7 Manifest signs of “Relationship Dissatisfaction”
Saturday August 25, 2023. This weekend.. the glorious Cummington Fair! …the largest and oldest town fair in New England!
Unlike “fidelity” or “commitment”.the phrase “relationship satisfaction” is unlikely to evoke anxiety in the postmodern human.
But once humans decide to bond long-term, whether we’re talking about fidelity or commitment, in some ways it’s relationship satisfaction that comes to the forefront.
Low relationship satisfaction is an important predictor of relationship breakdown. So, how do we humans assess how satisfied we are with with our intimate relationships?
How do we measure relationship satisfaction?
Relationship satisfaction has enthralled researchers for decades. We’ve looked at the relationship between both thinking and behavior and a conclusion of relationship satisfaction.(Fincham & Beach, 2006).
This research also covers ground I’ve already written about, although in a somewhat different way.
Here are the 7 Behavioral Problem Areas that Can Seriously Dent Relationship Satisfaction:
The lack of All-Purpose Supportive Behaviors. Both giving and receiving of supportive behaviors has not only been found to boost relationship satisfaction, it also soothes the nervous system, boosts immunity, and offers a foundational well-being. In other words, if you’re on the floor, your partner is either at your side… or they’re telling you they’re not your partner.
The Negativity Loop. The hallmark of a painfully dissatisfied couple is the negativity loop. This is where you start off commenting on your partner leaving a wet towel on the bathroom floor and ends up with you eating dinner alone and not speaking for a day.
Demand-Withdraw Pattern. Another signature of the perpetually dissatisfied couple is a demand-withdrawal pattern. This one move pays the mortgages of thousands of EFT therapists across the USA.
So you’re thinking aloud about finalizing a visit to your brother in Arizona, and you here your beloved crank up the stereo. The classic America stereotype is that as wives demand, their husbands withdraw, but who wants to be a predictable stereotype?
Here’s why stinkin’ thinkin’ matters
The Utility of the Positive Sentiment and the Useful Lie...but Beware of Shifts in Sentiment. It may seem strange to point out that ‘cognitive distortions’ and ‘unrealistic beliefs’ are often correlated with relationship satisfaction. But, as long as your frame of what your partner might consider flaws is positive, then unrealistic beliefs can be quite beneficial for your relationship. But notice any shifts in sentiment, and discuss your needs plainly. I can help with that.
Attribution Patterns. Gottman says that your Sentiment Override will establish how you explain your partner’s behavior.. Was he late from work ‘just this once’ for reasons beyond his control? Or, is this sort of thing always happening and he could just as easily make it home if he really wanted to? Attributions are the ways we explain behavior. Patterns of attributions which paint partner in a positive perspective are correlated with high relationship satisfaction.
Actual Partner vs. Discrepancies from Ideal Standards. Guaranteed dissatisfaction: (i.e. I want guy who looks like Bradley Cooper, but with Frank Zappa’s wit. I will accept no substitute).
Memory. Research shows that relationship satisfaction is associated with feeling your relationship has improved in recent times.
Satisfied: Yes or No?
When you think about it, it feels like common sense to assess relationship satisfaction on a sliding scale, from 1 to 10, but there is no “common sense” in couples therapy.
However research into sentiment override suggests is that it might be thumbs up or down… good enough.. or not.
You probably noticed already that the essential elements for relationship satisfaction tend to operate in self-reinforcing feedback loops. This is what Gottman proved in his wonky math, and called it the enduring Markov State.
In other words, once you experience a shift in attributional patterns, your relationship satisfaction may plummet, and things swiftly decline from bad to worse…
Caution… your mileage may vary…
Before you rush off to practice your brand spankin’ new attributional processes… or start shifting your demand-withdrawal groove, it’s useful to know some serious limitations of this research:
Most of these findings are based on research carried out in the good old USA. That means it might not resonate with other cultures.
Most studies are based on self-report data. Researchers are keenly aware of the fact that humans don’t always tell the truth, or even know what’s going on in their own heads, but sometimes there’s no alternative. But still, survey studies are somewhat useful.
Some might argue that a flawed awareness is little better than ignorance (just). Self-reporting studies are sometimes seen with a jaundiced eye. Sh*tty research is marinated in self-reports… but the art of working with the data can evoke powerful new questions.
One glaring omission in the research (Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006) is any mention of emotion in relationship satisfaction. While emotion is clearly important, Fincham & Beach report their research data on emotion has been contradictory.
This makes sense when people lie in self reports. It makes sense that they would be most guarded around questions about emotions that might render them defensive and elusive, and consequently, bullsh*t the researchers.
Interpreting research is sometimes fraught with peril. But these 7 areas are remarkably consistent with earlier research.
Are you becoming a little dissatisfied in your relationship? Maybe I can help with that.
RESEARCH:
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Relationship Satisfaction. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 579-594). Cambridge University Press. https:// https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606632.032 Abstract
Bradbury T. N., Fincham, F. D., Beach, R.H., (2000). Research on the Nature and Determinants of Marital Satisfaction: A Decade in Review Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (November 2000): 964-980.
