THE SCIENCE SCIENCE AND AND CREATION CREATION OF FIDELITY AND INFIDELITY
WE NEED A SCIENCE OF FIDELITY TO TO UNDERSTAND UNDERSTAND INFIDELITY INFIDELITY • You cannot develop a science of infidelity without also understanding the science sc ience of fidelity, fidelity, loyalty, loyalty, continuing love, and trust. • Therefore we must understand how couples build (or erode) TRUST • Therefore, we must understand how couples either build LOYALTY or how they build BETRAYAL • We must understand the principles of INTIMATE TRUST, lasting romance, passion, and love, as well as their erosion.
TO ACCOMPLISH ACCOMPLISH THAT THAT WE DEFINED AND VALIDATED THREE METRICS:
• • • •
The TRUST METRIC The FAIRNESS METRIC, and The BETRA BETRAY YAL METRIC METRIC All three METRICS need to be considered in the equation for lifelong committed committed fidelity and romance
LOVE IN A LIFETIME HAS THREE STAGES • STAGE 1: Falling in love: limmerance • STAGE 2: Building trust • STAGE 3: Building commitment and loyalty
STAGE 1: The Physiology of Falling In Love– Only Certain People Can Trigger the Limmerance Cocktail Cascade – and it’s a complex constellation. •
DHEA (dehydro-epiandrosterone), natural amphetamine high, readiness for sex;
•
Estrogen, softness, receptivity
•
Testosterone , aggressive sexual desire, lust, horny-ness, roaming for new sex;
•
Phereomones, sex scents, smell and attraction;
•
Serotonin, emotional sensitivity, low irritability;
•
Oxytocin, touch, s/he feels just right to hold, the cuddle hormone, bonding, also reduces fear and reduces good judgment;
•
Dopamine, excitement, pleasure, motivation, risk taking, anticipation of reward;
•
Progesterone , sedating, can be calming, needs inhibition;
•
Prolactin, reduces aggression, increases nurturance;
•
Vasopressin, monogamy molecule, aggressive possessiveness in males.
•
PEA (phenyl-ethyl-amine), spikes at ovulation – regulates approach and romance, hormone of love at first sight, highs of limmerance;
5
THERE ARE ONLY SOME PEOPLE WHO QUALIFY IN EACH STAGE • Only some people will be selected by our bodies (Kahneman “System 1”) as potential candidates for a relationship. • STAGE 1: The cocktail cascade of falling in love in our body We Ignore the red flags – Oxytocin (after orgasms) creates bad judgment • STAGE 2: As the relationship proceeds the poor judgment haze produced by oxytocin, dopamine, and testosterone FADES, and • We begin seeing the red flags (Kahneman System 2) and • Then we attempt to build TRUST
PHASE 2: BUILDING TRUST
ESSENTIAL QUESTION IS: Are You There For Me?
7
PHASE 3 OF LOVE: BUILDING LOYALTY VS. BETRAYAL • THE LOYALTY QUESTIONS ARE: – Will you make a life-long commitment to our relationship? – Will you put a wide fence between yourself and other potential relationships? – Will you sacrifice and invest to build and maintain this relationship?
MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION: How do couples build or erode trust?
10
LET’S NOW TALK ABOUT TRUST, COMMITMENT, & BETRAYAL
TRUST IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT WHAT IS “TRUST”?
• Is trust a trait, a belief, a value? • does trust = morality? • “social capital” on trust research never defined trust • If you can’t define it, you can’t change it • Smaller social unit, one interaction at a time • Use game theory to understand trust
GAME THEORY CAN BE A GENERAL THEORY OF ALL SOCIAL INTERACTIONS • If I smile at my wife and she smiles back at me • I may highly value that return smile, and assign a high payoff to that return smile, thinking, “What a great smile! I am one lucky guy to have her as my wife.” • Or I may be disappointed by the return smile, assigning a low payoff to that smile, thinking, “I think I could do better elsewhere.”
GAME THEORY CAN SUGGEST: • How to create trust, betrayal, and fairness metrics, • Can be computed in any interaction. • Not as traits, but at a micro level, using temporal dynamics.
Game Theory Assumes Players’ Rational Self-Interest • Each player seeks to maximize his or her payoffs in any transaction • Players select the strategy that maximizes their own payoffs. • Harold Kelley’s simple experiment (1979): 100 couples rated how much they valued housework. • Let’s look at one couple, Al and Jenny
A YOUNG COUPLE RATES HOUSEWORK (0 = BAD TO 10 = GOOD)
WITH THE SELF-INTEREST METRIC, JENNY WILL TRY TO CHANGE AL AND AL WILL TRY TO CHANGE JENNY • Therefore, Jenny & Al will fight tooth and nail about housework. Typical of unhappily married couples. BUT IF WE DEFINE TRUST AS THE METRIC IN WHICH:
• Jenny is trying to maximize Al’s payoffs, and Al is also trying to maximize Jenny’s payoffs, • Then they will each decide to clean together, logically arriving at the maximum payoff for both. (THE “NASH EQUILIBRIUM”) CONCLUSION IS:
• TRUST = HAVING OUR PARTNER’S BACK, NOT JUST OUR OWN. • Can we generalize Kelly’s work as a game theory approach for all interactions? Answer is YES WE CAN! HERE’S HOW – GOTTMAN-LEVENSON PARADIGM:
GOTTMAN-LEVENSON PARADIGM • Over the last 38 years, produced measures that predict divorce or stability with over 90% accuracy, replicated in original study & 6 separate longitudinal replications (one as long as 20 years). • Predicted successful or unsuccessful transitions (to parenthood and retirement); • Generalized to gay and lesbian couples; • Produced a theory of relationship success; • Produced a therapy validated in 4 randomized clinical trials for: distressed couples, the transition to parenthood, successful parenting via the emotion coaching of children, and the treatment of situational domestic violence.
The Levenson-Gottman Levenson-Gottman Video-Recall Video-Recall Rating dial Gives Us the Payoffs
CAN ALSO VALIDLY CODE AFFECTIVE BEHAVIOR
RATING DIAL GIVES VALID PAYOFFS Predicts changes in marital satisfaction over a 3-year
period Coding rating dial predicts divorce or stability, with behavior 88% accuracy Levenson & Ruef: With use of rating dial, found a physiological substrate for empathy. empathy.
CONCLUSION: RATING DIAL IS A GOOD UTILITY FUNCTION DEFINING “PAYOFF” BETWEEN COUPLES
WE NOW CAN APPLY GAME THEORY TO ANY INTERACTION • Husband behavior as rows of table • Wife behavior as columns of table • Entries in table are average rating dial = Payoff numbers for each partner for that behavior exchange • And entries can also be how OFTEN this behavior exchange happened.
THE ANSWER: Use Hidden Markov Model Analysis – N egative affect is an absorbing state for unhappy couples: the probability of entry (thick line) exceeds the probability of exit (thin line)
NEGATIVITY
NEUTRAL OR POSITIVITY
THE ROACH MOTEL MODEL OF UNHAPPY MARRIAGE: “THEY CHECK IN BUT THEY DON’T
CHECK OUT” • For unhappy couples, negative affect is like stepping into a quicksand bog. • Negative affect is called a “Markov absorbing state,” but only for unhappy couples. • Repair does not work for them. REPAIR IS CENTRAL TO THE MASTERS OF RELATIONSHIPS (also Gianino & Tronick)
• Happily married couples are able to exit this negative state because they HAVE A HIGH TRUST METRIC • THEY do effective repairs, like taking responsibility for even a part of the problem.
HOW DO COUPLES BUILD A HIGH TRUST METRIC? THE MAJOR QUESTION IS: “Are you there for me?” • Trust is built in small moments via a social skill called, “attunement”
• “attunement” = Fully “processing” a negative affect event • Discovered this in research on Emotion coaching for kids • Tested in USA, Australia, Korea. Builds trust with kids, creates secure attachment • Dan Yoshimoto’s attunement interview for couples – extended Emotion Coaching to couples via the “meta-emotion” interview • Measures how much partners “there for one another,” particularly during moments of negative affect.
THE BIG TRUST QUESTION:
The biggest issue in all marital conflicts just a few months after the wedding
THE QUESTION OF TRUST OPENS UP LIKE A LARGE FAN
WILL YOU BE THERE FOR ME?
ARE YOU THERE FOR ME? CAN I TALK TO YOU? WILL YOU LISTEN AND EMPATHIZE? • • • • • • • • • •
When I’m sad? When you have hurt me? When I’m angry with you? When I’m hurt by your mother? When I’m disappointed? When I’m horny? When I’m just upset? When I’m lonely? When I’m feeling trapped? When I’m confused?
IF ANSWER IS “YES” THEN THEY BUILD TRUST FULLY PROCESS A NEGATIVE EVENT VIA “ATTUNEMENT” A = Awareness T = Turning Toward T = Tolerance U = Understanding N = Nondefensive Responding E = Empathy
Attunement leads to: Fully being able to Process
Negativity (e.g., Anger & Sadness) No Zeigarnik Effect No negative attributions of
“selfishness” No Markov absorbing state No negative Oral History
Story of Us and Partner’s Character
WHEN ONE PARTNER TURNS AWAY FROM THE OTHER, (DISMISSING THAT PARTNER’S EMOTIONS), THEN WE GET THE ZEIGARNIK EFFECT ZEIGARNIK EFFECT: WE RECALL UNFINISHED EVENTS
BETTER THAN FINISHED EVENTS (RATIO = 1.9, MORTON DEUTCH).
• Rumination on unprocessed, unfinished negative affect events. “NOT FULLY PROCESSED” negative event = a “stone in
one’s shoe.” “FULLY PROCESSED” = Can talk about all negative
affects without getting back into it -UNDERSTANDING
TRUST IS ALSO BUILT VIA ATTUNEMENT IN SIX “EMOTIONAL COMMAND” SYSTEMS Turning toward partner within each system (from Jaak Panksepp’s Affective Neuroscience, modified):
• 1. The Explorer (Seeking, anticipating, adventure, learning together) dopamine. In humans a consequence of this system is The Philosopher and Storyteller (Building shared meaning) • 2. The Sentry (Safety, reducing fear) Low Epinephrine • 3. The Nest Builder (Emotional closeness – giving & receiving care) Oxytocin, Vasopressin, Cortisol; Panic and Grief are its opposites • 4. The Jester (Humor, surprise, and play) dopamine, Serotonin • 5. The Commander-in-Chief (Power, dominance, anger, rage, fairness, equality) Epinephrine, Norepinephrine, Cortisol, low Serotonin. • 6. The Sensualist (Sensuality, orgasm) Testosterone.
ATTACHMENT THEORY • It is a very successful theory. • But it only considers two of the six emotional command systems (The Sentry & The Nest Builder) • The theory assumes that if people feel safe and bonded, all the other systems will be fine. • Couple will be able to play, have adventures, have great sex and passion, and have no existential vacuum (Viktor Frankl) • We think this assumption is not correct. • If we’re right then the couples’ therapist needs to be a master of ALL six emotional command systems, including The Jester, the Explorer (and the Philosopher), The Commander-in-Chief, and the Sensualist. • Our therapy has included all 6 emotional command systems.
TRUST IS BUILT BUILT BY: BY: (1) BEING THERE THERE FOR ONE ANOTHER AND (2) REPAIRING COMMUNICATION WHEN IT GETS MESSED UP • % time we are emotionally available, even generously, is 50%, • Probability both people emotionally available at the same time is 25% (assuming independence of these events) • So 75% is ripe ground for miscommunication, need for REPAIR • CONCLUSION: REGRETTABLE INCIDENTS ARE INEVITABLE, SINCE EMOTIONAL CONNECTION AND EMPATHY ARE RELATIVELY INFREQUENT REPAIR IS ESSENTIAL for • Negative affect just “happens. “happen s.”” So REPAIR attachment security – Tronick & Gianino in moms and babies.
words for negativity than positivity in human languages. • More words Negative affect stops you, positive affect accelerates you. We have to process negativity. Negative affect contains longing.
“BEING THERE” FOR PARTNER IN THE FACE OF NEGATIVE AFFECT. • Our hypothesis: Bonding is created created by turning toward partner’s negative (or positive) affect • Fully processing conflict or failures to connect in any of the six emotional command systems systems has even MORE POWER TO CREATE TRUST than turning toward toward in any of the command systems.
BONDING IN THE CONTEXT OF NEGATIVE AFFECT IS POWERFUL. EXAMPLES ABOUND:
• Yes, orgasms do build trust, but not like: – Exploring in the face of fear (climbing mountains, space exploration) exploration) – Turning toward a neighbor in the face of natural disasters disasters (Joplin, Missouri Misso uri tornado) – Battle buddies in war. Which is why coming home after deployment conflict seems so trivial, and connection to family seems so bland. – Orgasm pales in comparison to this kind of bonding.
MAJOR RESEARCH FINDING ON TRUST: ATTUNEMENT IS BUILT PRIMARILY BY PROCESSING EVERYDAY FAILURES TO COMMUNICATE
• Couples may argue about nothing. A regrettable incident just happens. • If it is fully processed, it is forgotten. • If it is not .fully processed it becomes a stone in the shoe (Zeigarnik effect). • In our therapy, we use the Gottman Aftermath Kit (available on www.Gottman.Com ) to fully process a regrettable incident that has happened in the past. • William Faulkner: “The past is never dead. In fact, it isn’t even past.”
CAN WE CHANGE DISTRUST TO TRUST? THE CAUSE-EFFECT EMPIRICAL QUESTION YES WE CAN.
• Randomized clinical trial with 100 couples. (Babcock, Gottman Gottman, & Ryan, 2013 - J. of Family Therapy ). • The Gottmans’ two-day “The Art & Science of Love” workshop significantly increases trust compared to a control group. • We get significant increases in the TRUST METRIC by increasing EMOTIONAL ATTUNEMENT in couples. • But it’s hard to get trust when relationships have a large power differential and they seem unfair. SO NEED TO BUILD A FAIRNESS METRIC.
THE FAIRNESS METRIC • Gottman & Murray mathematical modeling of couples’ interaction was about POWER (See book, The Mathematics of Marriage) • TRUST occurs more easily when there is EQUAL POWER BETWEEN PARTNERS (our studies of same-sex and heterosexual relationships) • The fairness metric was developed via math modeling of time-series data (2002, Gottman et al.,The Mathematics of Marriage, MIT Press)
Time Series 60 40
r o i v a h e B
20 0 -20 -40
H behavior W behavior
-60
30 20
n o i t p e c r e P
10 0 -10 -20
W perception H perception
-30 60 40
y g o l o i s y h P
20 0 -20 -40 -60
W physiology H physiology
The BETRAYAL METRIC
DEFINING THE BETRAYAL METRIC • Betrayal takes many forms, e.g., affairs, addictions, deception, lying, broken promises. • But, betrayal begins in an any interaction that becomes a power struggle, meaning: • A “zero sum” game metric – A win-lose conflict – My gain is my partner’s loss – Partner’s gain is my loss
• Betrayal metric = extent to which our rating dials negatively cross- correlated across partners.
0 1
8 l a i D g n i t a R
6
4
2
0
0
50
100 Time (6 sec av)
150
THE BETRAYAL METRIC WORKS • OUR 20-YEAR LONGITUDINAL STUDY: Predicts early husband death. 58% versus 22% for cooperative metric, controlling for husband age and initial health. • Our second study showed that this dynamic of earlier husband death is likely to be related to chronic elevations in baseline blood velocity of husband and wife, Higher myocardial contractility. • Men get less protective blood pressure reduction effect from Oxytocin (the hormone of bonding). • Perhaps because men also secrete Vasopressin to ward off rivals after an orgasm (male rat studies).
USING GAME THEORY WE CAN NOW COMPUTE VALID TRUST, FAIRNESS, & BETRAYAL METRICS Trust Metric = my partner behaves to
maximize my payoffs. Fairness Metric = balance in power and emotional inertia. Betrayal Metric = win/lose zero-sum game for unhappily married couples. So loyalty = cooperative rather than zero-sum rating dials.
Using Betrayal Metric we get our FINAL SURPRISING RESEARCH FINDING: THE GERM OF DISTRUST IS NOT THE SAME AS THE GERM OF BETRAYAL
What begins the cascade toward betrayal? ANSWER:
• NEGATIVE COMPARISONS
BETRAYAL HAPPENS WHILE TURNING AWAY FROM PARTNER’S BID WITH A “NEGATIVE COMP” • Our theory: the germ of betrayal is turning away from a bid, Plus NEGATIVE COMP • What is a NEGATIVE COMP? Judging a behavior exchange by comparing it UNFAVORABLY with real or imagined alternatives • So the “GERM of betrayal” - while turning away from a partner’s need, – NEGATIVE COMP is made: “I CAN DO BETTER” • Case of the man with a wife and mistress. Wife was “too needy” mistress was always so “positive”. Wife was with his baby, “very whiney”
EXAMPLE OF COUPLE JOHN SAW IN THERAPY • John was their 6th therapist. • They came into the 5 th session and said this was their last session • Asked them, “Help me understand why the therapy had failed.” • We processed an argument they had.
THEIR REGRETTABLE INCIDENT • He met a woman at a party. His wife was tired & wanted to leave. He told his wife he was more attracted to that OTHER woman than to her. • They had a fight. She thought “I’d be happier with a more mature man.” • Both turned away from each other with a NEGATIVE COMP. • John understood why therapy didn’t work for them. • Alice in Wonderland & Commitment • 2 months later, still together, working on “unconditional commitment”
NEGATIVE COMPs BEGIN A CASCADE TOWARD BETRAYAL • NEGATIVE COMPs first measured successfully by the late & great Caryl Rusbult (first proposed by Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) • Rusbult’s INVESTMENT & COMMITMENT MODEL, the only work able to PREDICT sexual infidelity in dating couples. Three decades of research. • All other studies start with infidelity and interview post hoc. • But people’s retrospective accounts are highly flawed. • We present ourselves as innocent (Karl Heider; Tavris & Aronson – Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me)
CONCLUSION: THERE ARE ORDERLY, DETERMINISTIC, GLACIAL CASCADES TOWARD EITHER BETRAYAL OR LOYALTY
Next slides will describe our hypothesized 24-step Cascade toward Betrayal
THE 24 STEP GOTTMAN- RUSBULT-GLASS (GRG) CASCADE TOWARD BETRAYAL 1. Turning away/dismissing, or turning against, few attunements 2. NEGATIVE COMPs accompany turning away/against. 3. Not “there for me” becomes the common event (turning toward 33% vs 86%) 4. Flooding/ physio arousal occurs whenever S#!T happens. Hypervigilance begins. 5. Conflict becomes a Markov absorbing state. Probability of entry to negativity is greater than probability of exit. Repair does not work. 6. Couple avoids conflict. Suppresses negative affect. Has Blowups (Unprocessed S#!T).
CASCADE TOWARDS BETRAYAL (CONT.) 7. Couple avoids Self-disclosure. Has secrets from partner. deception begins. 8. Bidding for attunement declines. 9. Invests less in relationship. 10. Less dependency on relationship to get needs met. Confiding in others, not partner 11. Less sacrificing for relationship. SUBSTITUTING (find what’s not there elsewhere)
CASCADE TOWARD BETRAYAL (CONT.) 12. Maximizing partner’s negative traits in one’s mind. defensiveness begins.
13. Minimizing partner’s positive traits. Criticism begins. Takes no responsibility for problems. 14. “Trashing” versus “cherishing”. Contempt begins. Shared Meaning erodes. 15. Trashing partner to others. Contempt builds. deception builds. Story of Us gets neg. 16. Builds resentment vs. gratitude. Sees partner as SELFISH. Paradoxically, trusts PARTNER less. Stonewalling starts. 17. Loneliness in relationship builds. Vulnerability to other relationships starts. 18. Partner refusing sex becomes punishing. Little sex, romance, fun, play, adventure, courtship. No sexuality love maps, no dream love maps. Low sexual desire. Porn use may increase.
CASCADE TOWARDS BETRAYAL (CONT.) 19. Fewer pro-relationship cognitions. More anti-relationship cognitions. 20. No longer denigrating alternative relationships. Starts innocent new secret liasons. 21. Little fence between self & others. Reverses “walls & windows” (Shirley Glass) 22. Keeping more and more secrets from partner. deception increases. 23. Actively turning toward others for needs. Seeking what’s not in relationship. 24. Crossing boundaries. Real betrayal unfolds. Deception becomes way of life. Risky.
MONOGAMY • Anthropologists: Monogamy invented about 20 - 40,000 years ago by Homo Sapiens; • A new reproductive strategy: Invest a lot in fewer offspring, longer period of dependency, cooperative hunter-gatherer (see Mothers and Others, by Hrdy);
• There are three types of monogamy: Social, Reproductive, Sexual.
Three kinds of monogamy: The evidence is we are overwhelmingly monogamous • United Nations World Fertility Report (2003): 89% of all people get married by the age of 49. Social monogamy overwhelmingly the norm in our species. (May be serial.) • In humans extra-pair paternity studies done in six cultures (USA, France, Switzerland, UK, Mexico, and the Yanomamo Indians), two review papers reviewing 28 studies found 96 to 98% genetic monogamy. (May be serial.) • USA rates in convenience samples vary from 15 to 43% of men and 10 to 15% of women being sexually unfaithful throughout their marriages. In one study of 50 preindustrial cultures there was no significant difference between men and women in the amount of sexual infidelity. Majority of humans are sexually monogamous.
THE VAST ADVANTAGES OF COMMITTED SOCIAL AND SEXUAL MONOGAMY • LIVE LONGER. ≈ 10 YEARS (Friedman et al; Berkman & Syme Lois Verbrugge; Cacioppo’s work on loneliness.) • STAY PHYSICALLY HEALTHIER. ( Many review papers. Burman & Margolin). • RECOVER FROM ILLNESSES FASTER. • BECOME WEALTHIER. (Steve Nock) • CHILDREN DO MUCH BETTER (into their 50s). • BRAIN COMFORT DURING FEAR. Jim Coan’s handholding studies with married people. Gays and lesbians get no shut down of fear system unless they consider themselves to be married.
Random Facts about Affairs • 70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men say that they did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity. Adultery statistics state that 85% of women who feel their lover is cheating are correct. 50% of men who feel their lover is cheating are right. The first clue is seldom obvious. Typically, it's a "feeling" that something is different.
• 90 percent of Americans say that they believe adultery is morally wrong.
HOW OFTEN DO AFFAIRS HAPPEN? REPORTS VARY WIDELY – 22 % of men and 14% of women say that they have had sex outside their marriages (Dec. 21, 1998 report in USA Today on a national study by the University of California, San Francisco).
– According to surveys, 10% of extramarital affairs last one day, 10% last more than one day but less than a month, 50% last more than a month but less than a year, and 30% last two or more years. Few extramarital affairs last more than four years.
– Numbers from Playboy Magazine: 2 out of 3 women and 3 out of 4 men admit they have sexual thoughts about coworkers. 86% of men and 81% of women routinely flirt with the opposite sex. • Internet Pornography – Now A Royal Road to Infidelity
HOW MANY AFFAIRS BECOME LASTING RELATIONSHIPS? • Those who divorce rarely marry the person with whom they are having the affair. • Dr. Jan Halper’s study of successful men (executives, entrepreneurs, professionals) found that very few men who have affairs divorce their wives and marry their lovers. Only 3 percent of the 4,100 successful men surveyed eventually married their lovers. • The late Dr. Frank Pittman (an expert on treating affairs) found that the divorce rate among those who do marry their lovers is 75 percent. Major reason for the divorce? They don’t trust their partner.
ATONE-ATTUNE-ATTACH THERAPY: HEALING FROM AN AFFAIR (Now planned: Randomized clinical trial in collaboration with Dr. Paul Peluso)
PRELIMINARIES • ASSESSMENT: Gottman Questionnaire package, Conjoint interview with couple’s narrative, Oral History Interview, conflict discussion, plus individual interviews. No individual secrets kept. • Make sure affair is really over, or don’t do therapy. • Set up rules for interaction at home about the affair • May need individual sessions with betrayer about grief in losing affair partner. Express empathy. • Using SRH diagram, outline the overall therapy to clients. Discuss building Marriage #2.
PHASE 1: ATONE • THE ATONEMENT DIALOGUE (Peggy Vaughan’s study – askpeggy.com; Shirley Glass’s work) • Explain and explore the hurt partner’s PTSD. • Hurt partner asks questions, betrayer practices transparent, non-defensive empathic listening. • Betrayer needs to express deep remorse. • do not examine WHY the affair happened in this phase. It risks blaming the victim. Encourage betrayer to avoid sex-related questions that create ruminations about sex details. • Establish transparency, and verification.
LISTENING TO HURT PARTNER’S EMOTIONS • Expressions of negative emotions are okay, but not the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. • Help hurt partner to only discuss affair in session at first. Otherwise, likely to escalate. • In between sessions, hurt partner can do “feeling downloads” on therapist’s voicemail or in journal. • Consider using Gottman-Rapoport blueprint as a new format for communication (with clipboards)
GOTTMAN-RAPOPORT BLUEPRINT – Replaces Active Listening Take turns as speaker & listener: Rapoport: Postpone persuasion until each partner can summarize other to his or her satisfaction. SPEAKER bullet points: • 1. No blaming, no YOU statements • 2. I-STATEMENTS How you feel about a specific incident; • 3. POSITIVE NEED: What you want, prefer, and need. Behind every negative affect there is a longing, a wish, a hope, a recipe; • Avoid physiologically FLOODING the Listener.
LISTENER bullet points: • 1. Take notes; • 2. Summarize partner’s position and affect; • 3. Validate with empathy.
Stay in WHAT’S THIS? Mode instead of WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? Mode. Rapoport Assumption of Similarity – change attributions. Now use Persuasion & Problemsolving. Compromise using the 2oval method.
EXPLORE ATONEMENT NEEDS • What kind of atonement does hurt partner need from betrayer partner? • Going forward, what kind of transparency does hurt partner need from betrayer partner? (Maybe checking cell phone VM and texting messages, e-mails, phone calls 24/7 if one partner is traveling, receipts, etc.) • Donald Baucom, Doug Snyder recommend hiring a detective in some cases.
TOOLS FOR ATONE PHASE • Gottman-Rapoport Conflict Blueprint • Dealing With Flooding • Antidotes for the 4 Horsemen (Criticism, Contempt, defensiveness and Stonewalling) • Questions Regarding Affair (created by betrayed partner)
PHASE 2: ATTUNE • Explore why the affair happened using the Gottman-Rusbult-Glass Cascade model • Understand both partner’s distress within marriage • Work on conflict management • Learn how to recognize and turn towards bids during “sliding door” moments. May be onesided, as betrayed person needs time to rebuild trust in order to turn towards partner • Process regrettable incidents using “Aftermath Of a Fight or Regrettable Incident Exercise, and dan Wile Intervention.
PHASE 2: ATTUNE: (CONT.) • Discuss external stresses using the StressReducing Conversation Exercise • Set up weekly 1-hour State of the Union meetings • Ritualize cherishing and gratitude, rather than trashing and resentment • Bring up problems by saying, “Here’s what I do need,” rather than, “Here’s what I don’t need.”
TOOLS FOR ATTUNE PHASE • • • • •
Expressing Needs Exercise Stress-Reducing Conversation State Of The Union Meeting Turn Toward Bids Aftermath of a Fight or Regrettable Incident Intervention • Dan Wile Intervention
CASE EXAMPLE: DAVID AND DIANE TRANSCRIPT OF AFTERMATH OF A FIGHT OR REGRETTABLE INCIDENT
DAVID AND DIANE • David wealthy businessman • Diane stay at home Mom • Married 27 years • Three kids, two older and out of home, one special needs, home-schooled.
DAVID’S HISTORY • Poor family • Dad alcoholic and emotionally abusive • Mom passive • Determined he’d succeed
DIANE’S HISTORY • Middle class family, relatively healthy • She was one of 4 sisters • She was the “weird one,” decided when 10 to learn about Buddhism, and did.
COUPLE’S HISTORY • Married after college • Had kids in quick succession • Last child had learning disabilities, troubles with school, so Diane decided to home school her. • David worked very hard to advance
COUPLE’S HISTORY (CONT.) • David complained to friends about not getting enough attention at home. • They introduced him to potential affair partners, and encouraged him to play around. • He slept with several women, then had “special” affair with Olivia.
COUPLE’S HISTORY (CONT.) • David denied all affairs. • David spent Mother’s day with Olivia rather than Diane. • Eventually one of older kids saw e-mail exchanges between David and Olivia, and alerted Diane. • Diane confronted David and he confessed. (transcript)
PHASE 3: ATTACH • Use Love Maps and Open-Ended Question Card decks to rebuild knowledge of one another. • Encourage expression of fondness, admiration, and appreciation. May be one-sided at first due to betrayed partner’s fear of getting close again. • Set up formal high cost for subsequent betrayals. • Use Rituals Of Connection Intervention to create ways of connecting that both partners can count on. • Build pro-relationship language and thoughts and build towards renewed commitment. • Turn towards by sacrifice, mutual investment, and effective interdependence.
PHASE 3: ATTACH (CONT.) • Learn the skills of intimate conversation using GottSex Kit. • Create personal sex and intimate trust using GottSex Kit, with betrayed partner in charge of timing. • Re-build new shared meaning system. • Meta-norms: include some significant others in knowledge of repairing this relationship.
MATERIALS FOR ATTACH PHASE • Rituals of Connection Exercise • Open-Ended Questions Exercise • Fondness and Admiration Checklist • Appreciation Checklist
TOOLS FOR ATTACH PHASE (CONT.) • GOTTSEX.COM – A New View of What Sex Is – The Skills of Intimate Conversation – Building Sex Love Maps Of Partner – Ritual for Initiating Sex and Saying No – Ritual For Talking About Sex – Salsa decks – Romantic Things to Say during Sex
DEBBIE AND JAKE: PRELIMINARIES • Debbie’s Locke-Wallace, 11; Jake’s 87. • Debbie’s Weiss Cerretto, 18; Jake’s 6 • Narrative: Debbie confronted Jake many times; Jake denied affairs Debbie hired private detective. Detective discovered J had prostitutes in 6 cities plus one serious affair in Hong Kong. Debbie had moved out day after detective’s report.
PRELIMINARIES (CONT.) • Debbie confronted Jake with photos and emails. Furious. • Debbie and Jake owned jewelry business together. Debbie filed for divorce. • Debbie’s lawyer advised continued coownership of business. • Jake begged for one last try. • Debbie contacted me.
PRELIMINARIES (CONT.) • All of Debbie’s SRH questionnaires extremely negative, with friendship, romance and passion, and shared meaning at 0, and conflict scores all extremely high. • Jake’s scores more moderate with average scores on friendship, but also high conflict scores, especially in Four Horsemen.
TREATMENT PLAN • Explained PTSD to Debbie and Jake • Asked for commitment from Jake to hang in there with Debbie’s questions, and to only tell the truth. • Asked Debbie for commitment to keep discussions of affair in sessions and not between them, with alternatives offered if necessary (VM download). • discussed SRH needs in building Marriage #2.
PHASE 1: ATONEMENT • For 20 sessions over 6 months, Debbie asked questions and voiced feelings. • Reviewed hundreds of e-mails, including those between Jake and his friends prior to their reunions in Las Vegas. • Debbie expressed much pain and anger. • Jake at times got defensive, was gently supported by therapist to not do so.
PHASE 1: ATONEMENT (CONT.) • Debbie’s PTSD was severe at first with nightmares, insomnia, persistent unwanted thoughts and images, numbness altering with explosive feelings, depression, and weight loss. • Gradually it lessened. Taught her progressive relaxation and some visual imagery methods to help with insomnia and anxiety.
PHASE 1: ATONEMENT (CONT.) • Deb’s attorney coached her to demand more financially and materially. • Deb decided to fire the attorney, but not drop the divorce filed paperwork as yet. • Turning Point: J had visual image of himself hanging from street lamp – he interpreted its meaning as his own self-destructiveness via affairs and destroying his marriage.
PHASE 1: ATONEMENT (CONT.) • Jake begged for Debbie’s forgiveness. Asked for Debbie to take him back. • Debbie stated needs regarding time home after dinner, date nights, vacation time. • Debbie also asked for new ring and new commitment. • Jake agreed – they picked out ring together.
PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT • Debbie and Jake worked hard on conflict blueprint. • Debbie presented gridlocked problem of Jake spending 3 hrs. at gym nightly after work. • Debbie stated no point in moving home if Jake still gone every evening. • They did Dream-Within Conflict Intervention.
PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT (CONT.) • • • • •
Jake explained need to body-build, being 5’4” tall. Jake described bullying he endured. Jake also described physical abuse by his father. No tears from Jake, but Debbie cried in hearing details. Debbie described loneliness of dinners alone at night, evenings alone, and emotional distance that resulted. • Debbie detailed earlier loneliness in childhood with isolated abusive parents and being only child, leaving her vulnerable to rejection.
PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT (CONT.) • Debbie and Jake compromised – Jake would go to gym 3 eves/week and once on weekend. • Debbie and Jake would go out to dinner twice week to again connect with one another. • Jake needed Debbie to be less critical of him when she’s unhappy – Criticism shut him down. • Taught Gottman-Rapoport Blueprint.
PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT (CONT.) • Jake needed to do buying trip. • Since on these trips, Jake saw affair partners, Debbie panicked. • Jake agreed to Debbie’s right to call him 24/7. • Jake agreed to nightly stress-reducing conversations with Debbie. • For end of his trip, they agreed to meet in Mexico for week-long vacation.
PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT (CONT.) • Day before Jake left, Debbie slipped into escalated 4-Horsemen. • Emergency session using Aftermath of a Fight or Regrettable Incident Exercise. • Debbie’s escalation explored vis-à-vis PTSD triggers. • Debbie agreed to weekly individual sessions until joined Jake in Mexico.
PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT • Debbie moved back in with Jake post-Mexico. • Debbie and Jake worked on Rituals of Connection, including dinners, end-of-day reunions, date nights, and strengthening sex life. • Debbie and Jake worked on Shared Meaning system, regarding helping out Debbie’s adultaged daughter (from former marriage), who supported Debbie to leave Jake earlier.
PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT (CONT.) • Jake had had difficult relationship with his step-daughter, entering into family when she was 6. • Jake had been very controlling of her. • Jake decided to write step-daughter who now lived in France a letter of apology for his behavior (which daughter knew about). • Daughter responded briefly but lukewarm positive – better than expected.
PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT (CONT.) • Debbie went to visit daughter. • Prepared for trip by practicing how to set boundaries with daughter regarding her renewed relationship with Jake. • Debbie’s trip went so well that daughter and her husband decided to move back to Seattle later in year to avail themselves of better work opportunities.
PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT (CONT.) • Debbie and Jake continued to work on OpenEnded Questions and Shared Meaning system regarding work, future retirement dreams, and daughter and son-in-law’s imminent return to Seattle. • Jake was nervous about their return – strategized how to rebuild relationship with daughter – giving daughter the control over duration and frequency of meetings with him.
PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT (CONT.) • Daughter and son-in-law successfully transitioned back to Seattle. • Family session held where daughter aired anger and hurt at Jake’s past behavior. • Jake did good job at acknowledging, taking responsibility, apologizing, and not getting defensive.
