Even Healthy Couples Fight — the Difference Is How | Julie and John Gottman | TED

Summary

The 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

00:00

🔬 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.

05:02

🚫 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.

10:05

💡 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.

15:06

🌐 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.

Keywords

💡Fighting

Fighting, in the context of this video, refers to the act of engaging in a disagreement or dispute within a romantic relationship. The video challenges the common belief that fighting is inherently negative by suggesting that it can be beneficial for relationships if conducted in a healthy manner. For example, John Gottman mentions that 'fighting is good for relationships, not bad,' and the video discusses how the way couples fight in the first three minutes can predict the success of their relationship.

💡Love Lab

The Love Lab is an institution founded by the Gottmans, where they conducted extensive research on relationships. It is not a place for affection but rather a research environment where couples' interactions were studied. The script mentions, 'Julie and I are the founders of the Gottman Institute and the Love Lab,' highlighting the significance of this research center in understanding relationship dynamics.

💡Conflict Avoiders

Conflict avoiders are individuals who prefer to evade confrontation and disagreements, often choosing to 'agree to disagree' rather than engage in a dispute. This concept is integral to the video's exploration of different fighting styles within relationships, as John Gottman identifies himself as a conflict avoider and discusses the implications of this approach on relationship success.

💡Conflict Validators

Conflict validators are individuals who, when faced with an issue, express their feelings calmly and move quickly into problem-solving mode. The video emphasizes the importance of this approach, likening it to the patience of a kindergarten teacher, as a healthier way of dealing with conflicts in relationships.

💡Conflict Volatiles

Conflict volatiles are individuals who express their feelings intensely and passionately during a conflict. The video suggests that this style of fighting can be acceptable, as long as it leads to problem-solving, by comparing it to the expressiveness of a basketball coach on the sidelines.

💡Positive to Negative Responses Ratio

This ratio refers to the balance between positive and negative interactions during a conflict discussion. The video posits that a successful relationship requires at least a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative responses. Examples of positive responses include nodding, affection, and shared humor, which contribute to a healthier conflict resolution process.

💡Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

In the context of the video, the 'Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' are four negative communication patterns—criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling—that can predict the end of a relationship. These concepts are central to understanding the destructive aspects of conflict within relationships and are used to illustrate the importance of avoiding these behaviors.

💡Softened Startup

A softened startup is a method of initiating a conversation about an issue in a relationship by using 'I' statements that express one's own feelings and needs without blaming the partner. The video provides examples of how a softened startup can transform a potentially harsh conversation into a more constructive dialogue.

💡Harsh Startup

A harsh startup is the opposite of a softened startup and involves beginning a conversation with criticism or contempt, often directed at the partner. The video warns against this approach, stating that it can escalate conflicts and lead to distress within relationships.

💡Perpetual Problems

Perpetual problems are issues within a relationship that are never fully resolved. The video reveals that 69 percent of relationship conflicts are perpetual, emphasizing the need for conflict management rather than resolution, and the importance of understanding and acceptance in long-term relationships.

💡Fighting to Understand

Fighting to understand is an approach to conflict where the goal is to gain a deeper comprehension of the partner's perspective rather than to win the argument. The video suggests that this method builds connection and involves asking predesigned questions to explore the thoughts and feelings behind each person's position on an issue.

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)