Questions to get unstuck in marriage
A marriage will not improve if both partners remain stuck pointing fingers at one another. Fortunately, movement from a stuck position can occur by asking ourselves a few key questions.
What would be a problem in my marriage, no matter who I married?
It is natural to reflect upon our negative behavior and excuse it by saying, “But I wouldn’t behave that way if my partner _________ .” And there may be some truth to to that statement. But for most of us, an offramp can present itself from the endless road of mutual blame by acknowledging to ourself, “No matter who I’d married, ___________ would be a problem in my marriage because I’m there.” Given what you bring to any relationship by way of temperament, adverse life experiences, expectations, lifestyle, patterns of behavior, and more, how would these create relationship problems, no matter who you’d married?
I’ll go first. I’m Avoidant by way of attachment style. That means I skew toward independence and feel most at ease when alone. I fear being consumed and my priorities overtaken by others. OK, that’s fine, unless I marry someone with an Anxious attachment style, who skews toward interdependence, feels most at ease with others (such as their spouse), and fears being left on their own, or abandoned. My fears and insecurities are my own and would create problems no matter who I’d married. Rather than blaming my spouse for triggering me, it is mine to own my triggers and put safeties on them.
Also, given my ISTJ Myers Briggs temperament, akin to an Enneagram Type One temperament, I am prone to wanting things to be clean, neat, ordered, sensible, and correct. Such qualities are perfect for engineering, but in relationships they can cause siblings, spouses, children, co-workers, friends and neighbors to feel hopelessly sloppy, wrong, and in need of my oversight and correction. Therefore, no matter who I’d married, I would need to reign in such traits in order that my wife not feel that she is always falling short of the impeccable standard that I maintain for myself and impose upon others.
Everyone has a temperament and every temperament has strengths and weaknesses. Show me a person who says they have no weaknesses and I’ll show you a person with no strengths; temperament strengths and weaknesses are mirror images of one another. What we bring to a marriage by virtue of our temperament will in some ways be an asset; there will also be the risk that our temperament could negatively affect our relationship. So, even if you don’t carry trauma, wounds, and insecurities that you can own for the problems they may cause in your marriage, you can at least own the temperament you import, with both positive and negative traits.
Would it work in any relationship?
Another quick way to discover exit ramps off the road of mutual blame is to ask oneself, “Would what I am doing work in any relationship?” That is, considering how I act or react toward my spouse, the things I say and do, the way I look at him or her, the atmosphere I create in our space, the level of priority I give to my spouse and to our marriage, etc... would that work in any marriage? If my partner and I go separate ways and I find someone else, could I expect to maintain or return to my current ways of interacting and believe that new relationship would last? If the answer is “No,” then why not change those patterns in this marriage rather than go to the trouble of finding another marriage in which those patterns would need to change?
If I were dating, would my behavior attract someone?
When we are dating, we go out of our way to be attractive, rather than unattractive or (God forbid) repellent. We calculate what we say, how we dress, and what we do according to their potential to attract our intended. We purposely don’t say, wear, or do some things that would repel. When we’re dating we are creative; we consider what the other would enjoy and even yield to their preferences. We defer to their tastes out of kindness and respect; we make their goals our goals, or at least make room for their goals as we pursue our own, or somehow combine the two. These things make the other person feel safe… able to attach to us in relationship without fear of being either left behind (Anxious attachment style) or overtaken (Avoidant attachment style). The question then becomes whether we are continuing to make an effort to be attractive to our spouse. If not, is there a chance that we have then become unattractive to our partner—not physically, which actually matters less—but by how we speak to, treat, look at, prioritize, and are considerate toward them? Are we affording our spouse the safety, security, respect, autonomy and trustworthy interdependency that would attract someone if we were dating? We certainly don’t want to fall to the predictable repellents of harshness, criticism, control, contempt, rejection, and endangerment. So, ask yourself, will my current ways repel or attract... anyone… including my spouse? If I would make changes if I were dating, in order to attract someone, why not make those changes in my marriage in order to remain attractive to my spouse?
What is the ratio of “feel good“ to “feel bad“ interactions in my marriage?
One of the reasons that we marryy is that it feels good to be in each other’s presence more often that it feels bad. If it felt bad to be in each other’s presence more often than it felt good, we would not get married; at least not by choice.
The key is to maintain that high ratio of positive to negative, or “feel good” to “feel bad” interactions. Observational research by The Gottman Institute has identified those they refer to as “master couples.” These couples are fond of each other, do conflict well, rate their marriage as highly satisfying, and tend to last many decades, perhaps ‘til death do them part. Codifying and measuring these couples’ positive and negative interactions (by way of looks, words spoken, deeds done, bids for connection made, received, or failed, repair attempts made and received, etc.), the ratio that emerged was 20:1. That is, the interactions between master couples felt positive twenty times more than they feel negative. In other words, 95% of the time, the way they looked at, spoke to, or behaved toward one another created a positive or good feeling. Dr. Gottman likens such positive interactions to a deposit in a bank account… in this case a “love bank.“ Withdrawals are correlated with negative or “bad feeling interactions. Like any bank account, our desire in marriage is that the balance go up and remain high. This occurs when more and greater deposits are made than withdrawals. That doesn’t happen by accident; it takes intentionality. A high balance certainly is not achieved nor maintained by our simply saying and doing whatever we feel like, no matter how harsh, insensitive, inconsiderate or selfish it may be. We must be intentional, just as we are with any other investment we value. We’re mindful of what causes the value increase and what lessens the value, and we’re careful to do more of the former than of the latter.
Personally, I love this concept because it reduces every action or reaction to a simple word problem: “Is what I am about to say or do positive or negative; will it be a deposit or a withdrawal to the love that my spouse feels from me?” If I conclude that it would be a withdrawal, the question becomes, “And why would I do that?”
Do I want to understand as much as I want to be understood?
A quick way to pause, if not end, an escalating conflict is to to break from again repeating our feelings and point of view, and to instead voice understanding of the other’s feelings and point of view. If you don’t know, then ask my favorite question, “Help me understand.” Then reflect what you heard without sarcasm or derision.
Everyone wants empathy and understanding. Underlying all conflict is a longing for empathy and understanding. Until people receive these in a respectful way, they’ll keep repeating themselves—probably with increased harshness and criticism—which further fuel defensiveness. Step one is to reverse course; instead of vying for empathy and understanding, seek first to empathize and understand. Step two is to defend what what you’ve come to understand is behind the other’s feelings.
Am I more often self-defensive or other-protective?
The destructive patterns identified by Dr. Gottman (harshness, criticism, defensiveness, contempt, stonewalling, flooding, negativity, and failed repair attempts) are all either synonymous with or produce self-defensiveness. A conflict is about protecting something important to us. The antidote to the above toxins is other-protection. That is, if what is important to each partner is being protected by the other, then conflict ceases. The question we then get to ask ourselves is, “Am I being more protective of myself or of my spouse?“ If I am being more protective of myself than of my spouse, then that leaves my spouse to protect themself. If both partners are being self-defensive, then the relationship winds up being the collateral damage. Neither is protecting it.
So, in the midst of unfolding conflict, the question to ask ourself is, “What can I protect for my spouse that is important to him or her, so he or she need not be self-protective?” It may be the atmosphere in the house, a preference, a goal, an attachment need such as acceptance, comfort, love, respect, safety, nurture, something related to their love language, or simply the need for help. Whatever it is, if we’re protecting this for our spouse, their self-protection can cease and we can find peace in each other’s presence.
Am I handling flooding effectively?
The above questions assume that we can muster a reasonable, controlled, effective response and carry it to completion. Maybe we can; it depends. It depends in part upon whether we are in a rational brain state like you probably are as you read this article. However, when we are in a self-defensive state, we are likely, or soon to be, in a “flooded“ state. Flooding is the termDr. Gottman. uses for the brain state activated by the Sympathetic Nervous System, which also goes by the names, Diffuse Physiological Arousal, animal brain, amygdala hijack, and the “fight or flight response.” Driven by norepinephrine (adrenaline) and concurrent with increased cortisol levels, dilated pupils, a high blood oxygen level (O2 saturation, or SpO2), and a high heart rate relative to one’s resting state, this brain state is the one you want if you want to defend yourself against an attacker. It is not the brain state you want if you want to be protective of—for instance—your spouse. The reason it is nicknamed “animal brain” is that during this physiological condition, our prefrontal cortex (the center of intellect and higher reasoning) yields to more primitive parts of our brain, and we may find ourselves acting like a cornered animal. When the amygdala has so hijacked the brain, it is nearly impossible to be protective of someone else. Therefore, in this flooded state, it is necessary to take a break for a period of time (ideally, twenty minutes or more) in order to soothe oneself and allow the body and brain to return to a resting state, with the prefrontal cortex back in control of our words and actions, such that we can be protective of those around us.
The question then becomes, “How well am I controlling myself when at risk of flooding, or when already there?” “Can I slow my breathing and my response?” “Can I ask for a break in order to calm down?” “Can I take that break, at least mentally, regardless of the answer?” Since we cannot expect a relationship to be safe when we allow ourselves to say and do whatever comes to mind while our mind is hijacked, we must identify what works to wrest control form our inner animal in order to speak and act in a way that is more humane. In this way we protect our partner and the relationship.
Am I voicing expectations, stating them positively, and affirming when they are met?
Underneath every conflict is the dashed hope or expectation that things would have gone differently. Expectations have been called “the landmines of relationships.” The person with the expectation knows it is there; the other person does not, trips over it and there is an explosion. The key to avoiding this is to be clear about what we’re expecting, formulating that request positively, and affirming or voicing gratitude when it is met. The reason this positive request and affirmation works is that it is the opposite of criticism, which begets defensiveness. For instance, businesses do not place a criticism on their counters that says, “We don’t trust you and we don’t trust your checks.“ Obviously that would offend and the result would be defensiveness. Rather, businesses state a positive request: “If writing a check, please have ID ready.“ It’s the same thing! But, the negative comment creates defensiveness and the positive request does not. Likewise, an employee will probably say, “Thank you” when you readily provide your ID (at least, they should). That is positive reinforcement, a mainstay of Behavioralism.
Applying this to marriage and relationships, instead of criticizing our spouse for leaving the car with little gas in the tank, we could say, “I’d really appreciate it if you would leave the car with at least a quarter tank of gas. That helps me so much when I’m in a hurry. Like Monday when I was on my way to the airport, I was so grateful that you had filled it up, because if I’d had to stop for gas, I might have missed my flight. Thank you for that.” Is that likely to create defensiveness? Probably not. It is a clear, positive, and even appreciative articulation of an expectation. It turns a landmine into a landmark, helping to guide our partner to success.
And speaking of expectations…
What am I expecting of marriage?
It pays to pay attention to our expectations of marriage, too. Ask yourself, “Am I expecting marriage to complete me? Am I expecting my spouse to have the same feelings that I have; to have the same point of view as mine; to regard as important the same things that I regard as important? Am I expecting my partner to want what I want and to do things as I would do them? Am I expecting them to overcame my wounds and insecurities, for which I should seek individual counsel? Am I expecting them to understand and yield to my gender more than I want to understand and yield to theirs? Do I expect them to carry the marriage in a healthy way, forgiving my mistakes, while I don’t reciprocate?”
Or, am I expecting that we’ll both have to overcome our self-centeredness and each give 100% to loving, respecting and defending each other in order that our marriage feels mutually satisfying, healthy and happy?
Am I willing to make and receive repair attempts?
A “repair attempt,” according to Gottman terminology, is any attempt to restore the relationship to a good place, when it has ended up in a bad place. It will likely be fueled by some of the above, especially empathy, as we’ve come to feel what our partner is feeling, wanting to be there for them, instead of remaining divided against them. “Disaster couples” either do not make repair attempts, or the recipient of the repair attempt rejects it, letting it fail. Thus, such couples remain broken. “Master couples,” on the other hand, are not OK with not being OK. One or both parties seek to mend what is broken, and when that effort is made, the other is eager to let it work so that there can be restoration.
The Gottman Institute used to study the repair attempts themselves, striving perhaps to find the magic words or fumble that would always restore a couple to harmony. They found, instead, that a great many different attempts could work. The magic was that either partner made the attempt and that the other—and the couple—let it work. Thus they did not remain broken.
A repair attempt might be as simple as empathy: “I know that was disappointing.” It may be a hug or a kiss. It might be an invitation out to dinner. It might be snuggling up close. It might be a renewed attempt to summarize understanding or to ask, “Help me understand.” It may be asking forgiveness. It may be saying, “I’m sorry.” (By the way, there are two meanings of “I’m sorry.” One is an admission of wrong; it is owning our fault or taking responsibility. The other is the “empathic sorry” that we use at a funeral when we address someone who has lost a loved one. We say, “I’m so sorry.” We’re not taking responsibility for the death; we’re empathizing. We can always use this one, so long as we don’t negate it by immediately saying, “But…” ). So, ask yourself, “Am I willing to make and receive repair attempts?” Do I want to understand what repair attempts mean the most to my partner?
If your marriage is stuck in an unhealthy pattern, you can change the pattern by changing your part in it. Ask the above questions and turn your answers into love.
by Doug Burford, DMin, LCPC
Level 3 Gottman Trained