What makes couples strong
Not so long ago, the family was first and foremost a working community. Today, it is generally a product of love. It is not economic considerations but romantic ideals that make us enter into a partnership and have children together. In the hope that what unites us will remain: Nine out of ten couples in Switzerland describe themselves as happy when they get married and consider divorce unthinkable.
The statistics speak a different language: in Germany, two out of five marriages fail, and in almost half of all cases, underage children are affected. And even old love rusts: Couples who have been married for 20 years or more are increasingly splitting up.
Nevertheless, lifelong partnership remains the ideal of the overwhelming majority, regardless of the age at which people are surveyed. 85 per cent of the population marry, and even three quarters of divorced people return to the harbour of marriage.
How is it that desire and reality in love are so far apart? Is there a recipe for narrowing this gap? Why do even fulfilling partnerships go awry? Can we do anything about it? And is it even possible to desire what we already have in the long term? The search for answers to these questions does not begin with the secrets of a successful partnership, but with the relationship killers.
When stress factors add up
For example, stress. Pressure at work, the child's school problems, the household, a financial bottleneck: We are all faced with one challenge or another of this kind and probably don't see it as a reason to break up.
If such stresses occur in total, things look different. In surveys on couple conflicts, stress ranks high as a trigger. And - along with communication problems and certain personality traits of the partners - it is one of the three most important risk factors for divorce. This is shown by a meta-study by the University of California in Los Angeles, which included data from more than 45,000 married couples.
Stress becomes a problem if it doesn't stop. Then it jeopardises the relationship in many ways.
«There are two types of stress,» says Guy Bodenmann, couple researcher, therapist and Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Zurich. "Macro stress refers to drastic events such as a stroke of fate. Such a stress test shakes couples, and while some come out of it stronger, others break apart.
Microstress, on the other hand, triggered by a variety of everyday demands, is an issue in all relationships." According to Bodenmann, most everyday stress has nothing to do with the relationship itself; we bring it home with us - including in the form of children, who are a significant external stressor in their parents' lives. Stress becomes a problem when it doesn't stop.
Im Sommer herrscht bei Familie Erni-Biondi in Scuol meist eitel Sonnenschein: Lia, 9, Charlie-Corsin, 2, und Andri, 10 (v. l.). Lesen Sie ihre Erzählung: «Irgendwann reichts»Chronic everyday stress endangers the partnership in many ways: it reduces the time and opportunity for mutual exchange and experiences that strengthen the sense of togetherness, increases the risk of physical and mental disorders and promotes problematic behaviour that we would have better under control under more favourable circumstances.
Under stress, we are more dominant, petty, quick-tempered or withdrawn than we would like to be - and we also notice the other person's bad side more often. We clash or start to avoid the other person. Then what gives every relationship stability becomes a scarce commodity: a kind word, nice gestures, physical closeness, conversations. «Everyday stress gradually undermines the relationship. Bad feelings accumulate until we only see the other person through a negative lens,» says Bodenmann. «Eventually, even compliments make us suspicious because we suspect sarcasm behind them. The result is increasing alienation.»
- Phase 1: Listening (20 minutes)
The first 20 minutes belong to the stressed partner. She should be able to tell what has happened. The partner initially limits his role to listening and tries to understand what is on his partner's mind. He can ask open, interested questions («What do you think was the reason for this criticism?»), but does not give any advice («Oh come on, don't give a damn about his opinion, you know what kind of person he is.»). This only reinforces the partner's feeling that she is not reacting appropriately and silences her. Instead, he should always briefly summarise what he has understood about his partner's stress.
- Phase 2: Offer support (10 minutes)
Now it's time to offer the other person emotional support. In this case, the man could tell his partner that he understands her feelings («You've worked so hard on this project, I understand your disappointment.»). It is also helpful to respond to the stressed person with appreciative, encouraging words («Don't forget that you are really good at your job. You've proven that many times over.») and, if appropriate, tell them about your own experience in a similar situation. Afterwards - not before - the partner can make problem-related suggestions («How about talking to the team leader?»). In phase two, it is mainly the supporter who has the floor, while the partner lets what has been said sink in. - Phase 3: Giving feedback (5 minutes)
Now it's time - and in this example, it's the woman's turn - to give the partner feedback: What was helpful about his support («It helps me that you can understand my anger.»), where might you have wished for more understanding («However, what you describe as a side issue is also part of the problem for me.»)? It is important that the feedback also contains praise and recognition. If the partner's support is taken for granted, this reduces their willingness to do so in the future. Bodenmann advises couples to practise such stressful conversations as often as possible so that they can adjust to each other and provide more effective support when needed.
Sarah, 42, and Fabio, 43, live in Zurich and have eight-year-old twins. He works 80 per cent in a consultancy firm, she works 40 per cent in HR. As a project manager, Fabio «still has an interesting job», as Sarah says. She has had to make do with administrative work since she cut back after the birth of her children.
Fabio did encourage her to increase her workload, says Sarah, and assured her that he would support her. Sarah admits that she lacks initiative. «But I also doubt that Fabio would really support this step,» she says. «At home, everything would probably still be down to me.» On his daddy day, Fabio prefers to do something with his sons instead of doing the housework. «In the evening, I tidy up first and swear,» says Sarah. «We recently got into a huge argument. Not because of the mess, but because of what Fabio told me: He has the right to relax sometimes, especially as he alone is paying for our flat.»
The challenge of combining family and career also causes emotional stress, especially when disappointed expectations come into play. «No matter how progressive couples were before the birth of their first child: Most find themselves in a traditional model afterwards. The woman mainly looks after the children and the household, while the man does paid work,» says Dominik Schöbi, Professor of Clinical Family Psychology at the University of Fribourg. This can lead to dissatisfaction on both sides.
Those who stay at home or reduce their workload to a small amount often have to largely forego professional self-realisation. Sometimes there is also a lack of recognition from the working partner, who thinks that family work is easier than a full-time job. However, the role of the main breadwinner, which is primarily occupied by men, also puts them under pressure at times, says Schöbi: «They bear the main financial burden, but are still expected to participate in family life as often as possible. That can be exhausting.» The division of roles often gives rise to envy, resentment and a competition to see who has drawn the harder lot.
Ein gutes Team und dank Auszeiten ein starkes Paar: Tabea und Jonas Plattner aus Hindelbank BE. Lesen Sie ihre Erzählung: «Kinder ziehen weiter, der Partner bleibt»«The partnership offers a unique resource for dealing better with stress,» says Bodenmann. «We have the opportunity to overcome it together. A problem shared is a problem halved.» According to Bodenmann, the first commandment is to address stress. This means telling the other person what is bothering you, but also asking questions yourself if the other person seems upset.
Sure: after a frustrating day at work, we often don't feel like talking about it. If the other person asks what's going on, the answer is obvious: nothing. «However, the other person realises that something is wrong,» says Bodenmann. «If we don't take them up on their offer to talk about it, it can be perceived as a rejection. The other person feels rejected because we obviously don't want to confide in them. This disappoints and hurts us, and we distance ourselves. Alienation is inevitable.»
Issues that are bothering you should not be discussed in passing. You have to make time for it.
It would be better to honestly say that you've had a bad day and don't want to talk about it right now. «It's important to bring up the subject again later,» says the couple researcher, «for example when the children are in bed.» Because, according to Bodenmann, rule number two for successful stress management is Issues that are stressing you out don't belong discussed between doors - you have to make time for them.
However, there are a few rules to follow: «We have analysed and observed hundreds of couple conversations about stressful events: The listener usually gives advice even before they have properly understood what is bothering their partner. This silences the stressed person.» Bodenmann and his team at the University of Zurich show couples how to do things better with the supportive dialogue model.
Why women nag and men shut down
Lukas and Fabienne are 45, both teachers and have two teenage daughters. The couple from Zurich have been married for 16 years. Lukas, who describes his relationship with Fabienne as happy, has learnt that his wife only sees it that way to a limited extent. «She says that although we are a good team, our relationship has become sluggish,» says Lukas. "She doesn't feel that I'm making any effort to energise our love and accuses me of ignoring her efforts in this regard. I could never get myself together, be it for a spontaneous visit to a restaurant, more imaginative sex or a dance class.
Lukas thinks Fabienne's one-sided view of things doesn't do justice to their reality as a couple: «The things we do together as a family, our teamwork, the good relationship with the children: That's all part of the equation.» His wife, it seems to him, is practically managing problems. «She talks me to the wall,» says Lukas, «until my head is spinning and I go out onto the balcony - which she takes as proof that I don't want to work on our relationship.»
Nagging is not music to your partner's ears - and it's not a cliché that the female sex is prone to this behaviour either. But: «Appropriate criticism from the woman is favourable in the long term because it initiates change,» says couple researcher Bodenmann. Studies have even shown that the wife's nagging behaviour is an indicator of the stability of a marriage: Partnerships in which the woman never expresses criticism have a higher risk of divorce.
The woman wants to talk straight, the man shuts himself off: according to Bodenmann, this is a classic scenario in couple conflicts. The verbal superiority of women when it comes to emotional issues is well known. Researchers believe the reason for this lies in female socialisation. Even today, girls are trained in relationship work from an early age - or rather: prepared for the role of mother.
This includes being committed to the success of social interaction and developing a keen sense of its state. The ability to put emotions into words is crucial here. «For a long time, advice for couples was only aimed at women,» says Bodenmann, «and a study on partnership tips in women's magazines shows that for decades they conveyed the image that caring for relationships was mainly a woman's job.»
Das Leben lehrte sie Achtsamkeit für schöne Momente: Sefora Cuoco und Civan Oezdogan mit ihrer Tochter. Lesen Sie ihre Erzählung: «Eine einzige Achterbahnfahrt»In the event of conflict, all of this encourages behaviour in men that US couples researcher John Gottman calls «stonewalling»: The woman raises a problem, the man blocks it. There are also women who stonewall; however, according to Gottman, in around nine out of ten cases it is the man who shuts down. Mostly because they are overwhelmed, Gottman knows.
The man is then «physiologically flooded»: his physical state resembles that of a blackout, which is characterised by an increased heart rate and a high level of stress hormones in the blood. The only thing that helps then is to ask for a timeout. Gottman advises couples to return to the topic of conflict soon afterwards in a calmer moment. However, they should avoid certain types of behaviour so that the second attempt does not also end in a communicative disaster.
It is less important how often we argue, but whether we are able to balance out hurtful statements with words and gestures of recognition and reconciliation.
Gottman has analysed several thousand couples in his «Love Lab» since 1975. He regularly invited newlyweds to his lab to discuss issues of conflict. The conversation was recorded, after which Gottman and his team categorised every literal utterance as well as the facial expressions and gestures of the conversation partners on a scale from +5 («loving affection») to -5 («open contempt»).
Over the years, the researchers regularly analysed which couples were still married. They wanted to know what distinguished the successful marriages from the failed ones - and found the decisive clue in the laboratory conversations of the formerly newlyweds: couples who were still together were characterised by the fact that they compensated for negative interactions with positive ones - at a ratio of around 5:1. The researchers concluded that it is less important how often we argue than whether we are able to compensate for hurtful comments with words and gestures of recognition and reconciliation.
What shapes our attachment behaviour
Personality traits also have an influence on our relationships, says family researcher Schöbi: «Emotionally stable and self-confident people are generally more satisfied in their relationships.» In contrast, emotional instability or low self-esteem are more of a hindrance. What makes people tick in this respect has a lot to do with their bonding experiences in early childhood. Whether we experienced our closest caregivers as affectionate, reliable and loving or as distant, unpredictable or rejecting shapes our self-image and attachment behaviour as adults.
Emotionally unstable people with low self-esteem often find it difficult to deal appropriately with even minor disagreements, says Schöbi: «If their partner is irritable after a bad day at work, they blame their mood on themselves and distance themselves. They also tend to misinterpret positive signs: If their partner comes home cheerful, they may feel rejected because the other person has experienced joy outside of the relationship and distance themselves again.»
Such coping strategies are aimed at minimising the pain of an impending rejection, but in the long run they only lead to the other person turning away. The good news is that such patterns can be overcome. «In the long term, emotionally unstable people view themselves more positively when they are with a stable and self-confident partner and can learn to break through negative behaviour patterns,» says Schöbi. Psychotherapy or close friendships can also trigger such a change.
Sometimes a separation is not preceded by any major conflicts. The fact that couples who are basically happy with their relationship go their separate ways is a growing phenomenon, says couple researcher Bodenmann: «It currently affects around a quarter of all divorces.» Such couples have often been together for a long time, have older or adolescent children and the prospect of the coming years raises the crucial question: Was that it?
We used to break up because we were unhappy, now we break up because we could be happier.
Couples therapist and bestselling author Esther Perel
Bodenmann believes that our consumer society with its throwaway mentality is rubbing off on relationships. The omnipresent desire for self-realisation reduces our willingness to cherish what we already have, especially as online services and dating apps tempt us with seemingly more exciting alternatives: «Many people would rather have something new than invest in the old.» It is often forgotten that the support, security and stability provided by a partner cannot be replaced at will, but are the product of a long-term journey together.
Marriage dates back to times when life expectancy was short and individual freedoms were limited. Today, we live longer and are more self-determined. That is a blessing. As is the fact that we have a number of choices. However, we are also expected to savour this privilege and make the right choices. «In a romantic relationship, this can mean that by choosing one partner, we are also always choosing against a number of other partners who might be more suitable. This creates a permanent longing that runs counter to the feeling of fulfilled love,» says couples and sex therapist Helke Bruchhaus Steinert.
Overloaded with expectations
«We used to break up because we were unhappy, now we break up because we could be happier,» summarises New York couples therapist and bestselling author Esther Perel. «We turn to a single person in the hope that they can offer us what an entire village community used to provide, namely a sense of belonging, purpose and continuity,» writes Perel in her book «What Love Needs. The secret of desire in committed relationships».
He continues: «At the same time, we expect a committed relationship to be romantic as well as emotionally and sexually fulfilling. Is it any wonder that so many relationships collapse under this overwhelming burden?» The desire for stability and security, but also the desire for new beginnings and new stimuli are basic human needs that push in different directions, says Perel. One partner cannot fulfil them all in the long term.
However, we could try to allow our conflicting needs to coexist, Perel suggests. A partnership needs phases of closeness and security, as well as phases of boldness and daring: «Intimacy seeks closeness, but desire needs distance.» Finding the same person interesting over a longer period of time is only possible if we manage to «develop a sense of the unknown even in familiar surroundings».
For Perel, this means, among other things, seeing yourself as an independent person, cultivating this independently of your partner and meeting the other person with curiosity instead of assuming you know them inside out. Or, as Perel puts it with Proust: «The true journey of discovery is not to seek new landscapes, but to see them with new eyes.»
