John Gottman, in his work with married couples, found that couples who argue more often are not worse off (e.g. higher risk of separation) than couples who do not argue. However, he did find that the way couples approach conflict discussions (and how they initiate “repair”) appears, in his research, to be associated with the stability and health of the relationship. It’s worth bearing in mind that conflict discussions are inevitable, and indeed necessary, for restoring balance and equilibrium to the relationship and making sure you stay connected. A large portion of the Gottman Method focuses on how couples might approach conflict in a healthy and softened way, to meet each partner’s relationship needs.
One of Gottman’s first major research findings was that certain patterns or “types” of communication were, in his studies, particularly associated with poorer relationship outcomes. He found that four communication styles – criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling and contempt – were linked in his research to higher rates of separation among the couples he studied. Due to his flair for the dramatic, he termed these communication styles “The Four Horsemen” – after The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (New Testament) – to highlight their destructive nature. These communication patterns can appear within multiple situational contexts; however, this particular article focuses on the presence of the first three Horsemen (Criticism, Defensiveness and Stonewalling) forming an escalation cycle that can result in heated and destructive arguments.
An escalation cycle refers to a series of interconnecting factors which reinforce and magnify each other over a relatively short period of time. As we will see, this cycle is not merely verbal – it involves an emotional and physical escalation in the body which can affect our ability to think and communicate clearly. Gottman refers to this state as “flooding”: feeling emotionally overwhelmed and unable to process clearly. He calls the body’s physical escalation response “diffuse physiological arousal” – a term describing activation of the body’s fight, flight and freeze (anxiety) response. When this happens, research suggests there are a series of changes in the body and brain which can limit a person’s capacity to listen, interpret, communicate, regulate, take perspective and problem-solve.
A definition of the Four Horsemen
· Criticism – focusing on a particular aspect or flaw in your partner rather than on the issue of concern.
· Defensiveness – a response to criticism or perceived criticism (a critical distinction) whereby the individual denies responsibility, plays the innocent victim, and/or launches a counter-attack (again, a critical factor in the escalation cycle).
· Stonewalling – when a member of the couple (Gottman’s research found this was more common among men) limits their verbal responses to their partner and closes down – often including physically, in body language and eye contact – but does not leave the argument. This appears to function as a coping mechanism some individuals engage in an attempt to calm down and reverse the state of flooding described above. Somewhat counterintuitively, stonewalling does not tend to achieve this. Because it withdraws the very engagement the other partner is seeking, it can intensify their partner’s pursuit – more volume, more urgency, more criticism – which in turn can deepen the stonewaller’s retreat. Both partners, in this pattern, appear to be trying to regulate the same underlying state through opposite and often incompatible strategies.
How the cycle escalates
What makes criticism, defensiveness and stonewalling significant is not that they occur in isolation, but that they can interlock. Criticism (framing a concern as a character flaw – “you always”, “you never”, “what’s wrong with you”) may be experienced by the nervous system as an attack rather than as information about an unmet need. This can trigger defensiveness – deflecting, counter-blaming, or playing the victim – which often functions, in effect, as a rejection of the initial complaint. The criticising partner may then feel unheard, and can escalate further: louder, sharper, more global in language. At some point in this exchange, one or both partners may cross a physiological threshold – Gottman’s diffuse physiological arousal – at which point flexible, rational thinking can become genuinely difficult, not simply unwilling. Heart rate rises, attention narrows, and the body’s threat-response systems can begin to dominate over the systems involved in empathy, perspective-taking and problem-solving.
It’s often at this point that stonewalling appears – not as indifference, but as an overwhelmed nervous system attempting to shut the situation down. Because withdrawal can be experienced by the pursuing partner as disengagement or contempt, it may provoke further pursuit, which can further flood the withdrawing partner, and so on. Within a matter of minutes, a couple can move from a legitimate and solvable concern to a state in which neither partner has ready access to the kind of listening or reflection the conversation actually needs. This is the escalation cycle: not a single mistake, but a self-reinforcing loop between communication pattern and physiological state, each amplifying the other.
Interrupting the cycle
One implication of this research is that de-escalation may not be primarily a communication skill – it may be, at least in part, a physiological one. Gottman’s research suggests that once heart rate rises meaningfully above resting levels, attempts to keep talking productively become less likely to succeed, regardless of either partner’s communication skill. Taking a break of around twenty minutes or more is a strategy his research associates with allowing physiological calm to return before a conversation is re-entered.
Couples who navigate conflict well are not necessarily those who avoid these patterns altogether – most couples encounter some version of them at times – but those who develop a capacity to notice escalation early and initiate repair: a softened start-up, a break when flooding sets in, an acknowledgment of the other’s experience, or simply naming what’s happening (“I think we’re both getting flooded – can we pause and come back to this?”). Gottman’s research identifies repair attempts – often small and imperfect – and a partner’s willingness to accept them, as one of several factors associated with longer-term relationship stability in the couples he studied.
Working with this in practice
Recognising your own pattern within this cycle – whether you tend toward pursuit and criticism, defensiveness, or withdrawal – can be a useful first step in approaching it differently. Some couples find that working with a therapist familiar with the Gottman Method and related approaches (including Emotionally Focused Therapy and trauma-informed, nervous-system-based approaches) provides additional structure and support for identifying these patterns as they occur and exploring different ways of approaching conflict together.
If this is something you’d like support with, E-Therapy Australia offers couples therapy sessions via telehealth, drawing on the Gottman Method alongside EFT and trauma-informed approaches. You can find out more about the process, or make an enquiry, on the couples therapy page of this site.