matters most.
Research indicates you can get mad as
hell or avoid conflict altogether. But the
positivity must outweigh the negativity
by five to one.
If you are worried about the future of
your marriage or relationship, you have
plenty of company. There's no denying
that this is a frightening time for
couples. More than half of all first
marriages end in divorce; 60 percent of
second marriages fail. What makes the
numbers even more disturbing is that
no one seems to understand why our
marriages have become so fragile.
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
marital therapists--is either 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.
Fighting, when it airs grievances and
complaints, can be one of the healthiest
things a couple can do for their
relationship.
If there's one lesson I've learned in my
years of research into marital
relationships--having interviewed and
studied more than 200 couples over 20
years--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.
Although there are other dimensions
that are telling about a union, the
intensity of argument seems to bring
out a marriage's true colors. To classify
a marriage, in my lab at the University
of Washington in Seattle, I look at the
frequency of fights, the facial
expressions and physiological responses
(such as pulse rate and amount of
sweating) of both partners during their
confrontations, as well as what they say
to each other and in what tone of voice
they interact verbally.
But there's much more to a successful
relationship than knowing how to fight
well. Not all stable couples resolve
conflicts in the same way, nor do they
mean the same thing by "resolving"
their conflict. In fact, I have found that
there are three different styles of
problem solving into which healthy
marriages tend to settle:
o Validating. Couples compromise often
and calmly work out their problems to
mutual satisfaction as they arise.
o Volatile. Conflict erupts often,
resulting in passionate disputes.
o Conflict-avoiding. Couples agree to
disagree, rarely confronting their
differences head-on.
Previously, many psychologists might
have considered conflict-avoiding and
volatile marriages to be destructive. But
my research suggests that all three
styles are equally stable and bode
equally well for the marriage's future.
"HEALTHY" MARRIAGE STYLES
One of the first things to go in a
marriage is politeness. As laughter and
validation disappear, criticism and pain
well up. Your attempts to get
communication back on track seem
useless, and partners become lost in
hostile and negative thoughts and
feelings. Yet here's the surprise: There
are couples whose fights are as
deafening as thunder yet who have long-
lasting, happy relationships.
The following three newly married
couples accurately illustrate the three
distinct styles of marriage.
Bert and Betty, both 30, both came from
families that weren't very
communicative, and they were
determined to make communication a
priority in their relationship. Although
they squabbled occasionally, they
usually addressed their differences
before their anger boiled over. Rather
than engaging in shouting matches, they
dealt with their disagreements by
having "conferences" in which each aired
his or her perspective. Usually, they
were able to arrive at a compromise.
Max 40, and Anita, 25, admitted that
they quarreled far more than the
average couple. They also tended to
interrupt each other and defend their
own point of view rather than listen to
what their partner was expressing.
Eventually, however, they would reach
some sort of accord. Despite their
frequent tension, however, they seemed
to take much delight in each other.
Joe, 29, and Sheila, 27, said they thought
alike about almost everything and felt
"an instant comfort" from the start.
Although they spent a good deal of time
apart, they still enjoyed each other's
company and fought very rarely. When
tension did arise, both considered solo
jogging more helpful in soothing the
waters than talking things out or
arguing.
Not surprisingly, Bert and Betty were
still happily married four years after I'd
first interviewed them. However, so
were Max and Anita, as well as Joe and
Sheila. Marriages like Bert and Betty's,
though, which emphasize
communication and compromise, have
long been held up as the ideal. Even
when discussing a hot topic, they display
a lot of ease and calm, and have a keen
ability to listen to and understand each
other's emotions.
That's why I call such couples
"validators": In the midst of
disagreement they still let their
partners know that they consider his or
her emotions valid, even if they don't
agree with them. This expression of
mutual respect tends to limit the
number of arguments couples need to
have.
Anita and Max take a different approach
to squabbling than do Bert and Betty,
yet their marriage remained just as
solid over time. 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.
More than the other types, volatile
couples see themselves as equals. They
are independent sorts who believe that
marriage should emphasize and
strengthen their individuality. Indeed,
they are very open with each other
about their feelings--both positive and
negative. These marriages tend to be
passionate and exciting, as if the marital
punch has been spiked with danger.
Moving from a volatile to an avoidant
style of marriage, like Joe and Sheila's,
is like leaving the tumult of a hurricane
for the placid waters of a summer lake.
Not much seems to happen in this type
of marriage. A more accurate name for
them is "conflict minimizers," because
they make light of their differences
rather than resolving them. This type of
successful coupling flies in the face of
conventional wisdom that links marital
stability to skillful "talking things out."
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. But the prognosis
for these three types of marriage is
quite positive--they are each healthy
adaptations to living intimately with
another human being.
THE ECOLOGY OF MARRIAGE
The balance between negativity and
positivity appears to be the key dynamic
in what amounts to the emotional
ecology of every marriage. There seems
to be some kind of thermostat operating
in healthy marriages that regulates this
balance. For example, when partners get
contemptuous, they correct it with lots
of positivity--not necessarily right away,
but sometime soon.
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.
Volatile couples, for example, stick
together by balancing their frequent
arguments with a lot of love and
passion. But by balance I do not mean a
50-50 equilibrium. As part of my
research I carefully charted the amount
of time couples spent fighting versus
interacting positively--touching,
smiling, paying compliments, laughing,
etc. Across the board I 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. As long as
there is five times as much positive
feeling and interaction between husband
and wife as there is negative, the
marriage was likely to be stable over
time. In contrast, those couples who
were heading for divorce were doing far
too little on the positive side to
compensate for the growing negativity
between them.
WARNING SIGNS: THE FOUR
HORSEMEN
If you are in the middle of a troubled
marriage, it can seem that your
predicament is nearly impossible to sort
out. But in fact unhappy marriages do
resemble each other in one overriding
way: they followed the same, specific,
downward spiral before coming to a sad
end.
Being able to predict what emotions and
reactions lead a couple into trouble is
crucial to improving a marriage's
chances. By pinpointing how marriages
destabilize, I believe couples will be able
to find their way back to the happiness
they felt when their marital adventure
began.
The first cascade a couple hits as they
tumble down the marital rapids is
comprised of the "Four Horsemen"--
four disastrous ways of interacting that
sabotage your attempts to communicate
with your partner. 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 become deaf to each other's efforts
at peacemaking. As each new horseman
arrives, he paves the way for the next,
each insidiously overriding a marriage
that started out full of promise.
THE FIRST HORSEMAN: CRITICISM
When Eric and Pamela married fresh
out of college, it soon became clear that
they had different notions of what
frugality meant. Pamela found herself
complaining about Eric's spending
habits, yet as time passed she found that
her comments did not lead to any
change on her husband's part. Rather,
something potentially damaging to their
marriage soon began occurring: instead
of complaining about his actions, she
began to criticize him.
On the surface, there may not seem to
be much difference between
complaining and criticizing. But
criticizing involves attacking someone's
personality or character rather than a
specific behavior, usually with blame.
When Pamela said things like "You
always think about yourself," she
assaulted Eric, not just his actions, and
blamed him for being selfish.
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
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
makes the marriage stronger in the long
run than suppressing the complaint.
The trouble begins when you feel that
your complaints go unheeded and your
spouse repeats the offending habits.
Over time, it becomes more and more
likely that your complaints will pick up
steam. With each successive complaint
you're likely to throw in your inventory
of prior, unresolved grievances.
Eventually you begin blaming your
partner and being critical of his or her
personality rather than of a specific
deed.
One common type of criticism is to
bring up a long list of complaints. I call
this "kitchen sinking": you throw in
every negative thing you can think of.
Another form is to accuse your partner
of betraying you, of being
untrustworthy: "I trusted you to balance
the checkbook and you let me down!
Your recklessness amazes me." In
contrast, complaints don't necessarily
finger the spouse as a culprit; they are
more a direct expression of one's own
dissatisfaction with a particular
situation.
Criticisms 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:
Complaint: "We don't go out as much as
I'd like to."
Criticism: "You never take me
anywhere."
Being critical can begin innocently
enough and is often the expression of
pentup, unresolved anger. It may be one
of those natural self-destruct
mechanisms inherent in all
relationships. Problems occur when
criticism becomes so pervasive that it
corrodes the marriage. When that
happens it heralds the arrival of the next
horseman that can drag you toward
marital difficulty.
THE SECOND HORSEMAN:
CONTEMPT
By their first anniversary, Eric and
Pamela still hadn't resolved their
financial differences. Unfortunately,
their fights were becoming more
frequent and personal. Pamela was
feeling disgusted with Eric. In the heat
of one particularly nasty argument, she
found herself shrieking: "Why are you
so irresponsible?" Fed up and insulted,
Eric retorted, "Oh, shut up. You're just a
cheapskate. I don't know how I ended up
with you anyway." The second
horseman--contempt--had entered the
scene.
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, incompetent, a fool. In
direct or subtle fashion, that message
gets across along with the criticism.
When this happened, they ceased being
able to remember why they had fallen in
love in the first place. As a consequence,
they rarely complimented each other
anymore or expressed mutual
admiration or attraction. The focal point
of their relationship became
abusiveness.
What Pamela and Eric experienced is
hardly uncommon. When contempt
begins to overwhelm your relationship,
you tend to forget 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.
Recognizing when you or your spouse is
expressing contempt is fairly easy.
Among the most common signs are:
o Insults and name-calling
o Hostile humor
o Mockery
o Body language--including sneering,
rolling your eyes, curling your upper lip.
It is easy to feel overly critical at times,
and it is human to state criticism in a
contemptuous way now and then, even
in the best relationships. Yet if
abusiveness seems to be a problem in
your relationship, the best way to
neutralize it 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 personality or character.
THE THIRD HORSEMAN:
DEFENSIVENESS
Once contempt entered their home, Eric
and Pamela's marriage went from bad to
worse. When either of them acted
contemptuously, the other responded
defensively, which just made matters
worse. Now they both felt victimized by
the other--and neither was willing to
take responsibility for setting things
right. In effect, they both constantly
pleaded innocent.
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, you are adding to your
marital troubles. Familiarize yourself
with the signs of defensiveness so you
can recognize them for what they truly
are:
o Denying Responsibility. No matter
what your partner charges, you insist in
no uncertain terms that you are not to
blame.
o Making Excuses. You claim that
external circumstances beyond your
control forced you to act in a certain
way.
o Disagreeing with Negative Mind-
Reading. Sometimes your spouse will
make assumptions about your private
feelings, behavior, or motives (in
phrases such as "You think it's a waste
of time" or "I know how you hate it").
When this "mind-reading" is delivered
in a negative manner, it may trigger
defensiveness in you.
www.josiahdele.blogspot.com
Comments