Kim Mills: Strong, supportive relationships are a key to our mental and even physical health. But what makes for a healthy relationship? Today we're going to talk about that with two psychologists who have spent decades studying the differences between "relationship masters" and "relationship disasters," and translating that research into resources for couples and families.

So what do relationship masters do that relationship disasters don't? What's the right way to fight with your partner? Do fights have to be destructive? Or is it possible to have a constructive fight? Is it true that you should never go to bed angry? And what are the most important things you can do to make sure your partner feels loved and supported, and to strengthen your relationship bond?

Welcome to Speaking of Psychology, the flagship podcast of the American Psychological Association that examines the links between psychological science and everyday life. I'm Kim Mills.

My guests today are Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman, the cofounders of the Gottman Institute. Dr. John Gottman began his research on marital stability and divorce prediction in the 1970s. He's an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Washington, where he founded the Love Lab and where much of his research on couples interactions was conducted. Dr. Gottman is the author or coauthor of more than 200 academic articles and has won numerous awards for his research.

Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman is a clinical psychologist with expertise working with distressed couples, abuse and trauma survivors, and people with substance use problems and their partners. She brings her expertise in clinical psychology to the Gottman Institute, cocreating the art and science of love workshops for couples and codesigning the national clinical training program in Gottman method couples therapy.

Together, the Gottmans have translated the science of relationships into books, workshops, trainings for therapists and other resources for the public. They've coauthored many books together, including their latest Fight Right: How to Turn Conflict Into Connection. They've also practiced what they preach in their own nearly 4-decade marriage.

Dr. Gottman, Dr. Schwartz Gottman, thank you both for joining me today.

Julie Schwartz Gottman, PhD: Thank you, Kim. We're really happy to be here.

Mills: Let's start by talking about the background each of you brings to this work. John, you're a researcher, and, Julie, you've always been a practicing clinical psychologist. How did you decide to bring your work together into what became the Gottman Institute?

Schwartz Gottman: Well, here's how it happened. John and I met in 1986, married in '87. I, at the time, was working with very severe trauma as well as some of the other fields you mentioned, Kim. But every night at dinner, I was listening to John talk about his research, and I got sucked in. I was desperately trying to be individuated, which was popular at the time, but it didn't happen. We merged completely and now 4 decades later, I have half a brain. He has half a brain, but together we make one brain. So basically we were out in a canoe about 6, 7 years later, and I said, Honey, why don't we take this work out of the ivory tower and into the population who desperately needs help? We've learned a lot from your research and there's no point in leaving it in the university. Let's take it out and bring it to the people. And that's what we did.

Mills: So, John, one of the most well-known findings of your early research was that you were able to predict whether a couple would divorce years later just by analyzing a few minutes of video of their interactions early in their marriage. Tell us about that work. How did you do that research and what clues to a relationship's outcome were evident so early on?

John Gottman, PhD: Well, this research was really done in conjunction with my best friend Robert Levinson, who is a psychology professor at UC Berkeley. And Bob and I had a lab back in the 1970s. We had our own computer, which was very unusual in the 1970s. Every university had one big mainframe computer, but Bob and I had a computer called the PDP 11, which was about the size of three refrigerators, and all it did was synchronize the video time code to physiological measures we're collecting from both people as they talked to each other -- we're measuring respiration, heart rate, blood velocity, skin conductance, how much they jiggled and moved. And so we had couples meet at the end of the day after being apart for at least 8 hours. And once we got good physiological signals, we just asked them to talk about how their day went and videotape that.

And then we interviewed them about the major conflict areas in their relationship and had them pick the top area to talk about for 15 minutes. And we asked them to try to solve the problem. And then they selected from a list of positive topics, like planning a vacation, talk for another 15 minutes. When they were done with that, they separately viewed their videotapes and we're still collecting physiological data and videotape as they watched their tapes and turned to dial to let us know inside what they were feeling, from very negative to very positive.

Then we basically sent them home. Bob and I had no clue of how to help anybody at that time. And our own intuitions were terrible because we were going from one disastrous relationship with a woman to another. And our ignorance really motivated this research because we had no hypotheses at all.

Well, 3 years later, we recontact these couples and it turned out that we could predict with over 90% accuracy how the relationship had changed over that 3-year period, whether couples got happier or less happy, whether they broke up or not. So the predictions were very high, and that was very unusual at that time for psychologists to have that level of prediction. And it turned out that just about everywhere we looked, we could tell the difference between the people who were in disastrous relationships like the ones Bob and I had, and the people who were really masters of relationships. And even when they talked about how their day went, the disasters went out of their way to communicate their boredom and lack of interest in their partner's day. Whereas the masters were totally involved and interested, asked a lot of questions and communicated that they really cared about how their partners, they went

During conflict we had our best prediction of the future of a relationship. And it turned out there that when we look just as simply at the ratio, the number of seconds that people were nice to one another, divided by the number of seconds that they were nasty to one another, that ratio averaged 5 to 1 among the masters and averaged 0.8 among the disasters -- a little bit more negativity. And in particular, there were four things that couples did in relationships that were doomed, that really predicted the future very well. They started with criticism. They used contempt, they were defensive, and when they got physiologically aroused, when their heart rates exceeded 100 beats a minute, they would withdraw from the interaction and stonewall and not give any cues to the speaker that they were listening and interested. So those behaviors, we wound up calling the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

But I must say that Bob and I had no clue of how to help anybody. And without Julie's clinical experience, we never would've figured out how to help people. We needed the researcher and the therapist to really combine their knowledge and Julie's knowledge of how to help extremely distressed people was essential in building a therapy for helping people.

Mills: But then that material, your research data must have been sitting there for a while. Right before you met Julie -- I mean, Julie, when did you come on the scene and start looking at all of this and then coming up with your part of the whole theory?

Schwartz Gottman: We started working together -- so of course I was hearing it every night at dinner, beginning in 1987. But then in 19 -- about 1992, maybe '93, we started really trying to analyze theoretically what the successful couples were doing to create the success of their relationships. Already John had analyzed the data. He discovered the four horsemen of the apocalypse. There were also really important factors involving supporting friendships and also what created shared meaning for the couple, which meant not only talking about what values they shared, but what each individual partner valued deeply and really communicating that with their partner and each partner supporting the other person's dreams and values.

So we began to create our theory, which we called the Sound Relationship House theory. And later on, the brilliant John Gottman began to do much more mathematical analysis, back in about 1990, and began to discover what we called the Trust Metric, which was a mathematical formulation that really predicted whether couples retained trust or had lost it, as well as looking at commitment in the couple.

Then we looked at what did the successful couples do, and combining our knowledge, our information base, we created interventions that helped couples do what the successful couples did. Now, mind you, nobody took Relationships 101 in high school or college. We still don't. So people really are at a loss. They were groping in the dark for what the heck do we do instead of the bad patterns and behaviors we're using with one another.

So John wrote his first popular book -- when was that honey? Right around 1990-something, 1999. And lo and behold, people grabbed hold of it and really, really were hungry for more. So we worked on interventions. We created a couple's workshop, a 2-day workshop that we later tested that created a huge difference in not only sustaining friendship or creating friendship in partners, but really helping them to manage conflict in, as you said earlier, Kim, a constructive way rather than a destructive way, replacing the four horsemen with much more listening, much better description of, I feel, I am thinking, I'm imagining, I'm fantasizing, rather than pointing their fingers and blaming their partner. And in our workshop, we saw that 87% of the couples who came -- and there were a thousand couples at a time that would come to this workshop -- actually 87% of them had major breakthroughs in gridlock conflict that they had been suffering from for many years. So we really knew we were onto to something.

Mills: So when you talk about the four horsemen, is any one worse than the other? And if you have three of the four, are you doomed? I mean, how do you kind of gauge these things?

Gottman: Yeah, well, contempt was the worst. Contempt is criticism, but with an aura of superiority, and you're talking down to your partner. So the masters essentially didn't do contempt at all. It was essentially zero. And Bob and I were very interested in how relationships affected health and longevity because there was a link there. And it turned out that contempt was the best predictor of relationship breakup of all. And we also found that the number of seconds that somebody listened to their partner be contemptuous toward them predicted how many infectious illnesses they would have in the next 4 years. So that was the worst of the four horsemen.

Mills: So, Julie, to what degree is it possible to change these problematic patterns in a relationship? Were some couples that you worked with, particularly early on as you were learning, were they doomed to divorce from the start or is it possible, have you found, for almost any couple to change and improve the way that they interact?

Schwartz Gottman: That's a wonderful question, Kim. And we were astonished to see frankly, that many, many couples, even ones who had come back from the lawyer's offices for divorce, were dramatically changing their relationships. The real key was this, was there any spark of love, just a little tiny ember that still remained that the therapist could blow on basically, or that they could learn more tools in our workshops that then kindled a fire, that then created the ability for these couples to change their patterns and then really talk in much more depth with much more understanding and compassion.

We had in particular an intervention that I just deeply love, in which when a couple suffered from a gridlock conflict, meaning a conflict that came up over and over and over again -- 69% of couples problems are perpetual problems, they never go away, by the way -- when they stopped and slowed down, and then one person asked the other a series of six deepening questions that really ferreted out the underlying values, feelings, childhood experience, and underlying ideal dreams in terms of their position on the issue with the other person just listening. And then they would trade roles. Wow, that made a huge difference.

Because most people would talk about a conflict just on the surface. They would just argue parenting styles, for example, but they would never get into how they themselves were parented, what they appreciated and what they did not like, and how they were raised themselves that then help formulate their values about parenting here and now. So when those factors were unearthed and shared with the partner, what resulted was much greater understanding and compassion that then really helped them arrive at a compromise. So there were tools like that that couples hadn't ever practiced before. Now, mind you, it takes practice to change anything that is habitual that you have been practicing for years, maybe decades. It takes a lot of work to kind of resist that gravitational pull that draws you back into the old patterns. But these couples wanted to change so badly. They were in so much pain that then they really worked at changing, and by golly, they did change.

Mills: Can most couples do this on their own? Can they get your books, read, learn, and practice what you're saying? Or is it really important to have a therapist to work with you?

Schwartz Gottman: It depends on the issues. For example, if a couple suffers a terrible betrayal, whether there's been adultery, an affair, whether there's been financial betrayal, somebody hiding a lot of debt, they have, or perhaps there's an addiction within the relationship or severe trauma, very, very severe trauma. Typically in those cases, a therapist is really essential to create change. But for those of us who suffer from distress, maybe a bit of trauma, because most of us have had something go wrong in our upbringing, couples I think can get a lot of help from the books themselves.

And what we are also doing now, which is to democratize this work, make it more accessible to people who cannot afford to have a therapist or go to a workshop, we're putting this work, all of our interventions, assessment methods on a software platform, it's already completed, that couples can access in the privacy of their own home for much less money and get help through instructive, really hilarious videos that John and I made -- 87 little tiny videos showing how to do something and how not to do something, which we've had a lot of practice at. So they're great.

Mills: Now, one piece of advice that I've heard you both discuss is the importance of paying attention to your partners 'bids for connection.' You've already said this even here in our conversation. What exactly does that mean in real life. in day-to-day interaction with your partner?

Gottman: So in this apartment lab that Julie and I designed, 130 newlywed couples spent 24 hours there, and we videotaped them for 12 of those hours while they were awake. And the camera operators noticed very quickly that there will be one person at some point when they were hanging out just trying to get their partner's attention and interest. And we call that making a bid for connection. Like somebody will look out the window and say, Oh, there's a beautiful boat. And we had this lab that was on Montlake in Seattle where boats were going from saltwater to Lake Washington, and all these boats were going by the locks. And so a woman might look out the window and say, there's a beautiful boat, and the operators of the cameras would turn one of the cameras toward the husband and see what the response was.

And in some cases, I remember one tape where the guy was having cereal while he was watching TV and hears his wife saying, There's a beautiful boat, and this guy doesn't respond at all. He just keeps eating the cereal. We call that turning away, that lack of a response. Now, if he had looked up and said, Huh, that would be turning toward, that was good enough to count as turning toward. If he was enthusiastic about it, if he went over to her and said, Hey, baby, why don't we get a boat and sail off together, quit our jobs, and that would be called enthusiastic turning toward. Or if he was irritable and said, Will you be quiet? I'm trying to watch this TV show. That was called turning against. And so 6 years later, when 17 couples out of 130 had divorced, we looked back 6 years earlier in this lab, in this apartment lab, the Love Lab, and turned out those people had turned toward bids an average of 33% of the time, whereas the people who were still married 6 years earlier had turned toward their partner's bid an average of 86% of the time.

So a big difference that probably over time, they really filled the pages of a Russian novel with all the times that they turned toward and acknowledged their partner's immediate needs. So that was the idea of turning toward.

Mills: So the example that you just gave, the husband's watching TV and eating cereal, what about what's happening today with phones and other screen devices? Are they making it harder for couples to stay connected?

Schwartz Gottman: That is such an interesting question, Kim, because it's two sides of a coin. On the one hand, couples are communicating with one another a lot more frequently through texting because it's so easy to do. You've got your phone right at your desktop. However, what's also happening is that couples may be sucked into their work, into other activities on their phone. Maybe they're gaming on their phone or they're watching something on their phone and the phone comes out at the dinner table, and guess what happens? There's a lot of turning away because one individual is really focused on their phone. And I'm sure all of us in the audience have seen folks at a restaurant, especially kids sitting at a table, four people in a booth, they're all on their phones. What are they doing? Some are actually conversing with one another on their phones rather than opening their mouths and uttering words.

So there's the two sides. The other thing too is that there's research starting to come out that especially with younger kids, all of the technology and the quick little conversations folks are having over the phones is actually changing a little bit of brain development so that the brain is getting reduced in terms of its ability to attend. How long can the brain attend on one particular focus? It's growing shorter and shorter because there aren't extensive long conversations that we of, shall I say the mature generation, the older generation are used to having -- these deeper conversations face-to-face or on the phone talking to one another. So the jury is really out right now.

On the other hand, in terms of the pandemic, the technology was crucial because especially kids in the teenage years really suffered dramatically because they couldn't see each other. They couldn't communicate except through technology. That was it as they were isolated. So we still have severely depressed kids, kids who were also very anxious coming out of the pandemic, not having developed the same kinds of social strategies, social skills that kids normally attending school would've developed by now. So we're trying to catch up, but is technology a help or is it not? We're not sure yet.

Mills: Speaking of the pandemic, have you looked at all at what that did to relationships since we were all so isolated? I mean, you would be really in close quarters with your partner and very few other people during that timeframe. Did that help or hurt relationships? Do we know yet?

Gottman: Yeah, we know quite a lot about that now. It turned out if your relationship was good, the pandemic actually helped and they got closer. That was true for Julie and I. We traveled so much less and had so much time together to take walks and talk to each other and cuddle. But if the relationship was ailing, the pandemic sort of acted like a pressure cooker, and they were together with no way to get apart from each other. And the relationships got worse. Domestic violence actually increased for those unhappy married couples. So when you average it all out, it looked like there was no change, but actually the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, in the sense of the relationships.

Mills: Let's talk for a few minutes about your most recent book Fight Right: How to Turn Conflict Into Connection. What does it mean to fight right?

Schwartz Gottman: So fighting right means in a nutshell, fighting to understand, fighting to understand. So even as a therapist sitting across from a client I've known for a year, let's say, I never assume I really understand anything fully unless I ask more questions. I really listen much more carefully and so on. And the questions need to be the deepening questions, not questions that remain superficial. So fighting right really means, first of all, trying to eliminate as many of the four horsemen as we can. Nobody's perfect here and we're not going for the perfect relationship. I'm always going to sink back into some criticism every now and then and defensiveness and my darling partner may as well, though we really try hard to avoid it as much as we can.

So what takes the place of those, right? This book really focuses in on how to make calm, constructive and more compassionate our conflict conversations rather than those escalations that many of us have experienced. Those times when we get flooded, meaning we go into fight or flight when we're so upset that our physiology is jacking up and our heart rates are over a hundred beats a minute, we can't think straight, we can't listen well, we can't creatively problem solve at all. Our prefrontal cortex is offline. So this book gives very specific practical information about how to create fights as a pathway to understanding.

That doesn't mean you should seek out lots of fighting. There's many ways of understanding one another, but fights happen. They happen to almost everyone. And at the time that we started writing this book, the country was incredibly polarized. It is still today, as all of us know. And we were very astounded at how little listening was happening between folks in one compartment versus folks in another who had very different ideas about the way things should be. So we thought, well, my God, we're never going to stop fighting, but we have to help folks if we can learn how to fight so that there's greater understanding, even if there's still disagreement. And that is what this book provides.

Mills: So what are the common types of fights and how should couples handle them?

Gottman: Here's the interesting thing. Most couples fight about absolutely nothing. Fights emerge out of these moments of disconnection and where people are left alone, when they're reaching out for something, their partner, and it doesn't go right. They're watching TV together and they've made popcorn and he's got the remote, and she says, Leave it at that station. He says, Well, yeah, let me see what else is on. She says, No, leave it. He says, Well, let me see what else is on. She says, I said, leave it. And he says, I don't even want to talk to you. And he throws the remote down.

What are they fighting about? They're not fighting about in-laws, money, sex -- they're fighting about the lack of connection. And that is the thing that Julie was emphasizing. Conflict always has a goal, which is mutual understanding. We actually need conflict to continue to love each other over time as we both change. And so really what we're doing in the book Fight Right is helping people understand these situations where they're actually reaching out for one another for emotional connection, most of the time, and being left alone.

Schwartz Gottman: Let me jump in and add a little bit more here. In some of John's earliest research, and we find this still to be true, there are three types of conflicts, management styles that people may have. One is what we call avoiders conflict. And those are folks who, of course, they're going to have disagreements, they're going to have differences oftentimes based in lifestyle preferences or personality differences. But what they do, they may express just a little bit of what they think or what they feel, but then they say, Okay, not a big deal. Let's drop it. Let's just agree to disagree. And they go on with their lives. Those are conflict avoiders. Then we have conflict validators, and validators are folks who stay fairly calm and fairly rational, however, they do express their feelings about a particular issue, but they'll do so quickly and then they'll move into problem solving very fast, and they work on problem solving. So those are validators.

And then we have the volatiles, of which I am a proud member, and volatiles are folks who express their feelings passionately, intensely. They immediately jump to 60 miles an hour, and they express feelings intensely. That doesn't mean that they're flooded. There's a real difference between being physiologically flooded and expressing things passionately and intensely. One doesn't necessarily go with the other. So volatiles will express feelings very, very intensely, and eventually they'll get into working on compromise. But all that passionate feeling comes out first. So those are our conflict volatiles.

And people typically are mismatched. So in our relationship, for example, John is a wonderful conflict avoider or maybe a little bit of a validator, and I'm a delightful volatile. Now, he can also be in his best moments, I should say. And then we're off and running. So we have to talk sometimes about the differences in our style of how we want to talk about a conflict, how we want to process, trying to just understand one another's position on an issue given. Let's say that one just doesn't want to talk about it at all. There's our avoider. And one passionately wants to talk about it. There's our volatile. How are they going to arrive at a system in which they can talk gently with one another without the volatile scaring away the avoider and the avoider angering the volatile. So that's a conversation in itself that is an important one to have when there is an extreme difference. But couples work that stuff out all the time, and all three types of couples can have successful relationships, all of them.

Gottman: As long as they have that 5 to 1 --

Schwartz Gottman: As long as that's it, as long as they have that 5 to 1 ratio of positive to negative interactions that they're having during the conflict itself.

Mills: So I want to go back to the couple who were having the argument over the remote. So what is the solution? I mean, how should you work that out in a way that doesn't, I mean, should the woman go to another room and watch a different tv, or how do you resolve that?

Gottman: Well, part of it is really understanding what's underneath that unhappiness around the remote and understanding that there's a power struggle there, and maybe there's a power struggle in their relationship in general, and it feels unfair to one or both people. And that sort of gets underneath the issue of the remote. The remote is kind of a surface issue of this perceived inequity and power in the relationship. So by asking those six questions that Julie mentioned earlier, they wind up really looking at the dreams within the conflict. And once those get surfaced, there's much more empathy and understanding, and they get to the real goal of conflict, which is mutual understanding.

Schwartz Gottman: Yeah, I think there's another part of this too, which is accepting influence. We found that it was incredibly important for people to accept influence from the other person, and in particular in heterosexual relationships, not surprisingly, given social conditioning in our culture, it was more important for men to accept influence from their female partners typically than vice versa. So accepting influence means, Okay, honey, I'll let you stay on this channel. Let's stay on this channel and we'll see if we both like it, and then maybe we can look around a little bit more. How does that sound?

Mills: So you just brought up sexual orientation, just the idea of same-sex couples, opposite-sex couples. Do the patterns that you have observed, do they hold true for both? Or because of socialization, will you find same-sex couples will behave differently because two women together, they were socialized the same way, two men together, they were socialized the same way. What happens?

Gottman: Yeah, so Bob and I were quite surprised when we studied gay and lesbian relationships for a dozen years, that in fact, gay and lesbian couples are a lot nicer to each other than heterosexual couples. They have more of a sense of humor about themselves. They're gentler in the way they present an issue. They can laugh at themselves more easily, and they're much more direct when it comes to their needs about sexual intimacy than heterosexual couples. So we were pretty surprised by that. And it turns out that that's really kind of a general finding that we, heterosexual couples have a lot to learn.

Mills: John, does the advice that you've developed for couples work for other relationships? For example, parents and children, other family relationships, friendships?

Gottman: Yeah. One of the things that I was very interested in, Bob wasn't too interested in parent-child interaction, but I was very interested in children and their development and to investigate how parent relationships affected children and how children affected the parental relationships. We did some longitudinal research and looked at parent-child interaction, and we discovered an amazing thing, that there were some parents who really were emotion coaches of their children. They really took these moments when their children were feeling strongly about something, feeling heard or rejected, and some parents would try to minimize that and cheer their child up and help their child get over the moment. And other parents would really focus in on that moment and see it as an opportunity for learning or teaching or getting closer to their child. And they would do five things as emotion coaches -- help their child understand the emotions, put labels on those feelings, help their child problem solve if they were unhappy about something and put limits on misbehavior if they occurred.

So those five steps of emotion coaching turned out to be really critical in the longitudinal development of emotional intelligence in their children. That was really kind of surprising. So in fact, those parents were very different toward one another. When one of them was emotional, the other parent would really zoom in and say, okay, baby, what are you feeling? Because when you're upset, the world stops and I listen. And those were the emotion coaches. So we really did discover that the way people interacted with one another was strongly related to the way they would zoom in on their child's emotions. Well, and that had big implications for the longitudinal development of emotional intelligence in their child.

Mills: So I think many of us have heard the advice that you shouldn't let the sun set on your anger, don't go to bed mad. And I know you've said that's a myth. Why is that?

Schwartz Gottman: Because it's impossible to do. Here's the thing, there's a difference between wrath and anger. So the original statement really comes up in the Bible, but in the Bible it's about wrath. And wrath is the most severe, intense anger. It's rage multiplied a hundred times. So wrath also contains a lot of hatred, all kinds of stuff. So anger is hardwired in, it's an emotion that is very primal to us. And if something has happened late at night that has really angered a partner, it's almost impossible for that person to then stop feeling angry, feel loving and warm, go to bed and have sex. It's not going to happen usually. I mean, maybe there are a few people out there that can do that. But most makeup, the makeup sex, yeah, yeah, makeup, sex or just aggressive sex, whatever it is. Anyway, and couples who are successful couples don't follow that particular statement.

They don't do it. So somebody may be angry, and what they need to do is make sure that they're physiologically calm enough to go to sleep. They may still feel some anger, but they're not flooded. Their heart rates are not 150 beats a minute, otherwise they'll never be able to sleep. The mistake the couples make, here's the big one, and we can call this a myth -- you're able to solve your problems late at night when you're tired. No, you're not able to. You can't do it. People are so tired by the ends of their days. Most of the time they've worked hard or they have kids, they've been raising their kids, kids are running around like crazy. So they're exhausted. They're exhausted. So to think that you can creatively problem solve, or you can talk very gently and calmly and deeply late at night, there's your myth, and people should not try to do that.

Thus the opposite is what people really might more realistically do, which is, yeah, you go to bed angry, but get a good night's rest, and the next day, then you talk about it when you're well rested and you actually have access to most of your mental powers.

Mills: So just to wrap up, this has been interesting, and I could go on and on and on with, and I'm sure you could too, but we all have things to do. But I want to ask you this question. You have both been working in this space for a very long time. Are there any big research questions on relationships that you feel you still need to answer?

Schwartz Gottman: Let's both answer that. John, you want to start?

Gottman: Yeah. The important thing to say is that all of these techniques, like gentle startup, finding out the dreams within conflict, none of them work without trust and commitment. Being there in the relationship and trust means that people really are thinking for two, they're thinking of the benefits of their partner. Conflict isn't a zero-sum game. One person wins and the other one loses. But they're really working collaboratively on the problem together. And commitment really means that they've said, this is the journey of my life, and nobody can replace you. There isn't a woman on the planet for me that can come close to Julie. She has my whole heart, for my whole life, and all of my money, and I have nothing to offer any other woman.

Schwartz Gottman: Am I the luckiest woman on the planet?

Gottman: So I mean, she's really it for me. So Carol Rusbult's research showed us how important commitment was, and our research with the trust metrics showed us how important that is. Without trust and commitment, none of these techniques will work. So we really don't understand what it is that goes into building trust and building commitment in some people and not others. It could be insecure attachment gets in the way, but we don't know the answer to that question yet. That's a really big research question.

Schwartz Gottman: And here are mine. So, so far a couple of things we haven't had time to talk about, but one is that we have created a treatment, a particular treatment model that looks like it's really working, to treat affairs, to treat betrayal, and we're very excited about that. We've done the first controlled randomized study of treatment, therapeutic treatment for affairs that's ever been done. There haven't been any others done up until now. So we have pre and post, we're starting to get follow-up, and our treatment looks very, very successful at this point. We've also done a research study on the treatment of what's called situational domestic violence, which is minor to moderate domestic violence, without a clear perpetrator and a clear victim in which the victim can't do anything to change things. The case being there where we've got to get the victim out of the relationship.

But with situational domestic violence, we actually do have a treatment that is very successful in eliminating domestic violence, eliminating hostility between the partners and increasing their friendship and connection. But we still have to learn, and this of course is one of my big thoughts about trying to help people, we need to help couples learn how to manage their relationships and strengthen their relationships when one or both partners has post-traumatic stress disorder. And these days between environmental calamities like Hurricane Helene and background abuse and combat, or shootings in schools, people are so traumatized they can't see straight, and oftentimes that stress will spill over into the relationship and contaminate the connection between the partners. So I have started to create a treatment for couples where there's PTSD, but we haven't done a research study yet, and I would really like to flesh out more that treatment model and test it with a random controlled study.

Mills: Well, John, Julie, I want to thank you so much for joining me today. This has been really interesting. I think the work you do is so important and so helpful to many, many people. Thank you.

Gottman: Thank you, Kim. Wonderful, wonderful interview.

Schwartz Gottman: Yeah, I was just about to say the same thing. We have the same brain.

Mills: You have one brain. That's right. But this has been wonderful. Thank you so much.

You can find previous episodes of Speaking of Psychology on our website at speakingofpsychology.org or on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like what you've heard, please leave us a review. If you have comments or ideas for future podcasts, you can email us at [email protected]. Speaking of Psychology is produced by Lea Winerman.

Thank you for listening. For the American Psychological Association, I'm Kim Mills.