In this chapter I have tried to cater for two different situations that you might find yourself in.
• The first and more substantial section is intended for couples who are working together to solve their relationship problems. The exercises and the examples are written under the assumption that there is sufficient cooperation between the two of you for you to try the techniques together and hopefully make successful use of them.
• The second part is written for couples where only one of you will be reading the book, and that person will be trying to improve their relationship unilaterally. This is of course a harder proposition. However, there is research evidence that one partner, working along the lines I am describing here, can make significant changes. I will be presenting ideas which are similar to those in the first part, but will need extra care and thought in order for you to put them into practice unilaterally in helping your relationship.
• At the end is a third section looking at how to maintain the improvements achieved.
If you are having difficulties talking together, this may be adding to your distress over the other relationship problems you are experiencing. Many of these problems are made worse by the misunderstandings that arise when the couple try to talk about them. For example, if one partner tries to talk about the relationship, the other may see this as a ploy to gain attention or to be ‘one up’. In others the process is hampered by criticisms and recriminations. There are, however, ways to get around this difficulty, and these can often bring you both into a ‘safe’ kind of discussion about yourselves.
In order to have a safe discussion together, you have to be confident that it will not lead to uncontrollable arguments. Sometimes the only way to do this is to meet with a third person, perhaps a counsellor or mutual friend. However, it can be done by the couple alone, if you observe some fairly simple rules. The first rule is that during the discussion you will maintain a kind of truce, and agree to avoid saying hurtful things. This may be difficult to hold to, but it is still worth trying, because in many cases nothing is worse than the state of war you were in previously, and if a truce is called it may lead to the beginning of peace talks, and ultimately a settlement.
To avoid things getting out of control, we have found in our couple therapy clinic that it helps to set a time limit. Couples would be asked to set a timer at the beginning of their talk; in the kitchen this might be a cooking timer, or they might use an alarm clock or stopwatch. For your first ‘timed’ discussion you should choose a short time, such as ten minutes. In fact, you could set the timer twice at five-minute intervals, with each of you taking five minutes to have your say. After the ten minutes, you should then spend some time in separate rooms without talking. You should also agree not to talk about ‘us’ until the next agreed timed-discussion session.
Both partners should come to the first session with a written list of one or two issues they want to discuss, and you should as far as possible stick to these topics in the talk. Your two lists may of course be very different from each other, and it may be that there will have to be a negotiation about which topic can be discussed first. The ten minutes should be divided equally between you (with a half-time changeover) and it may be sensible for you to take turns as to who speaks first session by session, with Partner A starting on the first day and Partner B on the second, so that one partner does not dominate the agenda.
If the partners are very unequal in their conversational skills, there is a risk that the quieter partner will become swamped by the fluency of the other one, and begin to feel resentment. In this case you should be even more careful about dividing the time evenly, and the more fluent partner should be careful to leave pauses for the other to reply. The quieter partner too should be aware of the risk of letting the other one do all the talking.
It is vital in the discussion period to try to maintain the truce which has been called, at least as long as the discussion lasts. One way to reduce the risk of breaking the truce is to try to empathize with your partner – that is, to put yourself into their mind and understand where they are coming from. If the truce cannot be maintained, and you do begin to argue, you should probably end the session then and plan to have another one to replace it. However, an argument in itself may not be a disaster, if you can manage it without losing control. In Chapter 6 I will be giving you some ideas about how to have a good argument and end it on a friendly basis, perhaps by ‘agreeing to differ’. If in the early stages you can’t manage this, and you have to bring an argumentative session to a premature ending, you might try to finish by holding each other in an affectionate way, even though you may not be feeling like it (as long as you are not so angry that you risk coming to blows by getting close). Either way, the session should end, and you should agree to continue it later, when the anger has settled.
Depending upon how well the session has gone, you may decide to have another similar discussion the next day, or after two days, or perhaps delay the repeat discussion for a week or so. Whichever interval you decide on, it must be a joint decision. It may be necessary to have a supplementary discussion about when to have the next discussion, but this should not go on too long, otherwise it will become an argument in itself.
You will gradually become better at talking without argument or resentment, and the plan will be to extend the time of the sessions up to 20 minutes. They could also be held more frequently, such as moving gradually from weekly to daily. For many couples who have relationship problems a daily talk session may be beneficial, as it helps to unburden them from resentments that would otherwise not be mentioned and build up into major irritations. The key is always to keep the discussions friendly and constructive, with a fairly equal sharing of the time between you. For some couples who become very successful at the discussions, there may be no need to set aside times for them, and they will happen automatically because you want to talk.
Exercise: Setting up a talk session
• Plan a time when you are not likely to be disturbed. You will need maybe ten minutes if this is your first talk session, but it would be better to leave a bit of leeway after the session.
• Turn off any music, radio or television, and put the phone on ‘answer’.
• Set a kitchen timer, alarm or stopwatch for ten minutes from the start (or two five-minute periods to give you a changeover time).
• You should both come with a written agenda for one or two things you would like to talk about.
• Try to have an agreement that you will not say hurtful things during the ten minutes.
• Divide the time equally between you.
• Decide who will start with their agenda items.
• Switch over to the other person after five minutes.
• If arguments begin, you could try to end by ‘agreeing to differ’ at the ten minute deadline, or if they are getting out of hand, you could just stop the session and plan to meet at another time.
• In later sessions you could use communication training or negotiation as the main agenda (see below).
• In later sessions you could extend the time, if you both agree that it is safe to do so, up to 20 minutes at the most.
This is something which many couples manage without effort. However, those with relationship problems often communicate in a way that makes the problems worse, and it is for them that the next section may be helpful.
It’s very easy to get into a mindset which assumes that you are a victim and that your partner is unreasonable. It will certainly lead to continued conflict if both of you feel the same about each other. No one, however, has a monopoly on the truth, and there is always room for differences of opinion. The consequence of this idea is to accept that there are two ways of seeing every problem, and you should always try to give your partner the benefit of the doubt. Your partner may also have sensitivities that you haven’t noticed, and should be respecting. Ultimately the only person you can change is yourself. Good advice, teaching or talking to by you is not a very effective way to achieve change in your partner. The best way to solve relationship difficulties is to change yourself, and when you behave differently your partner will certainly find it difficult not to change their behaviour too.
One really important thing to do is to become more tolerant. This means that it is all right to have different opinions, and for you to ‘agree to differ’ if your partner can’t be persuaded that you are right. It also means that there is no shame in the idea of compromising. It is often more fruitful in a relationship for the partners to give up an argument (by agreeing to differ) than to go on until one partner wins or they abandon the argument through exhaustion.
The general principles of good communication are quite simple, but need to be spelled out. It is important when communicating to say clearly what you mean. You should also show your partner that you understand what they are trying to say (reflective listening) and that you understand their feelings (empathy). It is important to be able to make supportive comments to the partner. It is also part of good communication to have the skills of problem solving.
This is in many ways the direct opposite of good communication. In poor communication the partners give inconsistent messages to each other, and they use personal ‘put-downs’ which seem to say that the partner is not just wrong but also an idiot. They may sometimes say one thing but mean something quite different, and the hidden meaning may come out in their tone of voice. They say non-supportive things, they fail to empathize with each other and they have poor problem-solving skills. You will probably have noticed that there are quite a few high-risk communications (for example arguments, teasing, joking, etc.) which don’t come into my definition of poor communication. These are all right in themselves, although you take a calculated risk by doing them. Here I am dealing just with the technical aspects of communication, and what can be done to improve it for the couple. In other parts of this chapter, and in Chapter 6, I will try to cover the areas not covered by communication training as such.
In Chapter 2 I spelled out some of the general rules of communication, and I will summarize them here. They are:
• Be brief and simple in what you say
• Leave gaps for your partner to contribute
• Be positive and warm
• If you say something negative, end the sentence with a positive (avoiding the ‘sting in the tail’)
• Be specific (say what you mean clearly)
• If you don’t like something your partner does, it’s better to suggest an alternative way of doing it
• Ration discussion of past issues, and concentrate on the present and future
• Stick to the topic and don’t drift off into other areas
• If you are talking about your partner, try not to ‘mind-read’
• Speak as much as possible from the ‘I’ position (don’t start critical comments with ‘you’) – see below.
Case example
This couple are in their fifties, both in their second marriage. Brenda is upset because she feels that her husband Claude is insensitive to her feelings. She actually spends much time criticizing him and his insensitivity. He withdraws into a shell (see Chapter 4) and gives defensive answers to her comments. A particular incident comes up again and again, in which some years before he regularly spent time conversing with an ex-lover while he was going out with Brenda. He said in reply, ‘I realize that you were upset when this happened, but I had no intention of hurting you’ (he was ending with a defensive comment). She found this unsatisfactory, because she still felt that he was dismissing her distress over the episode. I asked him to put the same sentence the other way around, as ‘I had no intention of hurting you, but I realize that you were upset when this happened’ (he was ending this time with a sympathetic comment). Brenda found this much more acceptable, even though the same words were being used, because the last part of what he said recognized her distress and indicated that he was taking her more seriously. This is a good example of a ‘sting-in-tail’ message which has been re-worded to make it more positive at the end, and thereby more acceptable. It also shows Claude’s increasing awareness of Brenda’s sensitivities (see below).
In communicating, it is almost always true that if you tread on the other person’s sensitivities you will get a negative reaction. This may take the form of an argument or a protest, but it may also be hidden resentment or sadness. It is actually very important in a relationship, especially one that is fairly new, to be self-aware and to be aware of your partner’s sensitivities. Some new couples feel that ‘love’ will sort out all these problems for them, but they eventually have to work at good communication. A couple who are communicating well will discuss the misunderstandings they have and learn from them.
Couples who have developed a friendly, teasing relationship may get away with ‘offending’ each other as part of that process, and it can be good fun for both partners. They do, however, always run a slight risk that they may go too far and cause a real hurt unintentionally. There is a related risk that some people take as the result of a wish to be honest. They say exactly what they feel, regardless of the partner’s feelings. While this may be safe enough in the usual run of things, it may cause serious communication problems when the couple are already in difficulties. So a good policy is to think before you speak, and to respect your partner’s sensitivities in what you decide to say. Be economical with your honesty.
This is something that comes easily to some couples, and, as I said in Chapter 3, it generally comes more easily to women than to men. It is an indication of a good relationship if the two partners can tune in to each other’s feelings without difficulty, and be affected by the same kind of situation. To put it more simply, the couple that can laugh at the same things, and cry together about the same things, are likely to have a good and lasting relationship.
It is not easy to learn to tune in to each other’s feelings, but one simple exercise is to sit down, perhaps with a timer going, as in the ‘talk’ exercise, and find out how your partner felt about a recent incident, or a recent film or programme that you have both watched. It should always be done in a spirit of respect, with no criticism if the partner has a different feeling from your own. The advantage of timing the discussion is that it leaves less time for misunderstandings, which might then lead to arguments. It also means that you are not going to feel that it is a failure if you haven’t reached a full understanding of each other’s feelings at the end, because there will always be another timed session to follow up your differences. The aim of the exercise is to lead to a greater understanding of the partner, and hopefully a greater degree of tolerance of their feelings and of any differences between them and your own.
Empathy is a word which is sometimes misunderstood. It isn’t necessarily the same as being sympathetic, although they often go together. It really refers to the ability to put yourself in someone else’s place and understand how they are feeling. You must be able to feel empathy before you can show it, but it is more difficult to show it than to feel it. One way of showing empathy is just to repeat what the other person has said in another form of words. For example, if they have just said ‘I feel upset and guilty about what I did at the party’, you might say ‘Yes, I can understand that you are feeling upset, it must be quite painful.’ (Note that the empathetic comment doesn’t include the word ‘guilty’, because the first partner might conclude that you think they should feel guilty!) The idea, as above, is to facilitate a continued conversation without necessarily turning yourself into a therapist. It is also an invitation to your partner to show empathy to you in return. Another way to get in touch with the other’s feelings is by ‘reversed role-play’ (see the exercise in Chapter 6).
As I have said, empathy is quite difficult to show, and it may sometimes spill over into ‘mind-reading’, which is really undesirable. It is too easy for one partner to think that they know better than the other one what is in the other one’s mind. ‘You say you are trying to help but I know that you really want to make me feel bad’ is a fairly common thing to say, especially during an argument. If you are communicating well you should always listen to the other person’s explanation of their feelings and respect what they say. I hate to have to say this, but people who have had psychotherapy are especially prone to mind-reading, usually because they believe that they have a better understanding of human behaviour than the other partner, and may also be using this ‘interpretative’ skill as a way of getting ‘one up’. As I mentioned before, it is better to remain ‘humble’ and rely on the other partner to explain how they are feeling rather than indulging in ‘mind-reading’.
Case example
James (52) and his wife Christine (49) had been married for 27 years, and he had suffered from various depressive and phobic symptoms. She had just begun psychotherapy training, and came with him to the first session saying that she felt she had been ‘carrying’ his depression for 20 years. By this she was implying that he had been projecting his depression onto her unconsciously, and that she had been protecting him from all the stresses that he had avoided through being ‘ill’. We discussed this, and he expressed his resentment at being told what was in his mind. It seemed better to leave her interpretation to one side while we worked on her resentment of his behaviour and his wish for more independence. In therapy they achieved a much better balance in their relationship, with her asserting a new independence from him and him taking much more responsibility for his own stressful episodes in life. The ‘mind-reading’ with which she started the first session did not feature largely in the subsequent therapy.
This needs a bit of explanation. It is very easy in a relationship to start most of the things you say with ‘You’: for example ‘You never take time to listen to me’ or ‘You make me angry’. It is much safer, even if perhaps a little boring, to put these ideas across in another way, starting with ‘I’. So the first comment might translate as ‘I would like you to try to listen more’ (note also the positive and future tone of this re-phrase), and the second as ‘I get upset sometimes, and it is often over something you have done’. The main advantage of starting with ‘I’ is that your partner can respond to the ideas expressed rather than simply retaliate and get angry in return. It leads to the possibility of dialogue rather than a bitter argument.
It is all too easy in a discussion to raise other issues which are not part of what is being discussed. Often the new topic is related to the one being discussed, but is one which the person who changed the subject feels more strongly about, or feels that they have a better chance of arguing successfully. The problem is that the other partner, the one who wanted to continue talking about the original topic, may feel aggrieved about being cut short, and this resentment will prevent a good discussion from continuing. The discussion about the original topic should ideally continue until both partners are satisfied that it has been resolved, or the timer signals the end of the discussion.
Again, it is very easy to become concerned with winning the argument, or with reaching a conclusion to the discussion. This is not the best approach, because such a conclusion is usually at the expense of one partner, who will feel defeated or at least misunderstood. It is much better to say at the end: ‘We’ll go on with the discussion another time’, or to say: ‘We will never agree, but I respect your right to have your own opinion.’ What is more important is to remain flexible and to keep as many possibilities open as you can. For example, you should never use the word ‘never’! Try to leave things as vague as you can at the end of any discussion. The priority is not to win the battle but to keep the relationship going.
Sometimes couples go on arguing until one wins or proves their point. The fact that they are in a competition means that neither of them can give in without losing face. However, if one partner deliberately decides to give in, and makes it clear that they are doing so, the other partner is faced with a dilemma. He/she can either go on with the argument and insist on winning, probably eventually feeling guilty for having done so, or both partners can join together and play the cooperative game. It is often better for both to find a way of getting out of the argument rather than allowing it to go on unabated.
This is of course easier said than done, but it is still worth the effort. Very few things in life are one person’s fault exclusively. In relationships there is always a long series of interactions leading up to a crisis, and each partner has to a greater or lesser extent contributed to the situation (see under systemic theories in Chapter 2). The person who is being blamed in an argument will usually feel resentful about that, and needs to have a way of escaping from the argument without being humiliated. It requires an act of saintliness on the part of the other partner to avoid casting the blame if they feel it is deserved, but that is actually probably the best chance for an improvement in the general relationship. One possible way of dealing with the problem is to outlaw all discussion of blame and to proceed with the discussion as far as possible without criticizing.
A good and constructive discussion will usually avoid too many recriminations, and a good way to avoid these is to focus mainly on what you are doing in the ‘here and now’ or on your plans for the immediate future. It is easier to avoid blame if you can keep away from the past in your discussions. If you are able to do so, concentrate on planning what you can do about the problems rather than trying to establish the causes of them.
Exercise: Communication Training
• Set up the timed discussion as in the exercise on page 99 (ten minutes without interruption)
• Decide what you want to talk about (it might be a recent TV programme, a book or a magazine article that one or both of you has read)
• Speak from the ‘I’ position; in other words start your sentences with ‘I’
• Speak in short sentences and leave a gap for your partner to respond
• Show that you understand where your partner is coming from (empathize)
• Respect your partner’s sensitivities
• Try to end everything you say with a positive comment
• Keep to the topic under discussion
• Try not to blame each other
• Avoid making summing up or closing remarks; leave issues open
• Don’t be afraid to lose an argument (as a tactic)
• If your views are at odds with your partner’s, ‘agree to differ’
Good communication is only half the battle when it comes to solving your relationship problems. The other half is negotiation, and this is the technique which seems to be getting the best results in research work on couple therapy. It obviously helps your negotiation if you are also communicating well when you do it, and the same principles that I have been outlining in the last section apply equally to the process of negotiating. Be specific, keep to the point, avoid closure, remain flexible, don’t mind-read and don’t blame. However, there are some more things to remember when it comes to negotiating, and the next section will deal with some of these.
As with the process of communication, the first principle of negotiation is to work on the future rather than the past. All complaints are by definition placed in the past, and the first thing to do is to change that by converting them into requests or wishes. For example, if a woman says to her partner ‘I hate you coming in so late from work’, this could be put the other way around as ‘I would like you to be home earlier from work.’ I hope that it will be clear to you that the second, positive, future form of words is much more likely to get a positive response from her partner than the first one. Almost all complaints can be re-worded in this way, giving the partner the possibility of falling in with the request, rather than arguing or saying ‘You are always complaining.’
The next skill that is necessary in trying to negotiate is to make the request more specific. For example, if you say to your partner ‘I would like you to be more positive to me’, that is a bit difficult for him/her to interpret. It isn’t clear where, when or how you want that more positive response. It has to be more specific. For example, if you say ‘I would be much happier if you would back me up when we are in George’s company’, this is more something that your partner can clearly understand, relate to and do for you.
Your request may be a lot more practical than that. It may be that you want to say ‘I want you to be more helpful around the house.’ Again this is too general, and it would be better to say ‘I would really like you to help with the vacuuming.’ The more specific a request is, the easier it is to understand and to act on, and the easier it is to be sure whether it has been carried out when you come to assess how the new regime is going.
The previous two examples are both quite good from this angle. They are both ‘future orientated’, and therefore possible to be part of a negotiation. The alternative is to say ‘I wish you hadn’t been so unsupportive to me when we met with George the other week.’ This is quite specific, but it is in the form of a complaint, not a request. There is nothing that your partner can do about it, because it is already history. All he/she can do is apologize and promise to try to do better the next time you meet with George. Similarly the question of doing the vacuuming is much less easy to relate to if you simply say that ‘You never help me with this task.’ Again, if you put it in the form of a complaint, all that a cooperative partner can do is promise to do better. The trouble with this is that promises like that are easily made and then broken. A request for future help or support is more easily responded to and more easily monitored by you.
The question of doing the vacuuming and supporting you in front of George are still requests, and now need to be put in the form of tasks. Ideally these should specify when, where and how they should be carried out. You may have a weekly routine of house tidying, and the vacuuming could be slotted into this at a time which is convenient to both partners. Similarly the meetings with George probably happen at predictable times, and the tasks can be limited to those times. You may even want to specify the issues you want support on, such as when, for example, George ridicules your political beliefs or your taste in music.
This is one of the most important aspects of negotiation. The partners should feel at the end of a negotiation session that they have both had their say in making requests and in setting tasks. Ideally there should be one, or at the most two, tasks for each partner in operation at any one time, and the number of tasks should be equal between them. Thus the woman may request that the man looks after their baby while she goes out with her friends, while the man may request that the woman lets him go out to the bar with his friends. If this sort of bargain is struck, the number of times per week that each task is to be carried out should be specified, and ideally this should be about equal for both partners.
It is not easy to get into this kind of agreement the first time that you try, and there may be a fair number of trials before you get it right. However, it is usually well worth trying something like this in order to get away from the repetitive struggles that people get into.
Before settling on the tasks to be done by both partners, it is important to make sure that both of you agree that they are practicable and fair. This will require all your negotiating skills, and it is not always possible to get it right the first time. It may require you both to make compromises, for example to settle on fewer nights going out than you would ideally like, or making a different division of household chores. The key consideration is to be practicable, and that may mean one partner at first making a few concessions in order to get the process going.
It is also a good idea to set tasks which are within the daily life that you have as a couple. There is little point in setting up plans to have an expensive vacation or an extension on the house as part of your exchange of positive behaviour. It is much safer to settle on things such as weeding the garden, looking after children or doing the weekly shopping, since these can be repeated on a weekly or daily basis and you can meet frequently to discuss progress on them.
After a certain time (maybe a week) it is useful to have a meeting to check whether both partners have been carrying out their side of the reciprocal arrangements. This should ideally be part of the regular communication meetings, maybe on a weekly basis. It is not a disaster if (as usually happens) all the tasks have not been completed. What we are looking for is an improvement in the previous situation, and some indication that the relationship has improved in terms of mutual satisfaction. It would be better for you to have both written down a note of the evenings when you were able to go out, and whether both of you have kept your side of the bargain. Otherwise there is a risk that you will argue over who did or didn’t do what.
It is almost certainly going to be necessary to revise the reciprocal tasks at this weekly meeting, and if it has been impracticable to do some of them it may be necessary to make the difficult ones easier. Again, it may be necessary to make a slightly uneven division in order to keep the process going forward. If there has been a very uneven division of labour for months or years, it may be difficult to change this overnight, and the best you can hope for at this stage is to get something reciprocal in place without worrying whether it is completely fair. The new arrangement is, in any case, likely to be an improvement on what went before, as at least the new arrangements are based on some discussion rather than just having arisen by long-standing habit.
Case example
Richard (39) and Marion (41) have a five-year old-daughter, Amy, who is quite lively. They are both sports professionals, and Richard has a very busy schedule, while Marion works only halftime. They have a troubled marriage, in which Marion complains about Richard’s time away from home, and his habit of bringing unexpected guests home late in the evening. He complains that she keeps nagging him about looking after Amy, reminding him that Amy needs her teeth to be checked and her clothes ready to go to school. They also have a rather inactive sex life, which upsets Richard.
In negotiation they agreed that he was capable of looking after Amy without constant reminders, and she would stop this. He also agreed to let her know about any plans for visitors before the visit happened, and said that he would restrict the frequency of these.
Their communication was sometimes very bitter, for example when he said ‘I don’t love you, I don’t even like you’, and she said ‘You don’t care for Amy and me, you just go off and do your own thing.’ They managed to moderate the words in these communications, and became more polite and friendly in their dealings.
The sexual relationship remained rather inactive, because Richard was sensitive to rejection and did not want to initiate, while Marion found it almost impossible to make the first move. They agreed that they would try to get to bed at the same time, and that she would ‘roll over’ to his side so that if he wanted to initiate she would be available and would give him a more positive response. Their sex life increased considerably after this.
This case example shows negotiation, communication training and the change in bedtime routines to improve the couple’s sexual and general relationship.
This technique is not going to change the whole relationship immediately, but it is likely to make some worthwhile improvements, and it is always better to take note of the small improvements that have taken place rather than concentrate on all the remaining difficulties. Improvements are built on small steps, and you need to appreciate the small changes that your partner may have made if there is to be a chance that you will both be able to get out of the vicious circle of complaints that began the problems.
It is very easy to get into negative and generalized patterns of thought, for example assuming that one setback in the process of self-help means that the whole thing has been a waste of time, and there is no hope for the relationship. You may begin to blame your partner’s personality, or their family of origin, or you may think they are mentally ill and need help. Try to avoid this kind of negative thinking. It may be helpful to write down some of the minor improvements that have been achieved, in order to get away from these negative patterns of thinking and to concentrate on the achievements that have been made.
Exercise: Negotiation
• Set up the timed discussion with no distractions, as in the talk exercise on page 99 (ten minutes to begin with)
• You need to communicate well, as in the communication exercise on page 108
• Each partner should come with one specific complaint
• The complaint should be about everyday life together
• Partner A states their complaint in the form of a positive wish (for the immediate future)
• The wish is translated into a task for Partner B to carry out (specifying where, when, how and how often to do it)
• The task is set up, preferably in writing, by you both
• You do the same with Partner B’s complaint, converting it into a wish and then a task
• You end the session with one written task each
• At the next session (next week, next day or anything in between) you monitor how the tasks have gone
• Don’t expect both to achieve equal success, just note whether things are in any way improved from the previous situation
• Don’t rest on your laurels; you will need to continue with the process for a number of weeks, and you won’t achieve a complete ‘cure’, but rather a changed way of treating each other for the future
This brings me to the second part of this chapter, in which I try to help you to work on your relationship even if you cannot persuade your partner to cooperate. There may be all sorts of reasons why this is happening, but the most common might be that your uncooperative partner feels that there is not really a problem, and puts your discontent down to overreaction or neurosis. In this case there is still a lot to be said for trying to improve the relationship, and this can to some extent be done by one partner acting alone.
The methods used by behavioural psychologists, based on the work of B.F. Skinner, are well tried in all sorts of situations, and can be applied to a partner in a relationship very effectively. Some of you may have seen the series Little Angels on BBC television. Here the psychologists and psychotherapists use behavioural principles to help parents to control the behaviour of very unruly and disruptive young children. The ideas are the same as the ones that I described in Chapter 2 see pages 32–33, namely that if you reward behaviour (in this case good behaviour) it is more likely to be repeated. The best way to increase the likelihood of a certain type of behaviour is to keep giving the child attention (as a reward) while he/she is being ‘good’, while the best way to eradicate ‘bad’ behaviour is to ignore the child when it occurs (extinction, see page 32). The main message from this body of work is that if you want someone to do something, the best way is to reward him/her after they have done it. This makes them feel more positive about doing it again and makes it more likely that they will repeat the behaviour. These methods are just as effective with adults.
Reward, sometimes called positive reinforcement, is the most reliable way of getting someone to change their behaviour (see Chapter 2). Supposing your partner is always coming in late from work, and you have become rather irritated about it, you have probably tried complaining without making any difference to the behaviour. A more effective way to alter the lateness might be to notice when he/she comes in a bit earlier and say how pleased you are about it. If you can be consistent about this praise, if you can produce some other reward such as a hug or a treat, and if you can in addition be particularly friendly and positive towards your partner on those nights, the message will get across. If your partner is very late, however, you should be rather distant and quiet, taking little notice of them for a period of time (perhaps about half an hour) before you revert to your usual behaviour. If you then monitor the nightly time of arrival, you should find that there is a reduction in the lateness.
The paradoxical thing is that complaining about something like lateness is likely to act as a reward: your partner is given attention (which might take the form of a complaint) on arrival, and there is no special privilege resulting from being on time. If, however, you can ignore your partner for a while after they arrive late, this is a form of extinction (see page 32), which is likely to result in a reduction of the behaviour, especially if associated with special attention (see the previous paragraph) if the person is punctual. This is something that you will have to work on by trial and error, and it may not be clear at first that it is having any effect. However, if you make a chart of how late your partner is day by day it may then become clear that you are making progress.
This too is a tall order, but if you try to be a good communicator (see above) you will probably find that your partner changes his/her style of communication in return. He/she will find it difficult to oppose you, to have an argument or to cause tension, if you decide to respond in a new and different way for example by agreeing with him/her. What it takes more than anything is for you to show consistency, and if you can be persistent in using all the skills I have described in the first part of this chapter, you will find that, even if you are working alone to improve the situation, your relationship can’t be quite the same as it was before.
Usually it is best to be open with your partner even if they are uncooperative, and if you explain the way you are trying to work, it may be that you will persuade them to work with you. However, it is still possible to manage changes in communication without their cooperation, and the bottom line is that if you want to change things badly enough you will be able to do it.
Again this is a difficult one, but you have to see the negotiation as a way of altering the way that the two of you interact. If you are consistent in keeping to your plans, you may be able to see a difference in the relationship as your partner realizes that the new arrangements have some benefit for them also. For example, if your partner complains that you never clear up your papers, you could say that you will clear them up conscientiously if he/she agrees to tidy the bedroom. You continue to clear up your papers and if there is any improvement in the state of the bedroom, however slight, you praise him/her for it. The relationship is likely to be less tense because of the increase in effective cooperation, even though your partner may say that he/she hasn’t changed. Also, your morale will be improved because you are doing something active to improve the relationship, rather than just accepting that there is nothing you can do. If small changes are noticed you will feel that there has been some justification for the work.
(The next two sections are relevant whether you are working together or unilaterally.)
When you have made some worthwhile improvements in your relationship, it is tempting to rest on your laurels and assume that it will now be all right, or to think that love has come back and that there is no need to worry any more. However much things have improved, you are still the same people, with the same basic ways of relating, and things could easily go wrong again if you are not vigilant.
These should take a similar form to the meetings you had earlier, with both of you coming with an agenda and dividing the time between you. You might also use the timer that you used before, depending on whether you think you still need a limit to the time for discussion.
One of the hardest things for partners to do in this situation is to recognize what they themselves have done to improve the relationship. It is much easier to point out how your partner has changed, but that is not a very good basis for this kind of meeting, because it puts you once again in the role of the ex-victim, and your partner in the role of the ex-persecutor. The most important thing to remember is, as I mentioned above, that the only person you can really change is yourself. If a change has happened, look at the way you yourself have contributed to that change. Perhaps you should ask your partner to tell you how they think you have changed, while you can tell them how you think they have changed. But the ultimate take-home message is that, whatever you have done to improve the situation, you should continue doing it, as indeed your partner should continue doing whatever they have been doing to improve things.
This is another way of saying the same thing. But it puts it even more pointedly, because it emphasizes that you have indeed done something yourself to improve things, and that you have the power to change them for better or for worse. If you think about this, it puts you in a position of both power and responsibility. It means that you accept that you may have contributed to the previous problems, and to the improvements, and that you are not necessarily just the victim of your partner’s whims and unpredictable behaviour.
Things may, of course, go wrong even after a successful use of the techniques outlined here, but this is not the end of the world, or even the end of the story. You might decide to go back to the beginning of the chapter, try the exercises of communication and negotiation as before, and with the knowledge of how they went wrong you may be able to learn from your experience and be more successful. The key thing to remember is to persevere and to continue to try to control the problems you are faced with on a daily basis. As I mentioned in Chapter 1, there is one basic rule for sustaining a long-term relationship, and that is to maintain toleration and patience, and to give your partner the benefit of the doubt. If you can commit yourselves to that rule, the rest will come more easily, both in the short term, while you are working on the problem, and in the longer term when both of you may forget the techniques you have been using.
There are two options open to you in this event. Either you can move to Chapter 6, which takes a broader look at the problems and gives more wide-ranging suggestions as to solving them using a ‘systemic’ approach; or alternatively you may decide that the ‘do-it-yourself’ way is not going to be successful, and seek professional help from a counsellor or therapist (see the list in the appendix).
• The only person you can really change is yourself, and by changing your own behaviour you will be able to alter your partner’s behaviour.
• It is very important, though often difficult, to talk together if you have problems.
• The safest way to do this is to call a truce and set up ten-minute discussion sessions.
• You should prepare a script with two points each to talk about.
• You should divide the time equally between you.
• If arguments happen you could either try to let them run on and end by ‘agreeing to differ’ or stop the session and plan another one in a day or two.
• The principles of good communication are to be brief, positive, specific, show empathy and be sensitive to your partner’s feelings.
• These principles can be included in your timed talk sessions.
• Negotiation depends on converting complaints to wishes, and wishes to tasks. The tasks should be practicable and roughly equal between you, and they may be monitored week by week.
• If you are working as an individual to help your relationship problems, you should become a good behaviourally orientated therapist and reward the behaviour you want to encourage, while ignoring that which you want your partner to stop.
• These methods do not provide a cure for your problems, but should give you a new way of controlling them.