Jenny Sanbrook
Accredited Mental Health Social Worker
Certified Gottman Therapist and Level 3 Trainer
A favourite quote of mine comes from a book called “Loving with the Brain in Mind” the author/therapist refers to a couple, Erik and Lisa, she says “people have spent their whole lives avoiding coming to therapy. I represent a place Erik has avoided for years; therapy to him has meant the realm of feelings and women. I represent a place for Lisa to vent her anger and frustration even though she’s doubtful it will help” (Fishbane, 2013:124).
Can you relate? If you’ve ever had therapy, and I’ve had my fair share, I am sure you can. The temptation is to focus on safe topics, surface-level conflict patterns and stay well clear of deeper hurts and vulnerabilities. To ensure we don’t fall into this trap, John Gottman has a rule of thumb to keep in mind. He says, at the heart of every recurring argument isn’t just a breakdown in communication, but a cry for connection. Indeed, according to Dr John Gottman behind every complaint is a longing and behind every longing is an unmet need.
However, GMCT is often considered a “behavioral” approach, separate from models that are attachment or family or origin focussed. It is true that Emotionally Focussed Couples Therapy, Susan Johnson (EFT) directly applies attachment and early caregiver bonds to the shaping of current relationship patterns and how patterns such as criticize/demand followed by defend/distance, generate and maintain each other. In EFT, negative affect is seen as attachment-related, associated with needs for comfort and closeness in the face of threat, danger, and uncertainty. Similarly, the Developmental Model (Bader and Pearson 1988) focuses on the developmental stages of relationships similar to childhood through to adulthood, and respective tasks of each stage to maturity. Again a focus on proximity seeking, comfort and healthy development of these.
Using similar ideas, GMCT is also deeply attachment driven. Here’s how the exploration of unmet need and deepest relationship fears is interwoven into the scientific “roadmap” of Gottman Method.
Stabilising the couple system creates a secure base.
John Gottman was a pioneer in highlighting the role of flooding (Diffuse Physiological Arousal) in couples therapy and its effect on conflict management. Nine times out of ten, Gottman Therapy requires teaching self soothing, relaxation and flooding interventions in the initial sessions. The therapist is working to provide safety, encourage internal boundaries and the development of a secure internal base. In some ways this is deeply individual as each person is required to strengthen their own internal regulation system. Once stabilised, the teaching of more skilled communication strategies, such as eliminating the “Four Horsemen” and replacing them with their antidotes eg the softened start up instead of criticism, (I feel… about.. and this is what I need) follows this, early on the process in order to support the couple to feel safer together and deescalate conflict faster. However this is not done in isolation, empathy building is central.
Empathy and mirroring are grounded in attachment
Empathy building is a core component of the first structured intervention used, the Gottman Rapoport Intervention. Teaching clients to empathise and mirror back word for word a partner’s experience is a skill in tolerating ambiguity. Being curious by asking open ended questions opens both partners up to new evidence, taking a meta- perspective, reflecting on oneself and considering alternative perspectives. Furthermore, Gottman points out that mirroring affect (voice and face) is important in making and accepting bids for connection (small ways a partner gets the attention of the other) – a bid for connection met with enthusiasm and warm affect is more effective than one met with blankness, boredom or disinterest. Affect will carry more weight than words.
Empathy and mirroring are required at a deeper level when using the Aftermath of a Fight or Regrettable Incident intervention where clients are coached in a five step process to (1) Express feelings, (2) Understand their partner’s subjective reality of a fight, (3) Discuss past triggers/enduring vulnerabilities (4) Reflect on what they regret and if possible, apologise (5) Name something they will do and something their partner could do differently to make it better next time.
Successful completion of these two exercises requires a fundamental capacity to mentalise to which I will turn now.
The capacity for mentalising is foundational in couples work
Mentalizing is the ability to imagine the inner experiences of others, it is “keeping mind in mind” seeing oneself from the outside and others from the inside (Fonagy 2010).
Mentalization Based Therapy (MBT) involves developing psychological capacity to understand the actions of oneself and others as driven by underlying mental states, such as feelings, desires, beliefs, and intentions (Fonagy, 2010). In turn this “allows us to respond reflectively rather than reflexively ie. to be able to consider complex meanings of feelings, beliefs and wishes rather than take them immediately and unquestionably at face value” (Wallin 2007:65).
In MBT for couples (MBT-CO) the therapeutic relationship serves as a secure base and safe harbor in which both partners feel acknowledged and understood, and are thus able to trust and learn to mentalize, and crucially, learn to learn—from the therapist and from each other—even when feeling stressed and threatened.
Mentalising encourages integration of contradictory experiences – eg I love you but I am angry at you, and lessens the tendency to see people in simplistic terms (all good/ all bad, hero/villain).
This idea can be applied to much of the Gottman theory as mentioned in the two exercises above but in the theory itself, one simple example is in a theory popular in the 1970’s that Gottman questioned. The idea was that relationships failed when people stopped reciprocating. This idea, also called “reciprocal contingency contracting”, is based on the idea that two people coming from self interest can negotiate and come to an agreement. The relationship becomes a series of exchanges – of time, of tasks, favours eg “I looked after the kids so you owe me a weekend away with my friends”. But in fact Gottman found this is the sign of an ailing relationship not a happy one. Why? Doing things while expecting nice things in return fails – it lacks a theory of love, relatedness, attachment and bonding. It also lacks the concept of mentalising, perspective taking “I can see how this would feel for you, even though I’m technically ‘owed’ a day off…” And of course therapy overall is one giant exercise in seeing the others perspective and their subjective reality in order to develop more empathy, increase connection and buffer against loneliness.
Emotion is central to couples work.
Early models of couple and family work de-emphasised the role of emotion and prioritised reason, logic and problem solving. For example, Murray Bowen thought couples were often too enmeshed and needed to become more differentiated/self sufficient, learning to control emotion using reason. There was an emphasis on the therapist being calm and rational in the face of a couple who is out of control, helping the couple become more rational (See Bowen Family Systems Theory).
However a closer look at emotion would suggest it’s centrality. The word emotion comes from the Latin word “motore” meaning “to move”. We can be moved by strong emotion in a movie, certain music or a heartwarming interaction. Furthermore, emotions drive actions, sometimes triggering inborn behavioural systems. They are also felt through the body and expressed through the body. Think about what happens to your body when someone sneaks up behind you – whether it’s fear or surprise there will be a cascade of involuntary physiological reactions.
Gottman refers to research from neuroscience and emotion eg Jaak Panskepp and Paul Ekman also show the importance of emotion in relationships. Regarding couples, Susan Johnson especially applied emotion to couples work regarding decision making, attachment and bonding. Gottman therapy also emphasises the importance of full discussion of all emotion, coaching couples to tolerate their partners fear, sadness, shame, disappointment, happiness etc. rather than discouraging its expression. Thus in a shift from the focus on reason over emotion Gottman was a pioneer in highlighting the importance of emotion in couples work.
Practical Applications – Three Domains of Gottman Therapy
The Sound Relationship House Theory developed from the Gottman research, sets out the seven qualities happy stable couples display and provides interventions to cultivate these. In summary, GMCT aims to increase relationship skills by teaching couples the following skills: To be gentle in the way they bring up an issue, to communicate acceptance of one another, keep physiological arousal low, repair interaction and deescalate if it becomes negative and move towards compromise. There is also a focus on accepting influence and a higher positive to negative ratio during conflict.
An overarching principle in GMCT is the interlinking of three domains in a couple system. The Friendship System, The Conflict Management System and the Shared Meaning System. Here is how attachment fits into each of these domains.
The Friendship System and Attachment
The Friendship System incorporates the idea of bids for connection ie. the many micro-moments within a couple interaction where one partner “bids” to get the partner’s interest or attention. “Turning Towards” this e.g. by reciprocating the gesture or showing interest, will significantly increase a couple’s happiness.
In relation to attachment theory, a “missed bid” for connection isn’t just a communication failure but can also trigger a deeper fear of abandonment. Turning toward a partner’s bid for connection builds trust. Attachment theory adds depth by explaining why some bids are rejected: for an avoidant partner, a bid might feel like “suffocation,” while for an anxious partner, any lack of response feels like a “threat” to the bond.
Gottman’s notion of “Fondness and Admiration” relates to whether gratitude is felt and expressed for the other. This will be more natural when each person has a model of the “other” as trustworthy and reliable and a model of the “self” as loveable and important. Put simply, if you know your partner is fond of you, you are more likely to try and understand their behaviour rather than judge it eg. “he’s frustrated because he’s tired not because he’s trying to hurt me”.
The Conflict System and Attachment
In GMCT there is an emphasis on managing conflict – not eradicating it. It’s not the argument that’s a problem but what happens after it. This is where Gottman’s concept of Repair Attempts comes into play.
Repairing early and well is a feature of couples with a strong friendship – statements such as “I got that wrong, let me rephrase that” or “I can now see you were making an effort, I missed that before”. Gottman formulated this idea out of attachment research on mother baby interactions and attunement from Ed Tronick’s “rupture and repair” theory, famously illustrated by the Still-Face Experiment. This highlights that emotional connection between parent and child is rarely perfect. Ruptures (mismatches) are normal, but regular repair—reconnecting after a mismatch—is vital for building infant resilience, security, and emotional regulation, preventing feelings of helplessness. The research showed that in some cases a mother was misattuned to the baby 70% of time, it was the quality of the repair that mattered the most. Thus good and early repair is closely linked to secure attachment in adult relationships. On the flipside, chronically unsuccessful repair attempts create a diminished sense of agency.
The Four Horsemen of Criticism, Defensiveness, Stonewalling and Contempt can also be viewed through an attachment lens. Stonewalling, (shutting down during conflict) can result from an avoidant style and fear of rejection. Time may be spent with the partner who is stonewalling, teaching self soothing, unpacking their fear of vulnerability, understanding needs for safety and comfort is required. Criticism and Contempt (a more severe form of criticism) may be seen as a way of keeping someone at a distance and avoiding intimacy. It may also be interpreted as a form of anxious pursuing. The common response to criticism, Defensiveness, is a form of warding off perceived attack, a way of avoiding taking ownership and avoiding vulnerable feelings such as shame.
By using attachment related language a therapist is more able to explore responses with compassion and curiosity.
Shared Meaning System and Attachment
The idea of exploring the world as separate individuals while also staying connected is at the heart of this system. A secure attachment is one where both partners feel permission to be themselves and be fully accepted for who they are.
John Bowlby (1969) believed that seeking and maintaining contact with significant others is a primary motivating principle for humans that has been wired in by evolution. Bowlby emphasised that inner and outer worlds become more bearable when there is a sense of connection with key others that offer a safe haven and secure base. Thus separateness, exploring the world, is important alongside building rituals of connection (a safe haven) such as regular time together eg the Stress Reducing Conversation, the Weekly Check-In, informal rituals such as how dinner is arranged and formal rituals such as birthdays and events.
Summary
Attachment theory and GMCT are dynamically interwoven as Gottman says, behind every complaint is a longing and behind every longing is an unmet need. Back to our hypothetical couple Erik and Lisa, it is possible to see how Gottman Therapy therapy is not a place to vent frustration with no hope for change or be forced to explore feelings when feeling unsafe. Rather the incorporation of attachment theory will ensure that behaviours aren’t seen in isolation but are a reflection of deep-seated emotional bonds and fears driving those behaviors. By stabilising the system, providing safety and structure for mentalizing techniques, GMCT will enhance the couple friendship, address rupture and repair, and ultimately build a sense of shared meaning together. Ultimately, when people are securely attached they can openly acknowledge their distress and turn to the other for support in a manner that elicits responsiveness.
Jenny Sanbrook is a trainer in Gottman Method Couples Therapy. See below for training dates and locations.
References
Bader and Pearson, (1988) In Quest of the Mythical Mate, The Developmental Model Brunner and Mazel NY.Fishane, Mona (2013) Loving with the Brain in Mind Norton and Norton, NY.
Bateman A and Fonagy P. Mentalization-based treatment for borderline personality disorder. World Psychiatry. February 2010
Bleiberg, E., Safier, E., & Fonagy, P. (2023). Mentalization-based couple therapy. In J. L. Lebow & D. K. Snyder (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (6th ed., pp. 175–198). The Guilford Press.
Gottman,J and Silver, N (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Three Rivers
Press, New York.Gottman, J and De Claire, J (2001) The Relationship Cure. Three Rivers Press New York USA.
Gottman, J (1999) The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy. Norton New York
Gurman, A and Jacobson, N (2002) Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy. Third Ed. Guildford Press New York.
Johnson, Susan (2008) Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a lifetime of love.
Tronick E, and Beeghley , M (2011) Infants’ Meaning-Making and the Development of Mental Health Problems American Psychologist. Feb-Mar 66(2) 107-119.
Wallin, David (2007) Attachment in Psychotherapy Guilford Press, NY.
