Inter-personal Dynamics in Couples Catalina Woldarsky Psyc 3430 M April 1, 2008 Catalina Woldarsky Psyc 3430 M April 1, 2008

Outline  Overview of couples research  Predictors of divorce - J. Gottman  “we-ness” - D. Reid  Approaches to working with couples  Emotion-focused couple therapy  Overview of couples research  Predictors of divorce - J. Gottman  “we-ness” - D. Reid  Approaches to working with couples  Emotion-focused couple therapy

Overview of Research  Why study couples?  increased rates of accidents, physical illness, suicide, violence and homicide  Couples Distress  communication, lack of emotional concern, infidelity  individual psychopathology  Diverse methodologies  Why study couples?  increased rates of accidents, physical illness, suicide, violence and homicide  Couples Distress  communication, lack of emotional concern, infidelity  individual psychopathology  Diverse methodologies

Gottman & Levenson (1992)  Objective: to identify predictors of divorce  Multi-method approach  “Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System” was developed & used to group couples into 2 groups:  Regulated Couples  Non-regulated Couples  This distinction allowed for prediction of marital dissolution with 75% accuracy in a 4 year study  Objective: to identify predictors of divorce  Multi-method approach  “Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System” was developed & used to group couples into 2 groups:  Regulated Couples  Non-regulated Couples  This distinction allowed for prediction of marital dissolution with 75% accuracy in a 4 year study

Gottman’s Research  Regulated couples +ve probl-solv behav > -ve probl-solv behav  neutral/+ve probl description, assent, humour  Non-regulated couples  -ve probl-solv behav > +ve probl-solv behav  complaint, criticism, defensiveness  Regulated couples +ve probl-solv behav > -ve probl-solv behav  neutral/+ve probl description, assent, humour  Non-regulated couples  -ve probl-solv behav > +ve probl-solv behav  complaint, criticism, defensiveness

The 4 Horsemen of Apocalypse  “Cascade Model of Dissolution” - using these 4 variables, prediction of divorce increased to 85%  Contempt = greatest predictor of divorce  Criticism  Defensiveness  Stonewalling  Later divorcing is predicted by ABSENCE of +ve affect (affection, interest & humour) NOT simply presence of -ve affect  “Cascade Model of Dissolution” - using these 4 variables, prediction of divorce increased to 85%  Contempt = greatest predictor of divorce  Criticism  Defensiveness  Stonewalling  Later divorcing is predicted by ABSENCE of +ve affect (affection, interest & humour) NOT simply presence of -ve affect

Stable Marriages  Volatile:  high on immediate persuasion attempts with little active listening & validation  Validating:  both partners actively listen & reflect back feelings before attempts to persuade  Conflict-Avoiding:  very little engagement in persuasion attempts  Balance theory of marriage - each couple will find a balance btwn +ve & -ve affect (homeostasis)  Volatile:  high on immediate persuasion attempts with little active listening & validation  Validating:  both partners actively listen & reflect back feelings before attempts to persuade  Conflict-Avoiding:  very little engagement in persuasion attempts  Balance theory of marriage - each couple will find a balance btwn +ve & -ve affect (homeostasis)

Sound Marital House Theory Gottman & Levenson (1996)  Creating shared symbolic meaning  Regulating conflict  Creating positive sentiment over-ride  Marital friendship Gottman & Levenson (1996)  Creating shared symbolic meaning  Regulating conflict  Creating positive sentiment over-ride  Marital friendship

Systemic-Constructivist approach: Integrates the intrapersonal with the Interpersonal processes and is highly contextually sensitive.  Examines how each partner’s “assumptive worlds” become intertwined in marriage  Marriage reflects intricately the ‘personalities’, deep feelings and core sense of meaning of the partners.  To be happy each partner must develop & maintain a fulfilling identity within the relationship.  In this process, each partner conjointly validates a sense of who each is. This requires considerable interpersonal awareness & commitment. Systemic-Constructivist approach: Integrates the intrapersonal with the Interpersonal processes and is highly contextually sensitive.  Examines how each partner’s “assumptive worlds” become intertwined in marriage  Marriage reflects intricately the ‘personalities’, deep feelings and core sense of meaning of the partners.  To be happy each partner must develop & maintain a fulfilling identity within the relationship.  In this process, each partner conjointly validates a sense of who each is. This requires considerable interpersonal awareness & commitment. The Identity of the Couple

“We-ness” - D. Reid  “We-ness” refers to the identity that each partner establishes in relationship to the other.  This sense of we-ness is a psychological construction that becomes evident in the language system that forms the bond between the married partners.  It contains an antidote to egocentric primacy & any excessive dependency or invasiveness.  It is understood that this egocentricity is at the root of many problems of communication within committed relationships.  “We-ness” refers to the identity that each partner establishes in relationship to the other.  This sense of we-ness is a psychological construction that becomes evident in the language system that forms the bond between the married partners.  It contains an antidote to egocentric primacy & any excessive dependency or invasiveness.  It is understood that this egocentricity is at the root of many problems of communication within committed relationships.

We-ness Coding Scale  LEVEL 1: Domination of “I” vs. “You.”  LEVEL 2: Primacy of view, not hearing.  LEVEL 3: Tacit Recognition of Relationship.  LEVEL 4: Interpersonal aware, but…  LEVEL 5: Share Experiences, Stories.  LEVEL 6: Intuitive Sense of Self as Couple.  LEVEL 1: Domination of “I” vs. “You.”  LEVEL 2: Primacy of view, not hearing.  LEVEL 3: Tacit Recognition of Relationship.  LEVEL 4: Interpersonal aware, but…  LEVEL 5: Share Experiences, Stories.  LEVEL 6: Intuitive Sense of Self as Couple.

Interpersonal Processing is the Power of Three “Relational Selves” in sync.= value of other. 1. My: Thoughts Feelings Beliefs Desires Idiosynchrasies Ways of living Culture & Family/past experiences 2. “Your”: Thoughts Feelings Beliefs Desires Idiosynchrasies Ways of living Culture & Family/past experiences 3. = Us” “Us is greater than parts” Meaningful Experiential Self-coherent Interactions

Approaches to working with Couples  There are 3 empirically-supported approaches:  Cognitive-Behavioural Couples Therapy  Emotion-focused Couples Therapy  Insight-oriented Couples Therapy  Common Factor: Promotion of each partner’s acceptance of the other & their differences – use of these differences to promote empathy & intimacy.  There are 3 empirically-supported approaches:  Cognitive-Behavioural Couples Therapy  Emotion-focused Couples Therapy  Insight-oriented Couples Therapy  Common Factor: Promotion of each partner’s acceptance of the other & their differences – use of these differences to promote empathy & intimacy.

Emotional Acceptance All of these approaches work with these assumptions:  Each partner has feelings that are understandable  Each partner has a story that makes sense  Each partner has hold of some truth about the relationship  Each partner has a position on the problem that is worthy of attention & consideration  Acceptance of the values of each couple & partner as long as they DO NOT promote destructive actions All of these approaches work with these assumptions:  Each partner has feelings that are understandable  Each partner has a story that makes sense  Each partner has hold of some truth about the relationship  Each partner has a position on the problem that is worthy of attention & consideration  Acceptance of the values of each couple & partner as long as they DO NOT promote destructive actions

EFT-Couples  Greenberg & Johnson (1988)  Therapy involves having partners reveal their most vulnerable feelings to each other to promote bonding, and being able to take a self-focus to reveal and regulate one’s own emotions.  Key Intervention involves identifying & modifying the couples’ cycle (I.e., set way of responding to each other that keeps them feeling stuck)  Research has found that the single most effective way of resolving couples conflict is for partners to reveal their underlying vulnerable feelings and their attachment, identity and intimacy needs (Greenberg & Johnson, 1988; Greenberg, James, & Conry 1988, Greenberg, Ford, Alden & Johnson 1993)  Greenberg & Johnson (1988)  Therapy involves having partners reveal their most vulnerable feelings to each other to promote bonding, and being able to take a self-focus to reveal and regulate one’s own emotions.  Key Intervention involves identifying & modifying the couples’ cycle (I.e., set way of responding to each other that keeps them feeling stuck)  Research has found that the single most effective way of resolving couples conflict is for partners to reveal their underlying vulnerable feelings and their attachment, identity and intimacy needs (Greenberg & Johnson, 1988; Greenberg, James, & Conry 1988, Greenberg, Ford, Alden & Johnson 1993)

Key Dimensions: Attachment & Identity  Emotional expression influences how others respond.  Partners form emotional attachments through their emotion systems.  Partners also form a sense of who they are, and a sense of self-esteem, through the validation of their emotions by others.  Emotional expression influences how others respond.  Partners form emotional attachments through their emotion systems.  Partners also form a sense of who they are, and a sense of self-esteem, through the validation of their emotions by others. attachment identity

Affiliation (attachment) Cycles Pursue - Distance  Pursuer: Sad, Lonely, Anxious, Fears abandonment  Distancer: Anxious, Angry, Insecure Attack/Blame – Defend  Same as above Demand – Withdraw  Same as above Cling – Push away  Clinger: Anxious, Helpless  Push away: Anger, Burdened, Trapped Pursue - Distance  Pursuer: Sad, Lonely, Anxious, Fears abandonment  Distancer: Anxious, Angry, Insecure Attack/Blame – Defend  Same as above Demand – Withdraw  Same as above Cling – Push away  Clinger: Anxious, Helpless  Push away: Anger, Burdened, Trapped

Influence (Identity) Cycles Dominate – Submit  Dominant: Fear of loss of status /control, Shame  Submissive: Fear, Inadequacy, Anger Define – Defer  Same as above Lead – Follow  Leader: Anxious  Follower: Inadequate, Helpless, Angry Over-function – Under-function  Same as above Dominate – Submit  Dominant: Fear of loss of status /control, Shame  Submissive: Fear, Inadequacy, Anger Define – Defer  Same as above Lead – Follow  Leader: Anxious  Follower: Inadequate, Helpless, Angry Over-function – Under-function  Same as above

Phases of EFT-C  Cycle de-escalation  Establishing a “ working alliance ” & framing issues/conflict in terms of emotional pain and deprivation of emotional needs  Identifying the negative cycle  Exploring underlying emotions of each position  Change in interactional positions  promoting identification with the disowned aspects of experience that may arise in the redefined cycle  the expression of specific needs and wants to restructure the interaction  Consolidation and integration  Cycle de-escalation  Establishing a “ working alliance ” & framing issues/conflict in terms of emotional pain and deprivation of emotional needs  Identifying the negative cycle  Exploring underlying emotions of each position  Change in interactional positions  promoting identification with the disowned aspects of experience that may arise in the redefined cycle  the expression of specific needs and wants to restructure the interaction  Consolidation and integration