often, a stonewaller thinks that he is simply being neutral rather than being disapproving or removed. It is important to realize that withdrawal during an argument is a very powerful act. When you don't provide feedback (by verbally interacting or simply nodding your head) it is quite unnerving to the speaker. He or she often responds by becoming all the more upset. It's much better to hang in there, perhaps to say that you feel like running away rather than actually acting on the emotion."

"What makes the four horsemen so deadly to a marriage is not so much their unpleasantness but the intensive way they interfere with a couple's communication. They create a continuing cycle of discord and negativity that's hard to break through if you don't understand what is happening."

P. 98: Once a couple move from poor communication to virtually no communication, they are sliding closer toward the end of the marriage.

"In every marriage some interactions don't go very well. Fortunately, in most relationships there are ways of fixing things. I call these repair mechanisms, ways of trying to make things better. Often they are comments about the process of communication itself, like 'Please let me finish,' or 'We're getting off the topic,' or 'That hurt my feelings.'"

"These repair attempts often are needed most when people are frustrated and angry, and so they are often said with some irritation, or hurt, or even accompanied by an insult or a threat. But they are repair mechanisms nonetheless. In well-functioning marriages the negative parts of these messages are ignored, so the repair attempt works. But in marriages that are burdened by the cycle of negativity partners seem unable to ignore the negativity (perhaps that's all they hear). They respond with another negative statement and the repair attempt fails. In a satisfying marriage a statement like 'We're off the topic' said with irritation is responded to with a stabilizing, 'Sorry, let's get back to the budget.' In an ailing marriage 'We're off the topic' said with irritation is responded to with 'I don't care if we're off the stupid topic! What I'm trying to say is...'"

"Fortunately, the story doesn't have to end with the four horsemen. There is still room to save a marriage, even at this point of great distress."

P. 99: "On the surface it may seem like simple common sense that contempt or defensiveness can ruin communication between spouses. But through our research we have come to understand exactly how this transpires -- and the answer is not all that obvious. When we compared fights between healthy couples in stable marriages with those that were in trouble, one difference stood out. The happily married used certain phrases and actions during an argument that prevented negativity from spiraling out of control. In effect, these conciliatory gestures, that is, repair mechanisms, act as a glue that helps to hold the marriage together during tense times. The four horsemen do harm by blocking a couple's ability to use these aids."

"Different couples employ various types of repair mechanisms. As a general rule, though, they often entail commenting on what's happening in your interaction while it is taking place, or reminding your partner that you admire and empathize with him or her despite the conflict. Some typical repair mechanisms include saying, 'Yes, I see.' 'Uh huh.' 'Go on' -- all those little psychological strokes at which stable couples are masters. But volatile couples use them too, whereas avoidant couples don't need them as much because they don't let things get that tense very often."

"What is important to know now is that these mechanisms counteract defensiveness and deescalate tension. Without them, the marriage may become like a powerful heating system burdened with a broken thermostat. Lacking that inner check or regulation, it is in danger of exploding."

"An important reason couples get off track is that they are unable to hear each other's attempts to mend the rift through the din of their anger and anxiety. Repair mechanisms are often not spoken in a tone that would impress Miss Manners. In fact, in the course of our research I was surprised to find how often even happily married couples can be downright rude to each other."

"One reason some people have stable marriages may simply be that they are good at listening past the edge in their partner's voice to the positive or at least grudgingly conciliatory message behind it. They respond to the repair mechanism rather than the bitter coating. In unstable marriages a couple may be working very hard to figure out what is going wrong between them, but they get distracted by each other's negative messages. They may make attempts to repair the interactions but the negativity blocks the way. Like a car stuck in the mud, they frantically spin their wheels but get nowhere."

"One result of getting nowhere is that you may end up creating ever more elaborate and complex hypotheses for why your marriage isn't working. This occurs especially if you tend to be analytical by nature or psychologically sophisticated. What you get is what I call 'wheels within wheels' -- the problems in your relationship seem so overwhelmingly complex and incoherent that you despair of ever being able to navigate your way out of the mire."

P. 102: "...the horsemen can throw a happy couple into a disastrous tailspin."

"But these four horsemen comprise only the first of two cascades toward marital dissolution, not the end of the line. It is only after they turn a relationship sour that the ultimate danger arises: partners seize on powerful thoughts and beliefs about their spouse that cement their negativity. Only if these inner thoughts go unchallenged are you likely to topple down the final marital cascade, one that leads to distance and isolation. However, if you learn to recognize what is happening to your once-happy marriage, you can still develop the tools you need to regain control of it."

.

.

1. WHY MARRIAGES SUCCEED OR FAIL, John Gottman, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1994.

.

.