The Masters and Disasters of Marriage

A recent article appeared in The Atlantic magazine entitled The Masters of Marriage.  I strongly urge you to read the entire commentary (link listed below).  I have edited the article for my blog entry to give you an idea of the substance of it but I urge everyone to read it in its entirety.    The edited version:

John Gottman and his wife Julie and other social scientists have studied thousands of couples over the last four decades in a quest to figure out what makes relationships work. From the data they gathered, Gottman separated the couples into two major groups: the masters and the disasters.  The masters were still happily together after six years.  The disasters had either broken up or were chronically unhappy in their marriages. Gottman found that the more physiologically active the couples were in his "love lab", the quicker their relationship deteriorated over time.

But what does physiology have to do with anything?  The problem was that the disasters showed all the signs of arousal--of being in fight-or-flight mode--in their relationships.  Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger.

The masters, by contrast, showed low physiological arousal.  They felt calm and connected together, which translated into warm and affectionate behavior, even when they fought. The masters had created a climate of trust and intimacy that made both of them more emotionally and thus physically comfortable.

Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, or what Gottman calls "bids." For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard.  He might say to his wife, "Look at that beautiful bird outside!"  He's not just commenting on the bird here: he is requesting a response from his wife--a sign of interest or support--hoping they'll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.

People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid.  Those who didn't --those who turned away--would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing.

By observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with 94 percent certainty whether couples will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later.  Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship.  Do they bring kindness and generosity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility?

Contempt is the number one factor that tears couples apart.  Kindness, on the other hand, glues couples together. Kindness makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated--feel loved.

There are two ways to think about kindness.  You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don't.  Or you can think of kindness as a muscle.  In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others. but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.

Kindness doesn't mean that we don't express our anger," Julie Gottman explained, "but the kindness informs how we choose to express the anger.  You can throw spears at your partner.  Or you can explain why you're hurt and angry, and that's the kinder path.."

We've all heard that partners should be there for each other when the going gets rough.  But research shows that being there for each other when things go right is actually more important for relationship quality.  How someone responds to a partner's good news can have dramatic consequences for the relationship. In one study from 2006 a group of psychologists brought young adult couples into the lab to discuss recent positive events from their lives. They wanted to know how partners would respond to each other's good news.  They found that, in general, couples responded to each other's good news in four different ways that they called: passive destructive, active destructive, passive constructive, and active constructive.

Lets say that one partner had recently received the excellent news that she got into medical school.  She would say something like "I got into my top choice med school!"

If her partner responded in a passive destructive manner, he would ignore the event and say something like: "you wouldn't believe the great new I got yestereday! I won a free t-shirt!" If her partner responded in a passive constructive way he would acknowledge the good news, but in a half-hearted, understated way.  A typical active destructive response is saying "That's great , babe," as he texes his buddy on his phone.

In the third kind of response, active destructive, the partner would diminish the good news this partner just got:  "Are you sure you can handle all the studying? And what about the cost? Med school is so expensive!

Finally, there's active constructive responding.  If her partner responded in this way, he stopped what he was doing and engaged wholeheartedly with her: "That's great! Congratulations! When did you find out?  Did they call you?  What classes will you take first semester?"

Active constructive responding is critical for healthy relationships. Research has discovered that the only difference between the couples who were together and those who broke up was active constructive responding. (Being there for each other)

There are many reasons why relationships fail, but if you look at what drives the deterioration of many relationships, it's often a breakdown of kindness. As the normal stresses of a life together pile up--with children, career, friends, in-laws, and other distractions crowding out the time for intimacy--couples may put less effort into their relationship and let the petty grievances they hold against one another tear them apart.  But among couples who not only endure, but live happily together for years and years, the spirit of kindness and generosity guides them forward.

( If you are interested in reading the entire article, which I recommend, go to: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/happily-ever-after/372573/?single_page=true )