What'd you say dear? Yielding to wife could save marriage From the boardroom to the bedroom, we've all heard that pop counseling phrase: "So, what I hear you saying is . . ." Well now hear this: such active listening techniques may fall on deaf ears where the success of a marriage is concerned, according to a study published in this month's Journal of Marriage and the Family. UW Psychology Professor John Gottman may have turned traditional marriage counseling protocol on its head with the release of this new research finding: successful marriages have far more to do with husbands yielding to the influences of their wives, than with spouses trying to recite what they think they heard during an argument. "This was the biggest revelation we've had about how conflicts are best resolved in successful marriages. Our analysis suggested that active listening occurred very infrequently in marital conflict resolution and its use didn't predict marital success. "We expected that active listening would predict positive outcomes in marriages‹we have even recommended this type of conflict intervention with couples in the past," said Gottman, who has studied marriages and families for more than 25 years. The study followed 130 newlyweds for six years to explore the ways in which couples interact that may lead to divorce, and to build a model that describes not just what is "dysfunctional" when a marriage is ailing, but also what is "functional" when a marriage works well. At the only marriage laboratory in the country, Gottman and his staff use video cameras to track details of exchanges between couples as they interact during their daily routines. To deal with the surprise findings about active listening, the investigators re-analyzed data from this study and another group of subjects that has been followed for the past 13 years. They examined in detail every video tape and transcript of every stable happy couple. What they found was that these successfully married couples did not often use active listening techniques such as paraphrasing their spouses, or summarizing their partner's feelings or content of their statements. They also almost never validated their spouse's feelings. "Active listening is unnatural for couples to do," said Gottman. "People may do it at times, but as a means to resolve issues, active listening requires too much of people in the midst of conflict. Asking that of couples is like requiring emotional gymnastics." The effect of a husband's willingness to accept influence from his spouse, however, was a significant predictor for a successful marriage. "We found that only those newlywed men who are accepting of influence from their wives are winding up in happy, stable marriages," said Gottman. "Getting husbands to share power with their wives, by accepting some of the demands they make, is critical in helping to resolve conflict." Gottman said that the wife usually brings marital issues up for discussion, and she usually also presents an analysis of the problem and suggested solutions. Men who are able to accept their spouses' ideas are more likely to maintain a successful relationship. Gottman said this study also confirmed results of two earlier studies that found that anger itself is not a destructive emotion in marriages, but that four processes dubbed, "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" -- criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling -- during marital conflict reliably did predict divorce. However, Gottman said the real drama of the research is the finding that showed that gentleness, compassion, and physiological soothing of partners are key ingredients that enable marriages to succeed. "What this research teaches us is that marriage counselors need to abandon the active listening model. Instead, they must work with couples on changing the manner in which a conflict is started by softening the initial approach that most often is from women, and changing the balance of power in the relationship, so that men are more willing to accept influence from their wives," he explained. Gottman feels these new approaches to conflict in marital therapy are psychologically less taxing than those now being taught to distressed couples, and that relapses after therapy will also be less likely. "With this research, we're learning from the experts," he said. "We're building a new marital therapy by observing and studying the way people normally go about the process of staying happily married, rather than by extending traditional psychotherapy methods to marital interventions. The Four Horsemen Mirror 1: Unseating the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Who are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? In his book Why Marriages Succeed or Fail, John Gottman identifies four characteristics of marriages that signal the marriage is beginning to deteriorate.  These four characteristics are:  Criticism Contempt Defensiveness Stonewalling Since these four characteristics impede communication and prevent the positive from asserting itself in the relationship, our series will begin right away with lessening their impact. In your relationships you may find that the four horsemen rarely if ever appear.  If this is so, simply enjoy the benefits of releasing these non-coherent patterns to an even greater degree.  If, on the other hand, the four horsemen are running roughshod through your life, take heart!  We are about to unseat them! Criticism Criticism (personality attack) often crawls in when complaints (objective statements of unmet needs) have 'fallen upon deaf ears.'  Unlike criticism, complaints are statements of personal reality (I am disappointed we're not going to have dinner together tonight; I was looking forward to being with you.) Complaints do not target the shortcomings of the other party, whereas criticism does this expressly.  (You're always spending time with your friends and completely forgetting about me and what I go through for you.) When dealing with criticism, the receiver is left in the awkward position of having to take a personal hit, often times below the belt, or appear defensive.  Since criticism is aimed at the character of a person, it is extremely damaging to the relationship.  Intentions and Possibilities When you express displeasure, do you make a complaint? In what areas of your life would you like to communicate your personal reality (via a complaint) rather than rely on character assassination (via criticism)? As with all interactive areas in the series, you are welcome to submit statements which reflect your personal experience.  When the session is being done, those statements which accurately reflect the energy of the group will be used anonymously, allowing us all to shift to greater harmony and unification. Challenges and Growth Opportunities When do you fall (or have you fallen) into the trap of criticizing? Is there a particular person with whom you interact in this pattern? What payoff do you get when you are criticizing?  IE Do you feel relieved, justified, vindicated, excused from relating? Whom have you witnessed criticizing from your childhood?  What characteristics did this person exhibit and what was the outcome of the criticism? Do you have any of these characteristics? Whom have you witnessed being criticized?  What characteristics did this person exhibit and what was the outcome of the criticism? Do you have any of these characteristics? Contempt Contempt, perhaps somewhat self explanatory, often runs in on the heels of criticism.  While criticism isn't nearly the productive communication tool we wish it were, it is often the one resorted to -- especially if it was the primary communication method that was modeled for us.  When criticism fails to work, (and it always does,) we often become even less enamored of our former dear one.  As our ineffectiveness to bring about the outcome we desire becomes more and more apparent, our partner bears an ever increasing burden for us as contempt becomes more and more prominent.  You can recognize contempt by the undercurrent of hostility and the appearance of name-calling. The antidote for contempt is respect and connection.  By staying connected, to ourselves and then to our partners, we are able to maintain our humility and love.   By providing a 5:1 ratio of positive strokes and connecting  measures to 'growth opportunities,' relationships stay healthy and grow. Intentions and Possibilities How often do you express admiration for your partner?  Is this received as admiration by your partner? Are you able to take in admiration from your partner? How are you connecting with your partner in positive and restorative ways?   Or, how would you like to be? Are there any situations you would like to get through without falling prey to receiving or dispensing contempt? Challenges and Growth Opportunities When do you fall (or have you fallen) into the trap of contempt?  How is it triggered? Is there a particular person with whom you interact in this pattern? What payoff do you get when you are contemptuous?  IE Do you feel relieved, justified, vindicated, excused from relating? Whom have you witnessed displaying contempt from your childhood?  What characteristics did this person exhibit and what was the outcome of the display of contempt?  Do you have any of these characteristics? Whom have you witnessed on the receiving end of contempt? What characteristics did this person exhibit and what was the outcome of the interaction? Do you have any of these characteristics? Defensiveness If you're on the end of criticism and contempt, chances are, you've gotten a bit defensive!  And if, by chance, you're the one dishing out the criticism and contempt, you're probably on the defensive as well. When on the defensive, several unfortunate behaviors result.  The remedy: stay connected, listen well, realize that the intensity of you and your partner's attacks indicates the depth of shared pain.  Know that you will make it through this.      Intentions and Possibilities In what situations would you like to remain neutral, connected, and calm? As with all interactive areas in the series, you are welcome to submit statements which reflect your personal experience.  When the session is being done, those statements which accurately reflect the energy of the group will be used anonymously, allowing us all to shift to greater harmony and unification.   Challenges and Growth Opportunities What from of defensiveness do you recognize within yourself: denying responsibility,  making excuses, disagreeing with what you imagine your partner will say, playing one-upmanship with complaints, saying 'yes' followed immediately with 'but,' repeating yourself, or whining? In what situations are you triggered into this behavior? What payoff do you get?  IE Do you feel relieved, justified, vindicated, excused from relating? With whom have you witnessed this from your childhood?  What characteristics did that person exhibit and what was the outcome? Stonewalling Stonewalling is one sure fire way to end the discussion.  Unfortunately, while most men, due to their upbringing, see this as the safest retreat to keep everything intact; most women, also due to their upbringing, see this as a great and personal insult. Many times when the four horsemen are rampaging through a relationship, the fight or flight reflex is alive and well.  For men, their heart rate jumps when criticism appears on the scene.  For women, it is when contempt appears.  If the heart rate is up and the blood is pumping and the biological defense mechanism remains triggered without some form of connection or repair, the intensity becomes too great to continue without some form of physical expression.  Stonewalling is often resorted to simply to 'walk away' from a situation that could get exponentially worse. Intentions and Possibilities If you or your partner have resorted to stonewalling in the past, what would you like to have happen in the future? How tolerant are you of stonewalling?   Challenges and Growth Opportunities If you or your partner have resorted to stonewalling, how quickly do you do so? How do you respond to when you are stonewalling your partner? How do you respond when your partner is stonewalling you? Where have you witnessed this before?  What were the characteristics of the people involved and what was the outcome of the stonewalling?