Criticism and Defensiveness Cycle

I base a lot of my relationship counselling content on a particular researcher called John Gottman, who early in his research conducted several studies including longitudinal (over time) studies on newly wedded marriage couples. As part of his research, he tracked (through video recordings of couples) certain patterns of communication between couples and measured their frequency. Later on, some of these couples had separated. By analysing the video data he found that, among the certain couples who separated, there were four distinct styles or patterns of communication that were present that were not as prominent in the couples who did not separate. Through further analysis he determined that these four communication patterns: criticism, defensiveness, stone-walling and contempt were linked to higher rates of separation and lower rates of marital satisfaction in the married couples. This early finding has been found to be replicated in other later studies of relationships – including gay and lesbian couples, family relationships and work relationships (using other outcome measures). Criticism, Defensiveness, Stonewalling and Contempt are so detrimental to relationships that Gottman labelled them “The Four Horsemen” in reference to the four horsemen of the apocalypse

Rather than outline all the four horsemen – I would like to focus particularly on the aspects of criticism and defensiveness and how these can cause a reinforcing cycle which, when combined with Gottman’s research on physiology during conflict, can cause quite heated arguments which are extremely damaging to the emotional connection in the relationship. When these heated arguments are present in a relationship it is a priority for me in counselling to work on strategies and psycho-education to quickly address this ( this can eventually lead to emotional distance where there is minimal heated conflict but a very low degree of interdependence and connection in the relationship – the couple grow distant or “move away” from each other).

Criticism is defined by Gottman as “bringing up an issue in a way that focuses on your partner’s character or personality flaws rather than on what you would like them to do differently. Criticism implies there is something wrong you’re your partner, that they are defective. This may include blame, name-calling and a general character assassination”. The use of the phrases “always” and “never” are also common with criticism – which can also include a certain tone and body language which emphasises the damaging impact and the likelihood of causing defensiveness.

The solution to criticism is to use what Gottman calls “Gentle/Softened Start Up” which is a way of phrasing a complaint in a way that focuses on the issue and not the partner. Tips for softened start up include : using praise, using “I” statements, being polite, being assertive (not passive or aggressive), being concise and avoiding generalisations and blame. Gottman distinguishes criticism from complaints in that complaints are completely valid in terms of allowing issues to be raised in a way that collaboratively deals with the issue and reduces imbalance in the system. It’s kind of like an equalising mechanism. Both members of the couple should be able to raise complaints to the other and have those complaints heard – provided that they are expressed in a softened/gentle way.

Defensiveness is defined as “an attempt to protect yourself, to defend your innocence, to ward off a perceived attack. Many people become defensive when they are being criticised. Research shows that defensiveness rarely has the desired effect of improving the situation. This is because defensiveness is really a way of blaming your partner… Defensiveness just escalates the conflict, which is why it’s so destructive. There are two ways to be defensive: to counter-attack or to play the innocent victim. Some people can do both at the same time”. The solution to defensiveness is for the defensive person to take responsibility for “even a small part of the problem. By doing this, you can quickly reduce tension and prevent conflict from escalating. This helps your partner feel heard and understood”.

Sometimes within a couple a cycle can form whereby one partner initiates a criticism, which is responded with a defensive counter-attack – which then escalates the initial person to double down on their critical stance, which provokes a response in the defensive member etc. This mutually reinforcing cycle of negative communication patterns has an intense effect on the couples’ physiology – which can cause emotional “flooding” or what Gottman terms “Diffuse Physiological Arousal” or DPA. This is very similar to the acute fight/flight response of anxiety which causes a series of cognitive and physical changes as the body prepares itself as if it were a life-or-death situation (See former post for more information on the fight/freeze/flight response).

As part of these physiological changes the activity in the pre-frontal cortex – which is responsible for higher order cognitive functions such as planning, consequential thinking, perspective taking, reasoning etc – largely goes off-line. This has a significant impact on the type of verbal language, body language, tone, and inhibitory functioning and makes conflict resolution close to impossible. As well as making resolution of conflict largely impossible, these types of heated arguments have a severe emotionally damaging and psychologically damaging impact on either one or both members and is extremely detrimental to relationship health. Gottman found that the male’s heartbeat exceeding 100 beats per minute during a conflict discussion was a significant risk factor for later separation in the couple.

The major intervention for when this occurs is for the couple to take a 20 minute break (this length was specified by Gottman due to the necessary “reset” time for the body to recover from DPA) that involves a truly distracting activity done away from the other person and to take steps to prevent rumination over the argument during the break (which may reactivate the anxiety response). For your information this is the solution for stonewalling as well. However it is essential that both members of the couple re-engage after the 20 minute period to at least some kind of shared understanding of each other’s perspective on the issue (even if they don’t agree with that perspective). Sharing perspective naturally becomes much easier once criticism and defensiveness are largely removed from the intercourse between couples – particularly in conflict discussions.

Undoubtedly beneficial from a physiological perspective are relaxation and breathing exercises – which are done not at the height of the DPA but once one has learned to recognise the ‘early warning signs’ of anxiety in the form of the physiological symptoms associated with fear (i.e. the flight response) and/or anger ( i.e. the “fight” response) in interpersonal exchanges.

I wish to introduce a caveat that the above outline is a summation of my interpretation of one main researcher’s ideas. It does not necessarily account for every specific couple or relationship. For example in a domestic violent relationship, the perpetrator has an inordinate amount of power and control in the relationship which they abuse using manipulative tactics. In such a case, a domestic violence victim may appear to demonstrate “defensive” behaviour whereas this is actually legitimate “resistance” to the perpetrator due to the inherent power imbalance in the relationship. Being escalated physiologically is no excuse for violent, contemptuous or abusive behaviour. Stating that one theory or even a combination of theories can account for every type of relationship to a high degree of accuracy is not a factual statement in the field of psychology.

If you’d like to find our more about the above – or would like some Gottman orientated information that I use in therapy (freely available online) please feel free to reach out.