Argument Cycles in Relationships

A brief overview informed by Gottman and Emotionally Focused Therapy, as illustrated by Ross Geller and Rachel Green

Relationships, whether romantic, platonic, familial, friendly, professional, or otherwise, add meaning and fulfillment to our lives, and are not immune to conflict from time to time. Recognizing and understanding the dynamics of argument cycles is crucial to creating and maintaining healthy relationships.

We'll explore insights from two prominent therapeutic approaches, Gottman Method Couples Therapy and Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), to provide you with a comprehensive guide on recognizing and understanding argument cycles in relationships. For the purposes of brevity and clarity this post will focus solely on romantic relationships.

Important considerations:

1. Diversity of Relationships: This post aims to shed light on romantic relationships, but it's essential to acknowledge that argument cycles are universal and manifest across all relationship types.

2. Complexity of Relationships: Given the intricate nature of relationships, this post cannot encompass every nuance and perspective. Individual experiences vary, and what works for one may differ for another. Take what you like, and leave the rest.

3. Normalizing Common Experiences: It's natural to recognize elements discussed here in your own relationships. These are common, morally neutral occurrences and do not necessarily indicate issues within your relationship.

Clarification on Abuse:

It's crucial to note that the information provided here is not applicable to abusive relationships. If you suspect abuse in your relationship, please reach out to The Domestic Violence Support Hotline for immediate assistance and access to resources.

Disclaimer:

This blog post serves as an informational resource and not a substitute for therapy. The content is for educational purposes only and is not therapeutic advice or direction. Reach out to a licensed therapist if you’d like to delve deeper into this topic and how it applies to your own life and relationships.

Let’s get into it!

Gottman Method Couples Therapy is based on the extensive research of John and Julie Gottman, who followed couples for 40+ years. Through their longitudinal studies, the Gottmans identified distinguishing factors that set successful couples apart from unsuccessful ones, emphasizing the importance of communication techniques and styles, connection, meaning making, and repairs after conflict. On the other hand, EFT, studied and researched extensively by Sue Johnson, focuses on helping partners identify their underlying emotional triggers and communication patterns in order to foster a deeper sense of understanding of one another’s needs.

The following information is taken from these two evidence-based approaches, which inform my own approach to conceptualizing how patterns of argument and disconnect occur in relationships — and how we can create new ways of connecting with those around us. It won’t eliminate conflict or discomfort in relationships entirely, nor should it. Conflict in relationships is part of how we grow and connect. The presence or absence of conflict in a relationship isn’t by itself an indicator of the relationship’s healthiness. Rather, it’s how we conflict and repair that impacts the overall health and wellness of a relationship.

I won’t pretend to be a Canva expert, but here is my attempt. This is my interpretation of EFT’s infinity loop, and we’ll weave in some Gottman context shortly.

In an argument, there's a trigger, or an activator, that sets off the conflict. Person A reacts emotionally to this activator and constructs a narrative, or story, about its significance. This story is essentially a meaning or interpretation assigned to the activator, and is formed almost instantly. In these instances, the interpretations tend to be negative, and we often unquestioningly accept them as true. These stories typically revolve around ourselves, the other person, the relationship, or even the world at large, and are often expressed in absolute or overly generalized terms.

The sequence of whether the emotion or the story comes first is a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario – the debate over which comes first is inconclusive, but truthfully, it's not critical. These reactions occur so quickly that we're often oblivious to them. However, both the emotion and the story shape how we respond to the activator. Subsequently, Person B experiences an emotional reaction, either to the activator or Person A's behavior, and they develop their own narrative, influencing their behavior. This, in turn, intensifies Person A's emotional response, their story often becomes more extreme, and their behavior becomes more pronounced. Thus, the cycle perpetuates in an infinite loop!

Let’s put this in practice with one of Pop Culture’s most famous relationship conflicts: Ross Geller and Rachel Green’s entire relationship on the 10-season sitcom, Friends.

"We were on a break"

Classic, right?

Let’s break down what occurs in this scene and identify the cycle Ross and Rachel find themselves in.

In this scene, the activating event for this specific argument is Rachel’s letter to Ross.

Ross clearly feels annoyed by the letter’s length and content, perhaps assigning meaning to it of “She is just over reacting”. In response, he doesn’t read the letter and also doesn’t disclose this fact to Rachel. In this activating event, he lashes out critically by pointing out spelling errors, mocking the length of the letter, and implying it was boring.

Rachel, upon hearing Ross didn’t read her letter, appears to feel angry. The story she is likely telling herself is, “He doesn’t care about me”. In this scenario, she responds with contempt, blaming Ross for their breakup and attacks his character, shaming him for spending nights playing scrabble and making a suggestive comment about a sensitive concern Ross has.

Predictably, this further annoys Ross, reinforcing the belief that Rachel is overreacting. His behavior becomes more extreme, criticizing Rachel further. Rachel’s anger increases, solidifying her story of Ross not caring about her, leading to more extreme, contemptuous behavior. The argument escalates to yelling, and only ends because Ross storms off. Nothing gets resolved, no real issues are addressed, and now they both have even more behaviors to apologize for later. A classic argument!

Gottman theory sheds light on behaviors we often engage in during conflict, and Contempt and Criticism are recognized by Gottman as two of the “Four Horsemen,” communication styles linked to relationship breakdowns. This article explains them more in depth.

Additionally, EFT identifies the concept of pursue-withdraw cycles, which occur in nearly all relationship conflicts. The pursuer strives to resolve the conflict immediately, while the withdrawer opts to avoid and disregard the issue entirely. Interestingly, both approaches tend to escalate the problem during conflicts. In the Ross-Rachel-We-Were-On-A-Break debacle, Ross adopts the role of the withdrawer — not reading the letter and choosing not to disclose it, eventually leaving the apartment. Rachel takes on the role of the pursuer — she writes the letter, and she also follows Ross all the way out of the apartment, shouting after him to get the last word in. In pursue-withdraw cycles, if a pursuer shifts to becoming a withdrawer, the withdrawer often transforms into the pursuer to perpetuate the cycle. Despite its discomfort, the familiarity of the cycle draws us back to it repeatedly. This article explains the pursue-withdraw cycle more in depth. If you’ve watched Friends, you’ll probably notice that I just described the entire 10-season relationship arc of Ross and Rachel as well.

So, it’s easy to look at Ross and Rachel’s argument and assume they’re going at it over Rachel’s letter. That’s what started the argument, right? But no, that’s just the surface. The real battleground is what the letter means to each of them. The more they focus on the letter, the wilder the conflict gets, because, truth be told, it’s really not about the letter. The more they focus on the letter, the more it shields each of them from facing two crucial points: 1. their own contributions to the conflict and 2. what they’re really feeling.

To get out of the conflict, they have to shift their focus inward, unraveling their own stories and deciphering what is genuinely happening for them emotionally. Acknowledging the meanings or interpretations they've imposed on the activator forces them to come face-to-face with the emotions bubbling within. It's a tough pill to swallow because grappling with intense emotions can be intimidating for many. It's way easier to direct anger at your partner than to wrestle with feelings of shame or abandonment. Yet, through this dual process of recognizing the story and embracing the arising emotions, they can start pinpointing the needs they're striving to fulfill in the heat of the conflict. (Side note: I often notice that a person’s behavior is the opposite of what they identify as their need. For example, someone seeking connection might isolate themselves.)

Peeling back those layers to uncover those deeper emotional experiences requires a lot of vulnerability. Communicating those personal discoveries with your partner takes even more vulnerability. Yet, it’s precisely this vulnerability that leads to empathy and connection, ultimately strengthening relationships.

Back to Ross and Rachel.

Let’s dissect Ross’s story, “Rachel is overreacting.” This is just the tip of the iceberg, leading to a deeper emotion of feeling misunderstood. Imagine Ross, the nerdy paleontologist who has always had a crush on Rachel, feeling misunderstood by the woman he has always adored. Feeling misunderstood by her is likely more painful than he’d readily admit. If we delve even further, we’d likely discover a long-standing narrative Ross holds about himself: “I’m not good enough.” As the oldest child, idolized by his parents but still struggling to fit in with his peers, hiding behind academic perfection, and navigating the inner turmoil from the fallout of his first marriage due to his wife’s sexuality, it makes sense that this painful narrative could develop. Criticizing Rachel is a defense mechanism to avoid confronting his own emotions of shame or insecurity. What Ross is probably needing is validation. What’s the opposite of validation? Criticism. Notice the clever maneuvering here; the initial story Ross clings to is a neat way to sidestep the more profound tale lurking beneath. Sometimes we find ourselves entangled in two or three layers of stories before reaching the real deal, the core narrative. The deeper it goes, the tougher it is to confront.

Now let’s unravel Rachel’s story, “Ross doesn’t care about me.” This surface story probably leaves her feeling rejected. Picture Rachel, raised in a world of immense privilege where fitting in meant embodying beauty and being the "best." She adhered to a predetermined life plan dictated by her family's lofty standards, only to defy it all and sacrifice that lifestyle, along with her parents' support, when she opted not to marry Barry. It's safe to say she's pretty attuned to the hurt of rejection. Beneath the sting of her story about Ross, and the emotion of rejection, likely lies a narrative about herself: "I'm unlovable." Using contempt for Ross becomes her shield, made to dodge confronting her insecurities. "I'm unlovable" probably leaves Rachel feeling worthless or abandoned, and right now, she's yearning for acceptance and connection. You catch the drift — what's the polar opposite of acceptance and connection? Contempt. It's a tricky dance, seeking acceptance when you're already grappling with feelings of rejection. It’s too raw and vulnerable.

Yet, diving into those stories and reaching the core of it all is exactly what will liberate Ross and Rachel from the infinity loop of argument, propelling them into the power of attuning to each other’s needs and turning toward each other for connection and repair. It seems quite likely that Ross requires validation not just in this moment, but as a regular occurrence in his life — not only from Rachel and others but also from himself. Similarly, Rachel likely craves deeper connections with Ross, as well as with others and herself. Establishing daily rituals for mutual validation and connection can fortify the foundation of their relationship, diminishing the potency of these triggering events. It won’t eliminate all conflict, but it creates a fresh approach to relating to one another that unravels the intricacies of resolving conflict and infuses more meaning into the relationship as a whole.

But of course, that doesn’t make for good TV. But in real life relationships, it’s crucial.

If any of this strikes a chord with you, consider sitting down with your partner and identifying your own infinity loop based on your recent argument. Were you genuinely squabbling about the dishes? Probably not. Does that mean you should neglect discussing domestic responsibilities and creating practical solutions together to ensure both of you are content with the state of your home? Absolutely not. However, if you find yourselves unable to discuss the dishes without triggering each other, it's a signal that some inner work is in order so that you both can show up as your best selves for each other.

If Ross and Rachel had managed to embark on this introspective journey, we might have missed out on a decade of a cultural phenomenon, a show that has stirred so much sentimentality that its problematic aging is almost inconsequential. Rest in peace, Matthew Perry. You were always my favorite.

Take care,

Kaylee Rudd, LMFT