Even Healthy Couples Fight — the Difference Is How | Julie and John Gottman | TED
Summary
TLDRThe Gottman Institute founders, Julie and John Gottman, reveal through their research that conflict in relationships isn't inherently bad; it's the approach that matters. They identify three conflict styles and highlight the importance of a positive-to-negative interaction ratio of 5:1. The 'Four Horsemen' of criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling can predict relationship demise. Flooding, an intense emotional response, should be managed with breaks. The 'softened startup' technique, asking predesigned questions, and fighting to understand rather than to win, are key strategies for healthy conflict resolution. The Gottmans' work suggests that by learning to fight right, couples can pave the way for a more peaceful and loving society.
Takeaways
- 👫 **Fighting's Role in Relationships**: The script challenges the common belief that fighting is inherently bad for relationships, suggesting that how couples fight, not the act itself, is crucial for relationship success.
- 🔬 **Scientific Study of Love**: The Gottman Institute and Love Lab have conducted extensive research on relationships, revealing insights into the dynamics of couple interactions and their long-term outcomes.
- ⏱️ **First Three Minutes Matter**: The initial three minutes of a conflict can predict with 96% accuracy not only the rest of the conversation but also the trajectory of the relationship over six years.
- 🤝 **Positive Interaction Ratio**: A successful relationship often has a ratio of at least five positive interactions to one negative one during conflicts, including nods, affection, humor, and words of understanding.
- 🚫 **The Four Horsemen**: Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling are identified as major predictors of relationship demise, and should be avoided to maintain a healthy relationship.
- 💡 **Fighting Styles**: There are three major styles of fighting identified in the research: conflict avoiders, conflict validators, and conflict volatiles, each with its own approach to resolving disputes.
- 🌊 **Flooding and Its Impact**: Flooding, a state of extreme emotional arousal, can impair one's ability to think, listen, and problem-solve effectively during a conflict.
- 🛑 **Taking Breaks**: When flooded, it's important to take a break, self-soothe, and return to the conversation when calm, which can lead to more productive outcomes.
- 💭 **Softened vs. Harsh Startup**: The way a problem is initially presented (softened startup with 'I' statements vs. harsh startup with criticism or contempt) can significantly influence the rest of the conversation.
- 🔄 **Managing Perpetual Issues**: Most relationship conflicts are perpetual, meaning they are ongoing and may never be fully solved, thus they need to be managed rather than solved.
- 🤝 **Fighting to Understand**: Effective conflict resolution involves fighting to understand rather than to win, which builds deeper connections and fosters mutual respect and understanding.
Q & A
What is the common belief about fighting in romantic relationships?
-The common belief is that fighting is bad for romantic relationships, as it is often associated with negative emotions and conflict.
What does the research by the Gottman Institute suggest about fighting in relationships?
-The research by the Gottman Institute suggests that fighting can be good for relationships, as it can increase connection and even improve the sex life, depending on how the fighting is conducted.
What is the significance of the first three minutes of a conflict according to the Gottman Institute's research?
-The first three minutes of a conflict are significant because they can predict with 96 percent accuracy how the rest of the conversation and the relationship will progress in the following six years.
What are the three major styles of fighting identified by the Gottman Institute?
-The three major styles of fighting are conflict avoiders, who prefer to avoid arguments; conflict validators, who express their feelings calmly and then move to problem-solving; and conflict volatiles, who express their feelings intensely and passionately.
What is the importance of the ratio of positive to negative responses during conflict discussions?
-The ratio of positive to negative responses during conflict discussions is important because it can determine the success of a relationship. A ratio of at least five positive responses to one negative response is recommended for a successful relationship.
What are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in the context of relationship conflicts?
-The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in relationship conflicts are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. These behaviors are strong predictors of relationship demise.
What is flooding and how does it affect a person during a conflict?
-Flooding is a state where a person's heart rate increases dramatically during a conflict, making them feel as if they are under attack. It impairs their ability to think clearly, listen well, and creatively problem-solve.
What should a person do if they experience flooding during a conflict?
-If a person experiences flooding during a conflict, they should immediately stop the conversation, call for a break, and self-soothe. They should then return to the conversation at a designated time when they are physiologically calm.
What is the difference between a harsh startup and a softened startup in bringing up an issue during a conflict?
-A harsh startup involves criticism or contempt and can escalate a conflict. A softened startup, on the other hand, uses 'I' statements to express feelings and needs without blaming the partner, which can lead to more constructive conversations.
What is the concept of 'fighting to understand' and how does it differ from 'fighting to win'?
-Fighting to understand is about seeking a deeper comprehension of the underlying thoughts and feelings behind a partner's position. It differs from fighting to win, which is about proving oneself right and the partner wrong, often leading to a lose-lose situation.
What is the 'dreams within conflict' conversation and how does it help in resolving conflicts?
-The 'dreams within conflict' conversation is a set of predesigned questions designed to uncover each person's values, feelings, background history, and ideal dreams regarding the issue. It helps in resolving conflicts by fostering mutual understanding without judgment or attack.
How can the findings from the Gottman Institute's research be applied to broader societal conflicts?
-The findings from the Gottman Institute's research can be applied to broader societal conflicts by encouraging the use of science-based tools to de-escalate conflicts, promote mutual understanding, and move away from win-lose mentality towards compromise that honors everyone's dreams.
Outlines
🔬 The Science of Relationship Conflicts
Julie and John Gottman, founders of the Gottman Institute and the Love Lab, challenge the common belief that fighting is detrimental to romantic relationships. They argue that the manner in which couples fight, particularly in the first three minutes, can predict the trajectory of their relationship with remarkable accuracy. Their research involves observing couples' interactions and physiological responses during conflict discussions, revealing that some types of fighting can actually enhance connection and improve intimacy. The Gottmans categorize three major fighting styles: conflict avoiders, validators, and volatiles, and emphasize that a successful relationship hinges on maintaining a positive to negative interaction ratio of at least five to one.
🚫 The Four Horsemen and Flooding in Relationships
The Gottmans identify four major predictors of relationship demise, humorously referred to as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. These behaviors can poison the interaction between partners. Additionally, flooding, a state of extreme physiological arousal during a conflict, can impair a person's ability to think and communicate effectively. The speakers advise that when a partner becomes flooded, they should take a break to self-soothe and return to the conversation when calm. The distinction between couples who fight effectively versus those who do not lies in the 'harsh startup' versus a 'softened startup', with the latter involving 'I' statements that focus on feelings and needs without blaming the partner.
💡 The Art of Softened Startups and Resolving Perpetual Issues
John and Julie provide examples of how to transform a harsh startup into a softened one, which is more conducive to resolving conflicts. They illustrate this with scenarios involving daily chores and intimacy, highlighting the importance of expressing personal feelings and needs without accusation. A significant finding from their research is that 69% of relationship conflicts are perpetual, meaning they are ongoing issues that may never be fully resolved. The key is to manage these conflicts effectively rather than seeking a definitive solution. The Gottmans advocate for fighting to understand rather than to win, which fosters deeper connection and mutual respect.
🌐 Applying Relationship Conflict Strategies to a Wider Context
The final paragraph extends the discussion on conflict management from individual relationships to the broader societal context. The Gottmans suggest that the tools and strategies they've developed for couples can also be applied to larger social and political conflicts, emphasizing the potential for mutual understanding and compromise. They conclude by emphasizing the importance of relationships as the building blocks of society and propose that improving the way individuals handle conflicts at home could contribute to a more peaceful and loving world.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Fighting
💡Love Lab
💡Conflict Avoiders
💡Conflict Validators
💡Conflict Volatiles
💡Positive to Negative Responses Ratio
💡Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
💡Softened Startup
💡Harsh Startup
💡Perpetual Problems
💡Fighting to Understand
Highlights
Fighting can be good for relationships, depending on how it's conducted.
The first three minutes of a conflict can predict the outcome of the conversation and the relationship's future.
Some forms of fighting can increase connection and improve the sex life.
The Gottman Institute and Love Lab have studied relationships for over 50 years.
3,000 couples participated in the study, with some followed for up to 20 years.
Couples' words, emotions, and physiological responses were measured during conflict discussions.
Successful and unsuccessful relationships can be differentiated by observing their conflict styles.
There are three major conflict styles: avoiders, validators, and volatiles.
A positive to negative response ratio of at least 5:1 is key for a successful relationship.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling—are predictors of relationship demise.
Flooding, a state of extreme physiological arousal, can impair conflict resolution.
Taking breaks during intense arguments can help manage physiological responses and improve communication.
Softened startup in conflicts, using 'I' statements, can lead to more productive discussions.
Harsh startup, often involving criticism or contempt, can escalate conflicts.
69% of relationship conflicts are perpetual, meaning they are ongoing issues that need management rather than a solution.
Fighting to understand rather than to win can lead to deeper connection and mutual understanding.
The 'dreams within conflict' conversation helps uncover underlying values and feelings related to conflict issues.
87% of distressed couples made major breakthroughs using these conflict resolution tools.
Learning to fight right in relationships can contribute to a more peaceful and loving world.
Transcripts
Julie Gottman: So most of us think
that fighting is bad for romantic relationships, right?
How many people do you know who say,
"Hey, I had a great fight the other day."
"Oh, yeah. My partner and I fight all the time
and we're super happy."
John Gottman: Fifty-two years ago, we put love under the microscope.
Julie and I are the founders of the Gottman Institute and the Love Lab,
and we've made the study of relationships our life's work.
And our research tells us that fighting is good for relationships, not bad.
Julie: In our lab, we saw that almost all couples fight.
In fact, how they fight in the first three minutes
predicts with 96 percent accuracy
not only how the rest of the conversation will go,
but how the rest of the relationship will go six years down the road.
My God, I know, it's terrifying, isn't it?
So it's not if we fight that determines relationship success,
it's how we fight.
John: In fact, our research has revealed that some fighting
actually increases connection, and even improves our sex life.
So how do we fight right?
Julie: Early on, John and his colleague Robert Levinson
in their lab simply watched couples interacting.
Sounds simple, but nobody had ever done that before.
John: Over time, 3,000 couples came to the lab.
As they were being videotaped,
they wore monitors that measured such things as respiration,
heart rate and stress hormones.
And then they had a conflict discussion
and they talked about the events of their day.
Julie: Afterwards, they rated how they felt during each conversation
before returning home.
They would return to the lab every year or two
and repeat the same procedure,
and some were followed for as long as 20 years.
John: Videotapes were synchronized to the physiological data,
and then in a split-screen video, second by second,
we measured the couples' words, emotions, facial expressions
and physiology year after year.
Julie: Over time, we saw that some couples separated or divorced.
Some remained together unhappily,
while others stayed together happily.
What made the difference between the couples who were successful
and the couples who were unsuccessful,
or as we call them, the masters and the disasters?
(Laughter)
The couples in our studies were all ages, sexual orientations
and ethnically diverse.
After a while, just by watching a couple,
we could predict what would happen with over 90 percent accuracy,
what would happen in their relationship six years later.
Which meant we never got invited to dinner anymore.
(Laughter)
John: We found that there were three major styles of fighting.
Conflict avoiders who just agree to disagree
and would rather wash the dishes than argue a point.
I'm a conflict avoider.
Julie: (Scoffs) He is. Believe me.
(Laughter)
Conflict validators would bring up an issue
by expressing their feelings calmly
and then jumping immediately into problem solving.
So think of your most patient kindergarten teacher.
Then there were the conflict volatiles.
They would express their feelings intensely and very passionately.
Notice I say, just fine, not bad.
And then they would leap into trying to prove that they were right,
and their partners were wrong.
OK, so think of a very expressive basketball coach on the sidelines.
Or me. I'm a volatile.
John: And some partners had different styles of fighting
from one another.
But the good news, we discovered
that whether you have those three styles of fighting
or you're mismatched,
you can have a successful relationship
as long as the ratio of positive to negative responses
during the conflict discussion,
it was at least five to one.
And examples of positive responses were
head nods, affection, interest, shared humor
and words like "fair enough."
Julie: OK, so what about the negatives?
Were all the negatives equally negative?
No.
There were four big predictors of relationship demise
that we called the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
(Laughter)
Alright. The first one was criticism.
And criticism means blaming a problem
on a personality flaw of your partner.
For example, if you walked into a messy kitchen
and you wanted to be critical,
you would say, "Oh my God, this place is such a mess.
Why are you such a slob?"
How do you answer that?
John: The second horseman is contempt.
Contempt is like criticism, but it has a dash of superiority.
So with contempt, you include scorn, disgust, sarcasm
and nasty insults like,
"You're such a loser. Why did I ever marry you?"
Julie: The third horseman is defensiveness.
That's the most common one.
And that's when we act like an innocent victim.
"I did too pay the bills!"
Or we counterattack, “Oh, yeah? Well, you didn’t pay the bills on time.”
John: The fourth Horseman is stonewalling.
When we shut down completely
and we don't even give the speaker any signs that we're listening.
In stonewalling, we really wall ourselves off from our partner.
Hmm.
Julie: Hmm.
The fourth is a bad one,
but here's another one that may be related to it.
It's called flooding, or fight, flight or freeze.
So a partner in the middle of a conversation
may be sitting there and looking totally calm on the outside,
but inside, their heart rates
are rocketing up above 100 beats a minute.
John: They feel like they're being attacked by a tiger.
Julie: (Growls)
John: But it's only our partner.
And when we're flooded, we can't think straight,
we can’t listen very well
and we certainly can't creatively problem-solve.
Julie: If you get flooded, here's what's crucial.
You stop immediately and call for a break,
then say when you'll come back to continue the conversation.
That's really important.
And during the break, do not think about the fight.
Instead, simply self-soothe and then come back at the designated time.
When you're physiologically calm,
you look like a totally different person
and it's much easier to be reasonable and to listen well.
Now, what do couples do who fight right versus fight wrong?
The couples who are really struggling and distressed
may bring up an issue
in that first three minutes of the conversation
with something we call harsh startup,
which almost always includes criticism or contempt.
The couples who fight right will bring up the issue
with what we call softened startup.
John: So what's softened startup?
Softened startup consists of a bunch of "I" statements
that describe you and not your partner at all.
You start with what you feel, then you describe the situation at hand,
and then what you do need from your partner
to make things better,
rather than what you resent.
Now here's an example of harsh versus softened startup.
Julie: Alright, so let's say you've been cooking dinner every single night
for the last year.
Now you're a little tired of it.
Alright, so what would a harsh startup sound like?
"You're just too cheap to take me out to dinner!"
Ugh!
Alright. A softened startup would sound more like this.
"I'm feeling frustrated..."
There's your feeling.
"… about needing to cook dinner every night."
That's the situation. Hear all the "I's"?
"Would you please take me out to dinner tonight?"
That's your positive need.
John: At a workshop with 1,200 people,
we posed that question to the audience and asked them to come up
with a softened startup for that situation.
And one guy raised his hand, and he was competent, but very succinct.
He said, "I'm feeling hungry. I'm going out to dinner.
Would you like to come along?"
(Laughter)
Julie: Later on, we gave an example about sex.
The entire audience went silent and very shy,
except for this same guy.
So I had to call on him, right?
So he went over the top a little bit,
and this is what he said for a softened startup:
"Honey, I'm feeling horny.
I'm going to go upstairs and have sex.
Would you like to come along?"
(Laughter and applause)
John: One finding that really shocked us in our research was this:
69 percent of all relationship conflict problems are perpetual,
which means that they never go away.
They never get fully solved.
And so we learn that conflict really mostly needs to be managed
rather than solved.
Julie: In our lab, the couples who came back year after year
kept bringing up exactly the same issue,
even 20 years later.
John: Right. So when we think about fighting right,
whether talking about a perpetual problem or a solvable problem,
what is the biggest mistake that the disasters of relationships make?
The answer is that they fight to win, which means somebody has to lose.
What do the masters do instead?
They fight to understand.
Julie: Fighting to understand means taking a conversation about an issue
and going much deeper
to understand what's beneath your partner's position on the issue.
That builds the connection.
John: At the core of fighting to understand
is asking one another a set of predesigned questions
that are designed to get at people's thoughts and feelings
behind their position on the issue.
They don't interrupt, and then they trade roles.
We call this “the dreams within conflict” conversation,
because it really helps people get at their thoughts and feelings
behind their position
without feeling judged or attacked.
Julie: There are six questions in all,
and these questions unearth each person's values,
feelings, background history
and ideal dream regarding the issue.
I'm going to give you an illustration using just two out of the six questions.
So there was a couple who were really fighting
over whether or not to get a dog.
OK.
There was a woman who we will call Jenny,
who was adamantly opposed to getting a dog,
but her partner, a woman who we will call Alison,
was all for it.
So they decided to try the dreams within conflict conversation.
So when Alison asked Jenny,
"Do you have some background or childhood history
that's part of your position on this issue,"
she said ...
John: "Absolutely. When I was a kid,
I got chased and bitten by just about every dog
in our neighborhood."
Julie: Wow.
But the real understanding came with the dream question.
"So what is your ideal dream here regarding this issue?"
John: "You know, if we don't have a dog, we're not tied down. We're not burdened.
We're free to travel the world together and have adventures together.
That's what I really want."
Now listen to what Allison said
when she was asked about the childhood history question.
She said ...
Julie: "You know, when I was a kid, I was all alone.
OK, so my golden retriever was my best friend.
He really kept me from feeling totally alone."
John: Hmm.
And to the dreams question, she said ...
Julie: "Hmm. You know, I see getting a dog as a practice run for having kids
and having a family.
I know that dogs and kids are a lot of responsibility,
but they both bring so much love with them into the family.
That's what I want."
John: So on the surface, this fight was about whether or not to get a dog,
but beneath the surface it was about leading a life of adventure and travel
versus staying home and raising a family.
Without the dreams within conflict conversation,
they never would have gotten to this level of understanding of one another.
Julie: In an unpublished study,
we found that 87 percent of 600 couples,
many of whom were distressed,
made major breakthroughs on gridlock conflicts
using tools like this.
So now if we look around our world,
we see a world that is caught in win-lose battles
that are so polarized.
So ...
the same thing we're seeing in our couples
who are also locked in win-lose standoffs.
We've never seen such furious,
uncompromising fighting before.
It's enough to fill you full of despair.
John: But ...
our research has taught us that there are science-based tools
that can gentle down a conflict,
scrape the escalations off the ceiling
and lead people to a mutual understanding of one another's positions,
ending this win-lose mentality
and leading a couple to a compromise that honors both people's dreams.
Julie: You all know that relationships
are the foundations of our communities,
our society and our world.
If we can all work on learning how to fight right,
even at home,
there is hope we can build
a more loving and peaceful world,
one couple at a time.
John: Thank you.
Julie: Thank you.
(Applause and cheers)
Browse More Related Video
Kevin Hale - How to Work Together
Making Marriage Work | Dr. John Gottman
The Science of Love | John Gottman | TEDxVeniceBeach
How to Predict Divorce With 95% Accuracy | Jordan Peterson
How to become a Self-Taught Fighter
Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus by John Gray Audiobook | Book Summary in Hindi Animated Book
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)