Happy Stable Couples:
How they make it work!
How they manage perpetual problems.
by Judith Sherlock, LPCC
Research from the Gottman Institute in Seattle, Washington has been following 700 couples long term. Their level of clinical work has given professionals many tools and information for years. The interesting find concerning stable and happy couples points to three styles of relating not one. These have been labeled as volatile, validating and conflict-avoiding. They are distinguished by the amount of emotionally charged energy used in their interactions together. One type is not superior and it has been found that all three are used in good parenting.
Volatile couples use a wide variety of expression to influence one another. Positive affect (humor, affection, interest, teasing) as well as negative affect (disagreement) are maintained at high levels to create the image of passionate, persuasive, caring partners. Men who prefer volatile marriages are as likely to bring up tough issues as are women who are characteristically the issue bearers. These men also do not prefer to use stonewalling to cope with marital conflict, as is often the complaint of many wives of the other types. These volatile couples stay romantic for years. When deeper hurts are experienced they often renew their courtship. High value is placed on openness and honesty and movement to mutual independence.
Validating couples have their highest emotional energy use in the middle third of their interactions. Lower levels of emotion are expressed the first or agenda building phase and the last or negotiating phase. The middle third is where the arguing happens and the couple finds that emotionally charged affect is best placed here and typically in moderation. These couples place their emphasis on “weness” and companionship. Only central issues of importance are brought to the fore with emphasis placed on right timing. These couples are often characterized as “chums.”
Conflict avoiders will place their emotional expressiveness in the container of shared beliefs. They “agree to disagree” and pursue more indirect discussions on hot topics. They moderate their highly charged negativity by minimizing the importance of the problem, they gossip, talk of their mutual strengths and reconfirm mutual beliefs and commitment to each other. They end their conversations with solidity and optimism. This couple has been found more willing to explore their emotions and perceptions because their goal is acceptance and agreeing to disagree, not compromising, persuasion or problem solving. This style is often misrepresented as lacking psychological insight but they are the most validating and empathetically charged of all three types. They can take the risk to understand the interior of their partner’s issues because their gold is acceptance. A conflict-avoiding husband presents this view, “I’m reluctant to argue. It strikes me as wrong to expose disagreement or to seek it. The whole point is convergence.”
Those who are working with couples find the real problems occurring when there is a mixture of types. See table below:
Mismatches and the Demand-Withdraw Pattern
| Validator with Avoider | The validator is constantly pursuing the avoider and feeling shut out emotionally. The avoider starts feeling flooded. |
| Validator with Volitile | The validator starts feeling not listened to and flooded, like he or she is doing combat duty all the time. The volatile feels that the validator is cold and unemotional, distant and disengaged. There seems to be no passion in the marriage. |
| Avoider with Volitile | This is the worst of the pursuer-distancer combinations. The avoider quickly feels that he or she has married an out-of-control crazy person. The volatile believes that he or she has married a cold fish and feels unloved, rejected, and unappreciated. |
As we watch the demand withdraw dance of all couples the table illustrates the perpetual problems that evolve from the mismatched types. This mismatching can be the royal road to divorce but the couples who stay together long term find a perfected expertness in their management of each other.
These couples learn by trial and error to use positive affect (humor, affection, interest) to de-escalate conflict by communicating appreciation, softening the complaint and non-defensiveness. They practice psychological soothing of self and other. It seems that the problems generated by their mismatching is less debilitating that an inappropriate level of emotional energy. They seem to work at this together and slowly move toward problem solving or trying to make the unresolved issue a little bit better. The Gottman studies have found that these couples interactions reflect a marital paradox: people only change if they don’t have to. To manage their long standing problems, the couple communicates, “Now that this issue is out of the way (I accept you as you are), Will You Please Change?”
As a clinical counselor I have used this information as psycho-education and confidence building with marriage issues. It is energizing to watch these couples find strength with a fuller understanding of how to respect and use their diversity.
Reprinted with permission from the Winter 2000 edition of PPImprints, the Journal of The Professional Pastoral-Counseling Institute, Inc. To be notified when PPImprints is published, please register.
This website is designed, maintained and
kindly donated by:
