THE FAMILY
10.1177/1066480704264350
Eckstein
/ THREE
JOURNAL:
RELATIONSHIP
COUNSELING
RENEW
AND
AL ACTIVITIES
THERAPY FOR COUPLES ANDAMILIES
F
/ October 2004
For Couples and Families
The “A’s and H’s” of Healthy
and Unhealthy Relationships:
Three Relationship Renewal Activities
Daniel Eckstein
Eastern Mediterranean University
This article consists of three different activities that couples can
complete together: Relationships are viewed contrasting the metaphor of the letter A with the letter H, eight healthy characteristics of
couples by the Timberlawn Group are presented, and seven principles of marriage according to Gottman and Silver are included.
Couples are invited to complete questions based on the concepts and
discuss them with their partner.
Keywords:
relationship renewal; couple’s questionnaire
C
onsider the following analogy involving the letter A
contrasted with the letter H. Tony Reilley, a former consulting colleague, described the insights he gained from marital counseling through three significant marital partner
relationships.
A
His first two partnerships he described as being the
letter A. Consider the three lines composing the letter—one straight line on the left, a leaning line on
the right connected at the top, and lastly, the crossbar between
them. In his first marriage, his wife “leaned” heavily against
him. The connecting crossbar (their relationship), although
strong, bore so much it eventually collapsed from the shear
continuous pressure on it. With this weight, the relationship
did not work out. In his second relationship, although he liked
rescuing the “wounded bird” (his hurt partner); there was no
possibility for long-term growth together.
H
His third relationship he contrasted with the letter
H. This consisted of two strong independent lines,
but the connecting crossbar line showed their interdependence was not as strong. Thus, in their personal
strength, there was less power between them due to more
“upright parallel” lines.
Now, reflect on this model both for current and past relationships. Specifically, who leaned on whom and how? How
have/can you make an A into an H?
The H metaphor can be restated to mean that each individual in a relationship leading to marriage is to be of equal
strength as a foundation of this new family unit. Pillars will
not support a building unless they are firmly anchored, placed
in parallel positions, and bear equal weight.
Eckstein, Leventhal, Bentley, and Kelley (1999) used the
creative metaphor “relationship as a three-legged sack race”
as another way of contrasting the following three different
attachment styles, using a country-fair, couples’ burlap sack
race as representative attachment styles between couples.
“All four legs in the sack” is an example of enmeshment—no
differentiation between the couple. “No legs in the sack” indicates disengagement—two or more individuals living parallel lives under the same roof. “One leg in the sack and one
out” represents an interdependent relationship while simultaneously paradoxically valuing and honoring each individual
as just that.
THE HEALTHY COUPLE:
A BRIEF SKETCH
Healthy individuals are usually attracted to other optimally functioning people in their interpersonal transactions.
Using the concept of Abraham Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy of
needs, they are seeking to fulfill being (B) needs rather than
deficiency (D) needs for sharing and for enriching their lives
in an intimate relationship (B needs). They are not clinging in
a desperate way because they are empty and fear they will be
unable to survive alone. Rollo May (1995) richly contrasted
the difference as being “I need you because I love you” with
the idea “I love you because I need you.”
THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES, Vol. 12 No. 4, October 2004 414-418
DOI: 10.1177/1066480704264350
© 2004 Sage Publications
414
Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
Eckstein / THREE RELATIONSHIP RENEWAL ACTIVITIES 415
Activity 1.
“A and H” Relationships
Answer these questions individually and then discuss them as a
couple.
1. What are some “A” type relationships you know now or have
known?
2. How about the contrasting “H” type relationships; what was (is)
different in these relationships?
3. What was (could) be necessary in your current relationship(s)
to shift from an A to an H?
4. What might you “gain” from such a shift?
5. What might such a change “cost” you?
6. Or consider another relationship metaphor—in what ways are
you the “balloon” in your significant relationships?
7. In what ways are you the “string” in your significant
relationships?
3.
4.
Maslow (1968) depicted healthy individuals as being
highly evolved and mature. A solid sense of personal identity
provides the capacity for true intimacy, as “whole” people are
much more likely to choose mates who also have a sure sense
of their own being and boundaries. Such individuals have the
desire and capacity for a reciprocal, constantly evolving, intimate relationship.
Maslow (1968) characterized the self-actualizing healthy
person as courageous, spontaneous, innovative, integrated,
self-accepting, and expressive. Such individuals frequently
gravitate toward healthy partners. These become healthy couples who cope well with the usual transitions and reoccurring
challenges in everyone’s life.
The healthy couple appears to be a multidimensional,
complex, nonsummative unit. The eight dimensions the
Timberlawn Group (Bowers, Steidl, Robnovitch, Brenner, &
Nelson, 1980) concretely delineated include
1. What is the systems orientation with respect to the external
world?
Healthy couples perceive themselves as a unit in
which their relationship to each other is special and
precious. Sometimes they choose to be together as a
couple, at home or participating in work-related social
activities, enjoying each other’s company.
2. What are the boundaries between individuals and between
generations?
Healthy couples are cognizant of and comfortable
with their adult identities; they do not need their children to parent them or need to become symptomatic to
bond together. If they have children, they can leave
them free to participate in age-appropriate activities
and nonfamily as well as family relationships. The
same is true in relation to their own parents. They are
respected and cared about but are not allowed to come
5.
6.
between the couple and the commitment to privacy
with each other.
Boundary issues also involve the recognition that
individuals require privacy, and from such quiet, inner
“alone” time, couples can then chart new directions.
What kind of communication occurs?
Between the healthy couple there are few double-bind
communications; wishes and expectations are most
often clearly conveyed. Each person’s verbal and nonverbal message is concordant. The content or message, and the intent or metamessage, are consonant.
Functioning couples creatively seek solutions and
communicate in unique and varied ways. They use a
broad repertoire of exchanges sent through olfactory,
kinesthetic, visual, tactile, and auditory channels of
communication. Each person remains an individual;
therefore, the couple does not want to look, act, or
sound alike. Paradoxically, they also often like to
function in tandem as one unit.
What is the distribution of power; who assumes leadership
and control?
The relationship is likely to be equalitarian and mutually supportive. The parents are often quite equally
matched and probably shift in terms of lead taking on
different issues in accordance with who feels most
strongly about a given matter. When there are children, power and control are not abdicated to them.
Conversation is liberally laced with “I” statements
expressing personal ideas and feelings. Children of
such a union sense the strong parental alliance and are
rarely allowed to “divide and conquer.” Their core
images do not become split into viewing one parent as
good and one as bad. Each may assertively express his
or her viewpoints and needs, yet neither is likely to
resort to downgrading, sabotaging, or acquiescing.
What is the permissible and expressed affective range, and to
what is this conducive in terms of intimacy and closeness?
The healthy couple is in touch with and expresses a
wide range of emotions. Laughter, tears, sadness, and
joy are shared. Losses can be discussed and mourning
is permitted and understood. They frequently have fun
together and believe life should encompass the pursuit
of contentment and pleasure. Work and play may be
intertwined. Optimism, humor, and a sense of the
absurdity of life are apt to be attributes they both
possess.
Are autonomy and individuality encouraged or discouraged?
Through their own more self-sufficient and selfdetermining niche in the family and in the large
world, healthy parents encourage their children to
pursue their own choices by paradoxically both guiding and concurrently setting them free (“roots” and
“wings”). They are much less likely to go into severe
depression or to experience more than a fleeting
empty-nest syndrome when their children depart and
they themselves are in their middle years.
Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
416 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / October 2004
Healthy couples have productive ways for coping
with and replacing dysfunctional solutions. They
believe in their own strength and adaptability and
reach out to appropriate people and resources when
the need arises if they cannot manage on their own.
They do not expect life to be problem free, and they do
not become profane when something distressing
occurs. Thus, stressors are reframed until they become
manageable and for which the couple then seeks the
most efficacious course of action.
7. Is there a problem-solving and negotiation approach to handling disagreements and decision making?
Negotiation is a decidedly different transactional
mode than compromise or conciliation. Negotiation is
hearing the other’s input and trying to resolve stalemates at the highest level by drawing on everybody’s
suggestions. To negotiate successfully, each participant needs verbal skills, the ability to engage the
issues, and skills for listening to the other’s position.
8. Does the couple have a sense of purpose and meaning in life
and a transcendental value system, or does it feel alienated
and adrift in the world?
Healthy couples exhibit a clear and shared belief system. They believe their lives matter and have a deep
and abiding sense of meaning and purpose.
SEVEN MARRIAGE PRINCIPLES
John Gottman and Nan Silver (1999) have written an
excellent book entitled The Seven Principles for Making
Marriage Work. Based on as little time as a 5-minute couple’s
interview, they are able to predict divorce with a better than
90% success rate. Gottman and Silver stressed that happily
married couples have what they call an “emotional intelligent
marriage,” and they are optimistic in the belief that it is a skill
that can be learned by most couples.
Marriage Statistics
Gottman and Silver (1999) noted the chance of a first marriage ending in divorce during a 40-year period is now more
than 67%. Half of all divorces will occur in the first 7 years of
marriage. Other studies find the divorce rate for second marriages to be almost 10% higher than for first marriages.
Activity 2.
Self-Assessment of Eight
Healthy Couple Characteristics
Rate each dimension on a scale of from 1 (low) to 10 (high).
Describe the behaviors and attitudes contributing to your particular
numerical rating. Compare your responses to your partner’s.
1. Characteristic—What is our systems orientation with respect
to the external world? Rating ____. Discussion of examples for
numerical rating.
2. Characteristic—What are the boundaries between us as individuals and between our generations? Rating ____. Discussion of examples for numerical rating.
3. Characteristic—What kind of communication occurs between
us? Rating ____. Discussion of examples for numerical rating.
4. Characteristic—What is the distribution of power ; who
assumes leadership and control? Rating ____. Discussion of
examples for numerical rating.
5. Characteristic—What is the permissible and expressed affective range, and to what is this conducive in terms of intimacy
and closeness? Rating ____. Discussion of examples for
numerical rating.
6. Characteristic—Are autonomy and individuality encouraged
or discouraged? Rating ____. Discussion of examples for
numerical rating.
7. Characteristic—Is there a problem-solving and negotiation
approach to handling disagreements and decision making?
Rating ____. Discussion of examples for numerical rating.
8. Characteristic—Do we as a couple have a sense of purpose
and meaning in life and a transcendental value system, or do
we feel alienated and adrift in the world? Rating ____. Discussion of examples for numerical rating.
Discussion
Compare and discuss your self-rating with those of your partner
and discuss these questions together.
a. Were there any surprises?
b. What are your major areas of agreement?
c. In what ratings was there a major “gap” of 3 or more points
between your ratings?
d. What game plan might you suggest for improvement?
e. What would be the first step in implementing such a relationship renewal game plan?
Predicting Divorce
Here are six specific warning signs that have assisted
Gottman and Silver (1999) in obtaining a more than 90%
accuracy rate in predicting a couple’s divorce in interviews in
what they have called the “love lab.”
1. Harsh Startup. A counselor can predict, 96% of the time, the
outcome of a conversation based on the first 3 minutes of the
15-minute interaction: A harsh startup is the first divorce
warning signal.
2. The Four Horsemen. Gottman and Silver have identified
what they have creatively called the Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse, who “clip-clop into the heart of a marriage” in
this order:
Horseman 1, Criticism.
Horseman 2, Contempt. Contempt—the worst of the four
horsemen—is poisonous to a relationship because it conveys
disgust.
Horseman 3, Defensiveness. Defensiveness is really a way
of blaming one’s partner by saying, in effect, “The problem
isn’t me, it’s you.”
Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
Eckstein / THREE RELATIONSHIP RENEWAL ACTIVITIES 417
Horseman 4, Stonewalling. According to Gottman and
Silver, “A stonewaller . . . tends to look away or down without
uttering a sound. . . . Stonewalling usually arrives later . . . than
the other three horsemen. It takes time for the negativity created
by the first three horsemen to become overwhelming enough
that stonewalling becomes an understandable out” (p. 43).
It is not the mere presence of these negative signs that dooms
the couple to failure. In fact, Gottman and Silver said, “You’ll
find examples of all four horsemen and even occasional
flooding in stable marriages. But when the four horsemen
take up permanent residence, when either partner begins to
feel flooded routinely, the relationship is in serious trouble”
(p. 18).
3. Flooding. Flooding means that a spouse’s negativity is so
overwhelming, and so sudden, that it leaves the partner in
shock. The person then becomes anxious and hypervigilant
about preparing for the next attack to which he or she feels
powerless to defend. Frequently a partner deals with the fear
by simply withdrawing emotionally from the relationship.
4. Body Language. First, the heart speeds up. Hormonal
changes occur including the secretion of adrenaline, resulting in a “fight or flight response.” Blood pressure also often
increases. Problem-solving skills diminish as a primal “fight
or flight” defensive posture is used.
5. Failed Repair Attempts. Not only do repair attempts create
emotional tension between spouses but also can help rescue
relationships by lowering the stress level and by preventing
the heart from racing and making one feel flooded.
6. Bad Memories. Couples who currently feel negative toward
their spouse frequently rewrite and remember their past from
a negative rather than a positive perspective. Some couples
may seek counseling; others disengage by being and living
physically “under the same roof” as the spouse. Divorce,
affairs, or leading parallel lives are some of the ways couples
resolve the crises of their marriages.
REPAIRING MARRIAGE
Fortunately, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, “It’s not
over till it’s over.” Here are five specific proactive principles
that can help repair wounded relationships.
Principle 1: Enhance Your Love Maps
Successful couples know each other’s world, something
Gottman and Silver (1999) termed
having a richly detailed love map . . . for that part of your brain
where you store all the relevant information about your partner’s life. . . . Those couples have made plenty of cognitive
room for their marriage. They remember the major events in
each other’s history, and they keep updating their information
as the facts and feelings of their spouse’s world change. . . . No
wonder the biblical term for sexual love is to “know.” (p. 48)
ACTIVITY 3
Principle 2: Nurture Your
Fondness and Admiration
Gottman and Silver (1999) recommended that by focusing
on your past, you can often detect “embers of positive feelings. Couples who put a positive spin on their marriage’s history are likely to have a happy future as well. When happy
memories are distorted, it’s a sign that the marriage needs
help” (p. 64).
Principle 3: Turn Toward
Each Other Instead of Away
Here is another creative metaphor by Gottman and Silver
(1999) relative to an “emotional bank account”:
Partners who characteristically turn toward each other rather
than away are putting money in the bank. They are building
up emotional savings that can serve as a cushion when times
get rough, when they’re faced with a major life stress or conflict. (p. 50)
Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016
418 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / October 2004
Principle 4: Let Your Partner Influence You
Principle 5: Solve Your Solvable Problems
This can best be demonstrated by softening your startup,
learning to make and receive repair attempts, soothing yourself and each other, compromising, and being tolerant of each
other’s faults.
Principle 6: Overcome Gridlock
Gridlock is a good indication that the hopes and dreams of
the couple are not being met.
Principle 7: Create Shared Meaning
The more couples speak candidly and respectfully with
each other, the more likely there is to be a blending of a shared
sense of meaning.
Gottman and Silver’s (1999) The Seven Principles for
Making Marriage Work also contains a number of useful
activities and exercises couples can use, illustrating much of
the authors’ seminal couples research. It is highly recommended for couples and counselors.
Seligman (2002) noted that Gottman and Silver predicted
accurately which marriages would improve over the years.
They found that these couples devote an extra 5 hours per
week to their marriage. Here are specific recommendations
for how couples can nourish their relationships.
• Partings. Before these couples say goodbye every morning,
they find out one thing that each partner is going to do that day
(2 minutes × 5 days = 10 minutes).
• Reunions. At the end of each workday, these couples have a
low-stress reunion conversation (20 minutes × 5 days = 1
hour, 40 minutes).
• Affection. Touching, grabbing, holding, and kissing—all
laced with tenderness and forgiveness (5 minutes × 7 days =
35 minutes).
• One weekly date. Just the two of you, in a relaxed atmosphere,
updating your love (2 hours once a week).
• Admiration and appreciation. Every day, genuine affection
and appreciation is given at least once (5 minutes × 7 days =
35 minutes).
FIGURE 1
REFERENCES
Bowers, M. B., Steidl, J., Robnovitch, D., Brenner, J. W., & Nelson, J. C.
(1980). Psychotic illness in midlife. In W. H. Norton and T. J. Scaramella
(Eds.), Mid-life: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 73-84). New
York: Brunner/Mazel.
Eckstein, D., Leventhal, M., Bentley, S., & Kelley, S. (1999). Relationships as
a “three-legged sack race.” The Family Journal, 7(4), 399-405.
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principals for making marriage work. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van
Nostrand.
May, R. (1995). Love and will. New York: Delacorte Press.
Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Simon & Schuster.
SUMMARY
In this article, couples have been invited to self-assess and
then to discuss three different ways of viewing their relationships. The first way involves the contrasting metaphor of the
letter A with the letter H. The second uses eight dimensions
characterizing healthy relationships proposed by the
Timberlawn Group (Bowers et al., 1980). And the third is
summarized from Gottman and Silver’s (1999) The Seven
Principles for Making Marriage Work. These three activities
are meant to assist couples in the dialogue for relationship
renewal.
Daniel Eckstein, Ph.D., is a faculty member with the Department
of Education Sciences at Eastern Mediterranean University, North
Cypress. He is the author of such publications as Leadership by
Encouragement, Psychological Fingerprints: Life-Style Assessment, and Raising Respectful Kids In a Rude World. He was
recently selected as president elect of the North American Society
of Adlerian Psychology. He can be reached via e-mail at
[email protected], and his Web page address is http://
www.LeadershipByEncouragement.com.
Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016