The Four Horsemen--Contempt.

We talked about criticism in the last post, and our topic for today is the second horseman on John Gottman's list: Contempt.

Contempt in John Gottman's world is the same thing as contempt in the real world--holding someone in contempt means you feel superior to them or you don't value them.  We see contempt in relationships where sarcasm, eye-rolling, cynicism, or other negative communications are used.  Gottman has found that contempt is the highest predictor of divorce out of all the other horsemen.  I think this is because when you have contempt in your relationship, you are at a point where you've lost respect and appreciation for your partner--you're actually mean to them.  It's difficult to build a positive relationship with contempt constantly chipping away at it.

An example of contempt would be if your partner does something differently than you would have and you respond with, "You're such an idiot.  You really think that was the best way to do that?  You couldn't possibly think of any other better way??", rather than just asking why they chose to do it like this and not the way you expected.

 Any time a spouse uses put-downs, mockery, rude body language, or tries to make themselves superior to the other spouse, they're using contempt.  Gottman says it's the worst horseman because contempt conveys disgust with your partner.  No conflicts are ever going to be worked out if someone feels like their partner is disgusted by them.

So that's contempt!

After I finish writing about defensiveness and stonewalling, I'll move on to how to overcome these toxic behaviors in your relationships, because it is possible to work on them and improve your relationship quality even if the horsemen are very prevalent right now.  

The Four Horsemen--Criticism.

Dr. John Gottman is a world-renowned psychologist famous for his work in marital happiness and divorce predictions over the last 40 years or so.  One of his books, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, is phenomenal and I want to write about one of his principles today.  The 4 Horsemen. 

He calls these communication styles the 4 horsemen of marriage because if they are allowed to continue and infect the relationship, they predict dissatisfaction, and more often than not, divorce.   (Just as, biblically speaking, the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse predict the end of the world.)  The four horsemen are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.

Before I begin, I want to say that just because these particular communication patterns are in a relationship right now doesn't mean the relationship is doomed to fail--it's just good to be aware of the dangers these patterns might pose to the relationship and try to fix them before they get out of control.

I'm going to introduce these 4 horsemen one post at a time, so today I'll start with criticism.

Just for starters, A criticism is different than a complaint.  A complaint stays specific to one instance, and is actually very necessary for a marriage to work.  For example, "I thought you were going to take the trash out tonight.  I'm disappointed you didn't do that" is a complaint about someone forgetting to take the trash out.

A criticism, on the other hand, attacks your partner's entire being and character because of that one mistake.  A criticism of the trash situation might look something like: "I can't believe you didn't take the trash out, you never listen to a word I say!"  By claiming that your partner never listens to a word you say, you are subtly (or not so subtly) telling them that they never do anything right and they have little chance of fixing things in the future.

Here's another example.  Joe comes home from work a little late and he grabs dinner on his way home because he assumes his family will have already eaten without him.  When he gets home, however, his wife and kids are waiting for him before they sit down to eat.  He sheepishly tells his wife he already ate, and she responds with "I don't know why I ever try to cook for you!  You never think of anyone but yourself, and now the kids are eating late and I'm starving for no reason!"

She has every right to be upset that he didn't call to ask about dinner, but a healthier way to respond would have been for her to look at this one instance alone and explain why she was upset.  A complaint would look more like "I really wish you would have called before you decided to get dinner on your own.  We've been waiting for 45 minutes for you so we could all eat together.  I thought we were going to try to have family dinners every night this week."

See, in the criticism she accuses him of never thinking of anyone else--which can't be true.  There has to be times in his life when he thinks of other people.  The complaint, on the other hand, expresses that she's still upset about dinner, but provides a solution to the problem, rather than just accusing and blaming him.  By telling Joe that she wishes he would have called, she has found a way to prevent this from happening in the future--he just needs to call next time.  He doesn't have to find a way to change his entire character like the criticism suggests.

We have to complain in our relationships because if we don't, we may feel stepped on and things that bother us will never be worked on.  But we need to be careful that complaints don't turn into criticisms which can be extremely hurtful and demoralizing for a partner.

Stay tuned to learn more about the other three horsemen--contempt, defensiveness, and stone-walling!

Video Games and Disengagement.

So I already introduced different attachment styles in an earlier post, but I wanted to discuss some specific attachment behaviors here.  Regardless of how secure someone is in their attachment, everyone employs at least three different attachment behaviors in their relationships: accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement.

Accessibility is essentially how often you're around or, like it sounds, accessible.  Someone who's across the country and doesn't have cell service is pretty inaccessible.  Someone who's always at work and can't take calls during the day is also inaccessible.  Someone who's just a phone call away is mildly accessible.  And someone standing in the same room as you is very accessible.  Accessibility is important in relationships, but just being accessible can fall flat if we don't follow through with the next two attachment behaviors.

Responsiveness is measured by how you respond to someone.  (sounds obvious, I know)  So someone can answer their phone (making them accessible), but if they just respond with "yeah", or "uh-huh" during the whole conversation, instead of actually listening and answering, they're not being responsive.  Similarly, someone can be sitting in the same room as you, but if you can't hold a conversation with them, they're not being very responsive.  When you can successfully have a conversation where the other person is mentally there, answering and asking questions, and responding to you, you are experiencing responsiveness.

Engagement is how well you can have serious, deep, meaningful conversations with someone.  For example, you can be responsive by just talking about what's for dinner, or what the kids did all day, but engagement comes when you discuss more meaningful things in your lives, i.e. talking about your future, why you love each other, resolving conflicts, and other important conversations.

As it turns out, high level of engagement is a pretty high predictor of marital satisfaction.  You can't get to engagement with each other, however, if you don't make yourself accessible or responsive first.

When someone sits in front of the computer or TV playing video games, they are technically accessible because they are physically in the same room as you, but they may not mentally be in the same room with you at all.  Responsiveness is going to be extremely difficult because their head is somewhere else, and there's really no hope for engagement while someone's in the middle of an alternate reality that doesn't involve you.

I have to add the caveat here that there are other situations that can cause the same inaccessibility and unresponsiveness.  TV can have the same effect as video games.  If someone's watching a tv show while you're trying to talk to them, they're accessible (meaning at least they're home), but they'll hardly be responsive, and it would be impossible for them to seriously engage with you while paying attention to the drama happening in the show in front of them.

Of course, there's a happy medium and moderation in both of these activities can be totally healthy and actually beneficial.  But in excess, they can really start to wear down a relationship by taking away the time and energy needed for engagement to occur.

Benevolent Sexism.

This was a concept that completely changed how I viewed the world, men, and women.  Benevolent sexism. I actually gave a presentation on this idea in my Senior Shakespeare course because almost all of Shakespeare's plays include great examples of this.

I'm just going to talk about this in terms of men being sexist towards women because the examples are easier to understand.  It goes both ways, though.  Women can be benevolently sexist towards men as well.  The idea that someone can be benevolently sexist basically means that while trying to appear overly kind or generous, they actually view the other person as incapable or incompetent because of their gender.

My professor gave an awesome example when she told us a story one day about her old boyfriend.  Many years ago when she was still dating, she was getting pretty serious with a guy she liked.  For Valentine's Day they went out to a nice restaurant, but it was pouring rain.  When they pulled into their parking spot, she threw her door open, booked it to the restaurant, opened the door and walked inside to the dry warmth of the indoors.  All through dinner, he seemed perturbed and she didn't understand why.  After a little bit of prying, he finally admitted, "Well, you're supposed to wait for me to open your door.  I'm supposed to do that for you."  She was shocked because it was pouring rain and she just didn't want him to have to stand in the rain any longer than necessary.  She told him this, but he just replied, "Well I'm supposed to be your knight in shining armor on a horse coming to sweep you away."  She asked, "Well, what if I want to be on my own horse?"  He said, without a moment's pause, "Well then I'd push you off!".

Needless to say, their relationship ended shortly thereafter.  See, under the guise of chivalry, he was actually trying to keep her oppressed.  If she had wanted to be on her own horse, he wouldn't have let her, because in his mind, women were always supposed to be the damsels in distress.

This is a silly example and most times when someone opens a door for you, it's not benevolent sexism, but it's all about whether the benevolent action is done because someone literally doesn't think you are capable of doing it, or just because they want to give you a break.  A couple more examples:

I know some families who don't ever make their daughters sit next to strangers on planes because they feel that that's a man's job.  This again looks like chivalry, but what it's really teaching these girls is that they don't need to learn the skill of striking up conversations with strangers, they don't ever need to put themselves out of their comfort zone, and that a man will always be there to do the hard work for them.

Similarly, sometimes, young girls don't like calling to order pizza or answering the door when they're young.  When parents don't make any of their children do this, that's their own business.  But if parents makes their sons do these jobs, while letting their daughters get away with never stepping up to the plate, they are (maybe unintentionally) reinforcing the idea that women aren't expected to do hard things.  Men will always be there to do it for them.

Because hostile sexism (outward and aggressive negative views of someone's gender) is generally more recognized, it gets called out frequently.  Benevolent sexism, however, is a more subtle form of sexism that can seriously damage and man or woman's view of themselves.  I think that most of the time, this benevolent sexism is unintentional (mostly because people don't even know it exists), but it does happen, and it can shape how a person views their competency and capacities for the rest of their life.

Quick summary:

The Mask of Benevolence-

Hostile Sexism: Outwardly suggesting that women are incapable.

            Ex:  “Women should stay out of the workforce because they lack the skills necessary.” (Negative) 

Benevolent Sexism:  Outwardly idealizing women, while subtly suggesting that they are incapable.  

            Ex: “Women should stay out of the workforce because they excel at childcare.” (Positive)

This is, of course an oversimplification of the idea, and there are more situations and extenuating circumstances to be considered, but these examples provide at least enough for me to remember the basics about benevolent sexism.

Centripetal vs. Centrifugal Families.

This is a relatively simple concept, but I thought it was so interesting!  So just as we have centripetal and centrifugal forces in physics, one theory suggests that there are two family styles as well--centripetal and centrifugal.

According to the Beavers Model extreme centripetal families tend to be focused on the relationships within the family.  They look for fulfilling relationships mostly from inside their immediate family.

Extreme centrifugal families are the opposite as they search for relationship satisfaction outside the family.  These families generally express anger more openly than centripetal families.

While most families fall within the realm of normal and healthy, what I found interesting is what happens when one of these two styles gets out of control.

Research has suggested that centripetal (focused inside) families who struggle with boundaries, communication, shared goals, family focus, and other chaotic exchanges tend to produce schizophrenic offspring.  Of course schizophrenia is not all nurture, and has biological beginnings, but it can get out of control and exhibit itself more strongly in this type of environment.

When these same centripetal families are on the other side of the spectrum and end up tyrannically controlling each other, boundaries are rigid, and depression or rage are seen, the offspring are often severely obsessive.

When centripetal families have pretty good communication, but tend to control through what is thought of as love, and anger, anxiety, depression or other mental health issues are dealt with by distance and repression, the offspring are likely to be neurotic.  (Neurotic here means exhibiting symptoms of anxiety, depression, OCD, or other mental health issues)

Centrifugal (focused outside) families face an entirely different spectrum of possibilities for their offspring when their centrifugality gets out of control.

Centrifugal families who struggle with boundaries, communication, shared goals, family focus, and other chaotic exchanges tend to produce sociopathic offspring.  So rather than schizophrenia (an internal struggle), these children end up struggling with their relationships with other people.

When these same centrifugal families are on the other side of the spectrum and end up tyrannically controlling each other, boundaries are rigid, and depression or rage are seen, the offspring often struggle with borderline personality issues.  I think Wikipedia does a pretty solid job of explaining borderline personality disorder, but it's basically highly emotional and unstable.  Emotions in someone with BPD can change from ecstatic to suicidal in a matter of seconds and they tend to be paranoid about relationships and stability.

When centrifugal families have pretty good communication, but tend to control through what is thought of as love, and anger, anxiety, depression or other mental health issues are dealt with by distance and repression, the offspring are likely to have behavior disorders--which is just what is sounds like--someone exhibiting inappropriate behaviors.

Of course, these outcomes are definitely the exception, and not the norm, and there are other options on the Beavers Model for families who are good at communicating, have intimacy in their families, and share warmth and respect with each other.  These families who function well have not doomed their offspring because the choose to look for satisfying relationships inside vs. outside the family or vice versa.  These are just the extremes, but it fascinates me the we can predict child behaviors based on extreme family styles.  

Family Systems Theory.

This one is a little tough to summarize because it's a very general and complicated premise upon which basically all marriage and family therapy is built, but I'll try anyway.  So family therapy used to be all about identifying the specific person in the family who was supposedly causing the dysfunction and working on them to fix the problem.

Now we look at the family as a system.  This means we focus more on the relationship between the members of the family more than on the members themselves.  Different family members will react differently, of course, but now we know that if something happens to the family or within the family, everyone is affected.

There are many different specific sub-theories within the framework of the "family systems theory". Some therapists believe in focusing mostly on our families of origin (our parents and siblings), others subscribe to changing specific behaviors before working on past problems, and still others believe that if we could just clarify and strengthen our boundaries and family structures, we'd be able to return to healthy functioning.

The main take-away here is that there's no way to really know what specifically causes certain dysfunctions in families, but we can at least be aware of the fact that no one is exempt from being affected by trauma in the family.

Insecure and Secure Attachment Styles.

One of the requirements of my Master's is to write a thesis, and my mentor wants me to focus on what he calls Relationship Self-Regulation.  After doing some research I've realized I have to start with attachment styles.

There are three simple attachment styles I want to talk about:  secure, insecure-anxious, and insecure-avoidant.  These are somewhat self-explanatory, but the gist of it is that those who feel insecure in their relationships usually employ two different insecure styles--anxious or avoidant.

People who feel insecure and become anxious in their attachment style tend to feel worried about their partners leaving them and feel that they always need to be in intimate, close relationships.  They feel like they are always the one pushing for more intimacy and they worry about others caring about them as much as they care about others.  We sometimes call this clinginess or neediness.  These people typically have lower self-esteem and are overly anxious (imagine that) about their relationships.

On the other hand, people who are insecure and react by becoming avoidant, struggle with becoming vulnerable to others and allowing intimacy into their lives.  These people very highly value their independence and ability to be self-sufficient.  Some avoidant styles are so extreme that people are literally afraid of becoming close to others.  But other avoidant styles are just neutral about whether they are in or out of a relationship.  These people tend to be defensive--meaning instead of becoming upset by rejection, they simply distance themselves from the source.  This can sometimes perpetuate a dangerous cycle of never wanting to be in a relationship.




Secure attachment is what we refer to as healthy.  As you can guess, these people are comfortable and find it easy to develop intimate and close relationships.  They are generally content with their roles in their relationship and feel comfortable with the balance between their independence and togetherness with their partner.

Boundaries.

Boundaries are one of the most fundamental aspects of the Family Systems Theory.  Of course, when we discuss boundaries in terms of clinical work and families we are usually talking about parent-child boundaries, sibling-sibling boundaries, and inside the family-outside the family boundaries.  We talk about these relationship boundaries because no matter what the boundary characteristics actually are--rigid, permeable, or semi-permeable--the important thing to remember is that the clarity of the boundaries is the most important.  They need to be clearly defined by the parents, siblings, or family to be effective--no matter what type they are.

I am interested in how boundaries function outside of our family relationships as well and Dave and I were talking the other day when he remembered someone teaching it to him this way:

People have three basic types of boundaries--

~Walls

~Holes

    and

~Doors

Walls are also known as rigid boundaries.  People who put up walls are generally afraid of getting close to other people and making themselves vulnerable.  These are the types of people who always say no when others ask them for favors or invite them to activities.  These people generally don't feel guilty about saying no because they have other priorities in their lives that are more important to them.  It's great to be able to say no to people sometimes, but people who put up walls tend to feel like in relationships they need to always be in complete control rather than the give and take that a more moderate approach would offer.  People who have walls for boundaries run the risk of being lonely because to keep their walls strong they have to hide behind them.  Over time, others stop trying to include them because they realize this person just doesn't want a relationship with them.

Holes, on the other hand, are exactly what they sound like.  When you have a hole in your wall, anything can come and go as it pleases.  Some call these permeable boundaries.  The people with holes in their walls are generally the types of people who can't say no.  They feel strong moral obligations to their relationships and sometimes let this get in the way of healthy prioritization and alone-time.  These people have strong relationships, but sometimes they may not have a very strong sense of their individual identity.  They tend to define themselves by their relationships with other people.  The problem with holes is that negativity and other unhealthy aspects of relationships have nothing keeping them out.  Criticisms and complaints are let in and accepted as fact with these types of loose boundaries.





Doors are the most ideal boundary to have.  Just as a door functions by allowing some things in and keeping some things out, people who have set up door (a.k.a. semi-permeable) boundaries are able to say no sometimes, but also make relationships enough of a priority in their lives to be involved in rewarding, healthy, satisfying relationships with others.  What's great about this metaphor is the fact that you have to open the door to let someone in.  Similarly, you have to proactively take the step towards working on a relationship with someone, while still retaining your ability to shut some less-than-great things out for the relationship to succeed long-term.

What I love about all this is that boundaries--even rigid ones--are not set in stone.  With help and a hard look at ourselves we are always able to change what we let in and what we keep out of our lives when it comes to our families and friends.  Setting clearer boundaries can help eliminate stress, guilt, loneliness, and other tough emotions attached to unhealthy relationship styles.