A Couple’s Guide to Communication – John Gottman (1976)

Initial Impressions

Gottman was first introduced to me in a social work with families class that I took in the social work diploma program.  Framed as being able to predict likelihoods of divorce/separation with high accuracy, I was intrigued to read an original source piece of literature so that I could look at the interventions proposed and see how they are relevant to current practice.  To my surprise, there was no mention of Gottman’s 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Therefore, it may be worth digging deeper into Gottman’s literature to find more information about addressing those relationship dynamics.  While the book is quite dated now (the copy I read was published in 1976), there remains some relevance in strategies and interventions that I feel are worthwhile to make a note of for social work practice.

Key Learnings

Revisiting Introduction to Communications

Not unfamiliar to anyone who has undergone post-secondary education in the human sciences is a transactional communication model.  While those in university textbooks are more in-depth than that depicted in the book, counselling for relationship afflictions should not hesitate to include a basic depiction of how intent and impact between sender and receiver are influenced by the not just the content of the message, but also by the individual contexts of the sender(s) and receiver(s).

One of the noteworthy discussions of this chapter was the discussion of feedback – specifically having couples increase communication by having the message sender asking the receiver to explain the impact a message had on them (the receiver).  Perception-checking offers an opportunity to clear early misinterpretations that can cause tensions throughout the relationship.

Similar to counselling session check-ins, “Stop Actions” are called by a member of the relationship to explore feelings and explore the intents and impacts of current communication.  These essentially become an ad-hoc meta-communication session to identify and problem-solve communication misunderstandings.

Leveling & Editing

Leveling & Editing are strategies that come from a means of trying to balance the dichotomy of lack of communicating needs/perspectives, and an overabundance of disclosures that manifest as “bickering, hassling, and constant arguing” (Gottman, 1976, p. 27).  In the case of leveling, Gottman uses guided imagery of being stranded on an island with a friend to unravel how communication degrades over time (this may be a useful tool to go through with clients to explore their circumstances).  Leveling tries to resolve conflicts more immediately by having a more direct channel of communication.  Gottman outlines leveling as the identification of both feelings and content.  Building off of this, these messages should ideally be “I” messages.  This can be summarized as, “I feel (emotion “x”) when (circumstance “y” without “you” language).”  Gottman notes the dual skills of being able to produce and receive a leveling session, though the use of paraphrasing the message and validating the content (by the receiver).

Noteworthy are the cognitive distortions that can prevent the expression of emotions.  Catastrophic expectations (such as “my partner will not love me anymore,” “our relationship will be hurt beyond repair,” “it’s not worth it to act that way,” and “I will seem weak if I say what bothers me” are such examples).  The other distortion, a need for approval all of the time for everything one does, outlines how this creates a power imbalance that allows oneself to be more easily taken advantage of.

Feeling charts can be used as an exercise to open clients up to building a repository of language to aid in the use of “I” statements.  While the books feeling chart makes sense, it is somewhat dated.  The inventory of feelings from the literature on Non-violent communication may be more culturally relevant and useful in practice.

One of the points Gottman discusses in a leveling session is that it is useful to try and allow the partner to understand one’s own point of view.  This can be aided by clearly communicating the goals of the leveling session.  Along with that is a requirement of the leveler to be mindful of the thoughts/feelings/beliefs of the other partner, and to ensure that one is not maliciously trying to level (by selecting something that is either unimportant or does not pertain to a meaningful goal.

Negotiating Agreements

Gottman outlines three segments of time that are used in negotiations.  Sequentially, these are “gripe time”, “agenda building”, and “problem-solving.”  It is suggested by Gottman that these should be held once or twice a week.  They should be held in the spirit of accepting responsibility for one’s own actions (not blaming the partner), and must use clear language.

Gripe time can be thought of a respectful clearing of the air on the current state of affairs.  Each person is the experiencer of his/her own reality, so there are no rights or wrongs to the thoughts/feelings/beliefs of circumstances, but instead, a space that allows for individuals to make their perception of the matter known.  Gripes should be framed in specific terms, going beyond a label and make known the events that intersect to give life to the gripe.  These can be done with “I” statements.  Gripes can include what the individual feels is missing, how they feel, or how they would ideally see the situation play out.  A dialogue back-and-forth with probes and clarifications can be used to build an understanding of the perspectives of the person vocalizing the gripe.

Agenda building is fairly straight forward.  Essentially once gripes are known, a mutually-crafted list of problems to solve are created.  From this list, Gottman suggests that one major gripe is what the couple would ideally focus on resolving.  New gripes that come to mind at this point should not be introduced and can be saved for another meeting.

Problem-solving begins with taking a specific gripe, and turning it into specific positive suggestions that can be used to resolve the issue.  These positive suggestions should be framed as recommendations for increasing the frequency of positive behaviour.  From this, the contract can be formed.  The contract needs to clearly outline behaviours that will be changed (to ensure there is accountability) while also providing an incentive for increasing the frequency of positive behaviours.  Rewards must be reasonable and not place a burden on the partner.

Hidden Agendas

Hidden agendas are built on the premise that what is left unsaid remains hidden.  One of the most intriguing analyses that emerged in this book is that hidden agendas become a filter that either influences or distorts our interpretation of the message.  It may be worthwhile to explore common cognitive distortions such as those outlined by David Burns (all-or-nothing thinking, overgeneralization, mental filter, discounting positives, jumping to conclusions/mind reading/fortune telling, magnification/minification, “should statements,” labelling, and blame) and see how they contribute to the maintenance of the hidden agenda filter (Burns, 1993, p. 50).

When exploring hidden agendas, what remains important is having a working knowledge of common domains experienced by couples (Gottman, 1976, p. 92).  The first major domain was within the domain of caring which I equate to actions that build emotional intimacy (positive) or starve the relationship of emotional intimacy (negative).  Another domain, which I will call the responsive-passive axis, really looks at the actions that display a degree of interest in the partner.  The last domain, a “status-axis”, distributes a perception of power(lessness) within the relationship.  Statements in communication can aspire towards egalitarianism or have the impact of placing one partner as the subordinate.

Once one understands these common domains of hidden agendas, Gottman makes a few suggestions on identifying if one is experiencing relationship issues due to their own hidden agenda.  Some of the primer questions touch on exploring if one:

• • Feels lonely when discussing certain things with the partner.
  • Feels that they would like to be alone or with someone else over being with their partner.
  • Feels put down, incompetent, stupid, or unheard.
  • Feels that the partner is uninterested in or unresponsive to you.

Gottman’s suggestion for these circumstances is that a stop action is called to address these, especially if there is fear of discussing an issue that both have been avoiding, there are strong feelings on a topic that have been hidden, or progress has been halted on a matter that continues to be revisited.  This could be complemented with behaviour modification of oneself when entering the stop action as well.  This can manifest itself through utilizing strategies such as summarizations, making an effort to get into the headspace of the partner (seeking to understand their perspective) though summarizing and validating their experience, and build rapport by showing effort in trying to understand the partner’s perspective (purposeful use of questions).

Getting through a Crisis

One of the first mentioned strategies is de-escalation.  This can include honest and open communication about aspects outside of the relationship that can influence how one responds within the relationship (eg. I had a difficult day at work).  Another strategy, examining the significance of gripe,  looks at whether the fallout from unedited problem-solving is worth having one’s thoughts/feelings/beliefs known.  If it is not, then postponing or editing one’s gripe may be a better option.  If that is not an option,  a cool-off period may be a good alternative.  Having a discussion on a timeline to return to the discussion in a family meeting may be a good way to navigate the cool-off period.

Notable Interventions

Seven Suggestions

Gottman’s seven suggestions sound like a good negotiation and psychoeducation piece that could engage participants on either mutually working together to strategize on how to implement the suggestions or gang up on the therapist as to why they would not work.  Of either outcome, both disagreeing with the worker would be an ideal outcome.  I would use this is a seed to plant an idea for working together in trying circumstances.  The viability of these suggestions would arguably be highly dependent on the investment in the relationship, and the ability to be self-aware.  I would think that considerations on Kohlberg’s stages of moral development would be a relevant consideration in deciding if this is an intervention that would be worth pursuing – especially if the individual(s) involved has attained a post-conventional level of reasoning – drawing on bigger picture thinking and making personal sacrifices for gains within the bigger picture.  The components of the seven suggestions are as follows:

1. 1. 1. 1. Setting ground rules: Have each member of the relationship remove behaviour x (a behaviour that escalates tension in the relationship) while navigating through the crisis.  There should be an accountability piece, with partners being able to record and discuss deviations from the removal of their behaviour x.
         2. Defining structure: Setting an outline for conduct when interacting inside and outside of the house.  Gottman discusses a limitation in interactions, as well as the development of the protocol for initiating & terminating interaction, deescalating quarrels, establishing territory, and making decisions. Setting limits on or forbidding activities that cause conflict can be implemented.
         3. Reaffirm the use of stop actions as needed.
         4. Shaping: Ensure members of the relationship give out praise, rewards, support, or attention for positive behaviour.  This essentially sounds like a relationship “attitude of gratitude,” seeking to acknowledge and appreciate the actions one another try to partake in to connect with their partner.
         5. Stop acting out: Seek to remove unproductive behaviours that are a response when one feels desperate.  The phrase Gottman uses is “no acting out, just talking out.”
         6. Implement an ABCD analysis:  Have members of the relationship look for the antecedents (what happened leading up to the crisis within and outside of the relationship for both partners), review the behaviours (coping strategies, how each partner acted, what the thought processes were), review the consequences (what did the thoughts, feelings, actions, & beliefs lead to), explore what could be done differently (what alternatives can now be seen).
         7.  Negotiate a temporary agreement, and keep it somewhere easily visible.

Problem Inventories

In the appendix of the book is the husband/wife problem inventories.  While these can be reformulated to become more generalized in reflecting modern relationships beyond the binary and/or heterosexual confines, the tool looks at multiple domains of a relationship at a specific point in time, and ask the participant to rate the severity of the problem with a subjective 0-100 scale along with the duration of the problem.  This tool can allow couples to not only explore multiple domains but also measure the intensity to which the problem burdens the relationship.  Using this repeatedly over time could provide a means of tracking the effectiveness of working together in problem-solving, and serve as both an accountability piece and reminder of successes.    This may serve as a tool that can be used in preparation for negotiation agreements and keep the meeting solution-focused.

The “Up” Deck

The “up” deck contains suggestions of behaviours one would like their partner to increase.  This can be a tool that can facilitate prioritizing of behaviours a partner would like to see, as well as stimulate reciprocal ideas of behaviours that one could improve on in exchange.  While utilizing the “up” deck as a primer for negotiation agreements arguably relies on relationship theories such as exchange theory, the idea that partners begin to identify what they would like the relationship to look like could be a starting point for deeper conversations on expectations and desires.

The “Fun” Deck

Similar to the “up” deck, this deck is a tool for couples to reengage, acting as a primer for finding mutually enjoyable activities.  Gottman notes that additions to the deck that are individual activities may also serve to build intimacy by having private time to recharge and put their best foot forward in the relationship.  What is significant about using the fun deck is that it is a shared process and that there are clear communication and negotiation around the details of the activities that are utilized.

 

References

Gottman, J. M. (1979). A couples guide to communication. Champaign, IL: Research Press.