Four horsemen (Gottman)
Four ways of fighting that predict relationship breakdown: criticism (attacking the person rather than the behaviour), contempt (speaking from superiority), defensiveness (counter-attack or innocent victimhood) and stonewalling (shutting down).
What drives it
Each horseman protects the speaker in conflict: criticism and contempt discharge hurt from a one-up position, defensiveness wards off blame, stonewalling escapes overload. They are visible within seconds, and contempt in particular signals a relationship in serious trouble.
How it shows
Work
Criticism: 'You always overpromise to clients.' Contempt: eye-rolls when the CFO speaks, 'Here we go, the genius has a spreadsheet.' Defensiveness: 'That's not on me, product changed the spec.' Stonewalling: arms folded, laptop open, no answer. A leadership team where contempt is routine has usually lost the ability to settle disagreements on their merits.
Relationships
'You never think of anyone but yourself' (criticism); a sneer, mockery, correcting grammar mid-argument (contempt); 'Well, you're the one who...' (defensiveness); turning to the TV (stonewalling). Gottman's antidotes: a gentle start-up, building appreciation, taking responsibility for your part, and breaks to calm down.
Self
Listen for 'always' and 'never' in your complaints, the urge to correct their facts before hearing their point, and the small pleasure of being cleverer than them. That pleasure is contempt.
What tells it apart
Contempt: Contempt the emotion can stay private; as a horseman it is delivered to the person's face during conflict, through sarcasm, mockery, sneering or eye-rolling.
Negative sentiment override: The horsemen are moves in a particular fight; the override is the filter that makes neutral remarks read as attacks. You see the override when a joke or an offer of help is met with a horseman.
Defensive routines (Argyris): Defensive routines are organisational habits that make problems undiscussable and can be perfectly polite; the horsemen are visible interpersonal attacks or shutdowns inside one exchange.
A test
In a heated discussion, count the horsemen and note whether either person can make or accept a repair; horsemen plus failed repairs is the worrying combination.
Questions to carry
- During the last heated talk, which put-downs, counter-attacks or shutdowns showed up, and what happened to any move to make up?
- When I fight, which do I reach for first: criticism, contempt, defending or shutting down? And what hurt does it cover?
How strong the research is
moderate. Links with relationship distress are well replicated, but the headline divorce-prediction accuracy came from models fitted to the same samples they predicted and has been criticised as overfitting.
Where it comes from
John Gottman, 1994 (What Predicts Divorce?)
On the family tree: John Gottman
Sources
- John M. Gottman, What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes (1994)
- John M. Gottman and Nan Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work (1999)