The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work

by John Gottman, Ph. D.

  I predict their marriage will falter not because they argue—after all, I asked them to. Anger between husband and wife doesn’t itself predict marital meltdown. Other couples in the newlywed study argue far more during the fifteen minutes of videotaping than do Dara and Oliver. Yet I predict that many of these couples will remain happily married—and they do. The clues to Dara and Oliver’s future breakup are in the way they argue.

  THE FIRST SIGN: HARSH STARTUP

  The most obvious indicator that this discussion (and this marriage) is not going to go well is the way it begins. Dara immediately becomes negative and accusatory. When Oliver broaches the subject of housework, she’s ready to be sarcastic. “Or lack thereof,” she says. Oliver tries to lighten things up by cracking a joke: “Or the book we were talking about writing: Men are pigs.” Dara sits poker-faced. They talk a bit more, trying to devise a plan to make sure Oliver does his share, and then Dara says, “I mean, I’d like to see it resolved, but it doesn’t seem like it is. I mean, I’ve tried making up lists, and that doesn’t work. And I’ve tried letting you do it on your own, and nothing got done for a month.” Now she’s blaming Oliver. In essence, she’s saying the problem isn’t the housekeeping, it’s him.

  When a discussion leads off this way—with criticism and/or sarcasm, a form of contempt—it has begun with a “harsh startup.” Although Dara talks to Oliver in a very soft, quiet voice, there’s a load of negative power in her words. After hearing the first minute or so of their conversation, it’s no surprise to me that by the end Dara and Oliver haven’t resolved their differences at all. The research shows that if your discussion begins with a harsh startup, it will inevitably end on a negative note, even if there are a lot of attempts to “make nice” in between. Statistics tell the story: 96 percent of the time you can predict the outcome of a conversation based on the first three minutes of the fifteen-minute interaction! A harsh startup simply dooms you to failure. So if you begin a discussion that way, you might as well pull the plug, take a breather, and start over.

  THE SECOND SIGN: THE FOUR HORSEMEN

  Dara’s harsh startup sounds the warning bell that she and Oliver may be having serious difficulty. Now, as their discussion unfolds, I continue to look out for particular types of negative interactions. Certain kinds of negativity, if allowed to run rampant, are so lethal to a relationship that I call them the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Usually these four horsemen clip-clop into the heart of a marriage in the following order: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.

  Horseman 1: Criticism. You will always have some complaints about the person you live with. But there’s a world of difference between a complaint and a criticism. A complaint only addresses the specific action at which your spouse failed. A criticism is more global—it adds on some negative words about your mate’s character or personality. “I’m really angry that you didn’t sweep the kitchen floor last night. We agreed that we’d take turns doing it” is a complaint. “Why are you so forgetful? I hate having to always sweep the kitchen floor when it’s your turn. You just don’t care” is a criticism. A complaint focuses on a specific behavior, but a criticism ups the ante by throwing in blame and general character assassination. Here’s a recipe: To turn any complaint into a criticism, just add my favorite line: “What is wrong with you?”

  Usually a harsh startup comes in the guise of criticism. You can see how quickly complaint turns into criticism when Dara begins to talk. Listen again to what she says:

  DARA: I mean, I’d like to see it resolved, but it doesn’t seem like it is. (Simple complaint) I mean, I’ve tried making up lists and that doesn’t work. And I’ve tried letting you do it on your own, and nothing got done for a month. (Criticism. She’s implying the problem is his fault. Even if it is, blaming him will only make it worse.)

  Here are some other examples that show the difference between complaint and criticism.

  Complaint. There’s no gas in the car. Why didn’t you fill it up like you said you would?

  Criticism. Why can’t you ever remember anything? I told you a thousand times to fill up the tank, and you didn’t.

  Complaint. You should have told me earlier that you’re too tired to make love. I’m really disappointed, and I feel embarrassed.

  Criticism. Why are you always so selfish? It was really nasty of you to lead me on. You should have told me earlier that you were too tired to make love.

  Complaint. You were supposed to check with me before inviting anyone over for dinner. I wanted to spend time alone with you tonight.

  Criticism. Why do you keep putting your friends ahead of me? I always come last on your list. We were supposed to have dinner alone tonight.

  If you hear echoes of yourself or your spouse in these criticisms, you have plenty of company. The first horseman is very common in relationships. So if you find that you and your spouse are critical of each other, don’t assume you’re headed for divorce court. The problem with criticism is that when it becomes pervasive, it paves the way for the other, far deadlier horsemen.

  Horseman 2: Contempt. Dara doesn’t stop at criticizing Oliver. Soon she’s literally sneering. When he suggests that they keep a list of his chores on the refrigerator to help him remember, she says, “Do you think you work really well with lists?” Next, Oliver tells her that he needs fifteen minutes to relax when he gets home before starting to do chores. “So if I leave you alone for fifteen minutes, then you think you’ll be motivated to jump up and do something?” she asks him.

  “Maybe. We haven’t tried it, have we?” Oliver asks.

  Dara has an opportunity here to soften up, but instead she comes back with sarcasm. “I think you do a pretty good job of coming home and lying around or disappearing into the bathroom,” she says. And then she adds challengingly, “So you think that’s the cure-all, to give you fifteen minutes?”

  This sarcasm and cynicism are types of contempt. So are name-calling, eye-rolling, sneering, mockery, and hostile humor. In whatever form, contempt—the worst of the four horsemen—is poisonous to a relationship because it conveys disgust. It’s virtually impossible to resolve a problem when your partner is getting the message you’re disgusted with him or her. Inevitably, contempt leads to more conflict rather than to reconciliation.

  Peter, the manager of a shoe store, was a master at contempt, at least when it came to his wife. Listen to what happens when he and Cynthia try to discuss their disparate views about spending money. He says, “Just look at the difference in our vehicles and our clothes. I think that says a lot for who we are and what we value. I mean, you tease me about washing my truck, and you go and pay to have somebody wash your car. We’re paying through the nose for your car, and you can’t be bothered to wash it. I think that’s outrageous. I think that’s probably the most spoiled thing that you do.” This is a textbook example of contempt. He’s not merely pointing out that they spend their money differently. He is accusing his wife of a moral deficiency—of being spoiled.

  Cynthia responds by telling him that it’s physically difficult for her to wash her car herself. Peter dismisses this explanation and continues to take the high moral ground. “I take care of my truck because if you take care of it, it’ll last longer. I don’t come from the mentality of ‘Ah, just go out and buy a new one’ that you seem to.”

  Still hoping to get Peter on her side, Cynthia says, “If you could help me to wash my car, I’d really love that. I’d really appreciate it.” But instead of grabbing this chance at reconciliation, Peter wants to do battle.

  “How many times have you helped me wash my truck?” he counters.

  Cynthia tries again to reconcile. “I will help you wash your truck if you will help me wash my car.”

  But Peter’s goal is not to resolve this issue but to dress her down. So he says, “That’s not my question. How many times have you helped me?”

  “Never,” says Cynthia.

  “See?” says Peter. “That’s where I think you have
a little responsibility, too. It’s like, you know, if your dad bought you a house, would you expect him to come over and paint it for you, too?”

  “Well, will you always help me wash my car if I always help you wash your truck?”

  “I’m not sure that I’d want ya to help me,” Peter says, laughing.

  “Well, will you always help me wash my car, then?” Cynthia asks.

  “I will help you when I can. I won’t give you a blanket guarantee for life. What are you gonna do, sue me?” asks Peter. And he laughs again.

  Listening to this discussion, it becomes clear that Peter’s main purpose is to demean his wife. His contempt comes in the guise of assuming the high moral ground, as when he says: “I think that says a lot for who we are and what we value,” or “I don’t come from the mentality of ‘just go out and buy a new one.’ ”

  * * *

  Couples who are contemptuous of each other are more likely to suffer from infectious illnesses (colds, flu, and so on) than other people.

  * * *

  Contempt is fueled by long-simmering negative thoughts about the partner. You’re more likely to have such thoughts if your differences are not resolved. No doubt, the first time Peter and Cynthia argued about money, he wasn’t so disrespectful. He probably offered a simple complaint like “I think you should wash your own car. It costs too much to always have someone else wash it.” But as they kept disagreeing about this, his complaints turned to global criticisms, such as: “You always spend too much money.” And when the conflict continued, he felt more and more disgusted and fed up with Cynthia, a change that affected what he said when they argued.

  Belligerence, a close cousin to contempt, is just as deadly to a relationship. It is a form of aggressive anger because it contains a threat or provocation. When a wife complains that her husband doesn’t come home from work in time for dinner, a belligerent response would be “Well, what are you going to do about it?” When Peter says to Cynthia, “What are you going to do, sue me?” he thinks he’s making a joke, but he’s really being belligerent.

  Horseman 3: Defensiveness. It’s no surprise, considering how nasty her husband is being, that Cynthia defends herself. She points out that she doesn’t get her car washed as often as he thinks. She explains that it’s more difficult physically for her to wash her car herself than it is for him to wash his truck.

  Although it’s understandable that Cynthia would defend herself, research shows that this approach rarely has the desired effect. The attacking spouse does not back down or apologize. This is because defensiveness is really a way of blaming your partner. You’re saying, in effect, “The problem isn’t me, it’s you.” Defensiveness just escalates the conflict, which is why it’s so deadly. When Cynthia tells Peter how hard it is for her to wash her car, he doesn’t say, “Oh, now I understand.” He ignores her excuse—he doesn’t even acknowledge what she’s said. He climbs farther up his high moral ground, telling her how well he takes care of his vehicle and implying that she’s spoiled for not doing the same. Cynthia can’t win—and neither can their marriage.

  Criticism, Contempt, and Defensiveness don’t always gallop into a home in strict order. They function more like a relay match—handing the baton off to each other over and over again, if the couple can’t put a stop to it. You can see this happening as Oliver and Dara continue their discussion about cleaning their house. Although they seem to be seeking a solution, Dara becomes increasingly contemptuous—mocking Oliver in the guise of questioning him and tearing down every plan he devises. The more defensive he becomes, the more she attacks him. Her body language signals condescension. She speaks softly, her elbows resting on the table, her intertwined fingers cradling her chin. Like a law professor or a judge, she peppers him with questions just to see him squirm.

  DARA: So you think that’s the cure-all, to give you fifteen minutes? (sneering)

  OLIVER: No, I don’t think that’s the cure-all. I think, combined with writing up a list of weekly tasks that have to get done. Why not put it on a calendar? Hey, I’ll see it right then and there.

  DARA: Just like when I write stuff in your Day-Timer it gets done? (mocking him; more contempt)

  OLIVER: I don’t always have a chance to look at my Day-Timer during the day. (defensive)

  DARA: So you think you’ll look at a calendar, then?

  OLIVER: Yeah. At any point in time, if I’m not up to speed, you should ask me about it. But when that happens now, it’s not you asking, it’s you telling me, “You haven’t done this and you haven’t done that.” Instead say, “Is there any reason why you haven’t done this or that?” Like, I mean, when I stayed up and did your résumé that one night. Stuff like that happens all the time, and you just don’t take that into account at all. (defensive)

  DARA: And I don’t just all of a sudden do things for you, either? (defensive)

  OLIVER: No, you do. . . . I think you need to relax a little bit.

  DARA (sarcastic): Hmm. Well, that sounds like we solved a lot.

  Obviously, Dara and Oliver have resolved nothing, thanks to the prevalence of criticism, contempt, and defensiveness.

  Horseman 4: Stonewalling. In marriages like Dara and Oliver’s, where discussions begin with a harsh startup, where criticism and contempt lead to defensiveness, which leads to more contempt and more defensiveness, eventually one partner tunes out. This heralds the arrival of the fourth horseman.

  Think of the husband who comes home from work, gets met with a barrage of criticism from his wife, and hides behind the newspaper. The less responsive he is, the more she yells. Eventually he gets up and leaves the room. Rather than confronting his wife, he disengages. By turning away from her, he is avoiding a fight, but he is also avoiding his marriage. He has become a stonewaller. Although both husbands and wives can be stonewallers, this behavior is far more common among men, for reasons we’ll see later.

  During a typical conversation between two people, the listener gives all kinds of cues to the speaker that he’s paying attention. He may use eye contact, nod his head, say something like “Yeah” or “Uh-huh.” But a stonewaller doesn’t give you this sort of casual feedback. He tends to look away or down without uttering a sound. He sits like an impassive stone wall. The stonewaller acts as though he couldn’t care less about what you’re saying, if he even hears it.

  Stonewalling usually arrives later in the course of a marriage than the other three horsemen. That’s why it’s less common among newlywed husbands such as Oliver than among couples who have been in a negative spiral for a while. It takes time for the negativity created by the first three horsemen to become overwhelming enough that stonewalling becomes an understandable “out.” That’s the stance that Mack takes when he and his wife Rita argue about each other’s behavior at parties. She says the problem is that he drinks too much. He thinks the bigger problem is her reaction: She embarrasses him by yelling at him in front of his friends. Here they are, already in the middle of an argument:

  RITA: Now I’ve become the problem, again. I started off with the complaint, but now I am the problem. That always seems to happen.

  MACK: Yeah, I do that, I know. (Pause.) But your tantrums and childishness are an embarrassment to me and my friends.

  RITA: If you would control your drinking at parties, puleese . . .

  MACK: (Looks down, avoids eye contact, says nothing—he’s stonewalling.)

  RITA: Because I think (laughs) for the most part, we get along pretty well, really (laughs).

  MACK: (Continues to stonewall. Remains silent, makes no eye contact, head nods, facial movements, or vocalizations.)

  RITA: Don’t you think?

  MACK: (No response.)

  RITA: Mack? Hello?

  THE THIRD SIGN: FLOODING

  It may seem to Rita that her complaints have no effect on Mack. But nothing could be further from the truth. Usually people stonewall as a protection against feeling flooded. Flooding means that your spouse’s negativity—whether in
the guise of criticism or contempt or even defensiveness—is so overwhelming, and so sudden, that it leaves you shell-shocked. You feel so defenseless against this sniper attack that you learn to do anything to avoid a replay. The more often you feel flooded by your spouse’s criticism or contempt, the more hypervigilant you are for cues that your spouse is about to “blow” again. All you can think about is protecting yourself from the turbulence your spouse’s onslaught causes. And the way to do that is to disengage emotionally from the relationship. No wonder Mack and Rita are now divorced.

  Another husband, Paul, was quite up front about why he stonewalls when his wife, Amy, gets negative. In the following discussion he articulates what all stonewallers are feeling.

  AMY: When I get mad, that’s when you should step in and try to make it better. But when you just stop talking, it means, ‘I no longer care about how you feel.’ That just makes me feel one inch tall. Like my opinion or feelings have absolutely no bearing on you. And that’s not the way a marriage should be.

  PAUL: What I’m saying is, if you wanna have a serious conversation, you’re gonna do it without yelling and screaming all the time. You start saying things that are hurtful.

  AMY: Well, when I’m hurt, mad, and I wanna hurt you, I start saying things. And that’s when we should both stop. I should say, “I’m sorry.” And you should say, “I know that you wanna talk about this. And I really should make an effort to talk instead of just ignoring you.”

  PAUL: I’ll talk when—

  AMY: It fits your purpose.

  PAUL: No, when you’re not yelling and screaming and jumping up and down stomping.