The Fourth Horsemen - Stonewalling

As a brief recap we covered the studies of John Gottman in a previous post – he found that four styles of communication are detrimental to the health of a relationship and, if present in married couples, leads to an increased chance of separation. Gottman labelled these four communication styles the “Four Horsemen” in reference to the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

The first article covered the first two Horsemen – criticism and defensiveness. It examined how these two communication styles can interact and reinforce each other which can trigger a physiological escalation which Gottman refers to as “flooding” or diffuse physiological arousal. This state is very similar to an intense “fight/flight” anxiety response and can negatively affect communication during conflict discussions due to overwhelming emotion. This not only effectively removes the possibility of resolving the argument but also often causes emotional damage to the relationship if contemptuous or hostile communication results.

We briefly examined Gottman’s proposed solutions to criticism and defensiveness. For criticism (focusing on the person rather than the issue) the solution is to use “softened start-up” – that is to raise conflict issues or complaints in a way that is gentle and focuses on the issue and not the person. For defensiveness the solution is to take responsibility for even a small part of the problem. When these two solutions are in place this often can negate the criticism/defensiveness cycle so that flooding does not occur.

Much of Gottman’s work was done with hetero-sexual married couples – however his theory has been found to be applicable for homo-sexual couples, family relationships and work relationships also – each studied using different outcome measures. References to gender below are based partly on generalisation and secondly on the fact that Gottman found different gender-based patterns in his original studies. Please do not consider the personal pronouns prescriptive as the four horsemen can occur in multiple forms across the gender spectrum.

in periods where the criticism/defensiveness cycle escalates, or through some other means of stress inducing stimulus during a conflict discussion, the third horsemen can emerge – stonewalling. Gottman defines stonewalling as “when you withdraw from the interaction while staying physically present. Essentially, this means not giving cues that you’re listening or paying attention; for instance, by avoiding eye contact and crossing your arms.” 80% of stonewallers are men and essentially stonewalling is a misguided attempt to attempt to minimise the stress response in the face of a partner who is engaging in critical or perceived critical language.

“The pattern goes like this: The more you feel criticised, the more you turn away (give cues to the speaker that you are not paying attention), the more your partner attacks.” This is because the more verbal partner (often the female) is likely also becoming more escalated as she perceives that the male is ignoring her, failing to respond, and not giving any cues that he is intaking the verbal information that is forth coming. This often elevates the level and intensity of criticism or perceived criticism in both content, tone and body-language. Gottman referring to the stonewalling male – “You feel your heart rate climbing and you’re afraid to say anything for fear of making things worse; however, by withdrawing and turning away from your partner you perpetuate a negative spiral in your relationship and the issue remains unresolved.” Gottman then goes on to note that this can lead to flooding if the cycle is left the perpetuate itself. Remember Gottman found that the male partner’s heartbeat escalating to above 100 beats per minute during a conflict discussion was linked to higher separation in married couples.

I’ve found that stonewalling is often present in (hetero-sexual) couples when the female’s anxiety response compels her to try and feel heard, resolve the situation, and often pursue the male if he attempts to leave the room or conversation due to feeling overwhelmed. This is both precipitated and perpetuated through stonewalling which can again result in flooding and extreme emotional damage to the relationship if hostile or contemptuous language, tone and body-language emerge.

The solution for stonewalling is to do some physiological self-soothing – ideally through the form of a 20 minute break. This specified time period is not arbitrary – Gottman found that it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stress hormones – particularly the main sympathetic neurotransmitter ‘norepinephrine’ to diffuse in the bloodstream.

For a break to be effective there are three main criteria. Firstly, the minimum 20 minute time period. Secondly, it cannot involve any “distress maintaining” thoughts – for example “I don’t have to take this” or “What a jerk, I’ll how him” etc. Thirdly, it must involve a truly relaxing activity – such as listening to calming music or taking a walk.

I have worked with some couples on coming up with a “signal” to take a break if either of them feels flooded. This could be actually saying “Let’s take a break”, or a code-word or even a hand signal. It is essential that the couple come to an agreement that when either partner signals for a break (because they are feeling flooded) that it be respected. This comes with the caveat that after the break the couple re-convene in attempt to come to some shared perspective on the content of the conflict discussion without using critical, defensive, stonewalling or contemptuous communication styles – which is likely to worsen the situation rather than resolve it.

Coming to a “resolution” in a conflict discussion doesn’t necessarily really mean that the issue is resolved. Gottman found that approximately 70% of marital conflict discussions are around “perpetual issues” – which are issues that have been present since the start of the relationship and are likely to continue until the end of the relationship. While this may initially seem de-motivating or disheartening – what differentiates connected and healthy relationships is that they avoid becoming “grid-locked” on issues where communication escalates feelings of resentment and hostility that can ultimately result in feelings of contempt – the worst communication style and the single biggest risk factor for separation that Gottman studied. Healthy communication allows to negotiate and minimise the disruption from conflict discussions and allows for the introduction of validation, empathy, and ultimately building a culture of appreciation around the relationship. Gottman found that this
“positivity” can serve as a buffer to absorb some of the negative tension and feelings that can result from the four horsemen.

I plan to write a post around contempt (the worst of the four horsemen) and also explore elements of domestic violence and how contempt is linked to that area. I realise that this may be a sensitive subject however I feel it is important to get accurate psycho-education available on this subject. Thanks and take care during the Christmas period – reach out if you need anything.