The Four Rules for Relationships

The Four Rules for Relationships

Excerpts from an Anonymous Psychologist

When I first started working with families, I noticed that some families just “clicked.” They worked better with each other, whereas other families only partially succeeded, or failed. I did not know why and the specific work we were doing on specific issues did not make any difference. When comparing the successful to the less-than-successful families, it did not matter what was their socio-economic status. Neither did race, education, religion and other factors make any difference. It did not seem to matter if they practiced positive communication--all of them tried speaking and acting positively because instinctively we all know that positive feedback feels better than negative feedback. Most of the family members already knew from listening to popular sources of psychology that “we all should think positively.”

#1: The Four-to-One Rule

What turned out to be the deciding factor was the ratio of positive-to-negative messages between family members. This was significantly different in the successful families. It turns out that we, as mammals need a critical amount of positive feedback to feel good about ourselves relative to “other” feedback. Without this critical amount, we are not so motivated to make positive changes. I discovered this as a child psychologist working with kids, but it works just as well with partners, and decreases or eliminates up to forty percent of relationship negativity.

In all interactions, there should be four positive messages for every “other” (usually but not always negative) message. A more general way to think about this is that there should be four positive messages embedded in our conversations with anyone, anytime, relative to any other statements. The 4:1 rule should be common to all these aspects of communication, because we as mammals seem to need that much to nurture our good behaviors. It is the way we are wired.

The content of the “4” part is up to you. Choosing which positive thing(s) to include in the “4” part is based upon which behaviors we want to shape (progressively reinforce positively) in our children. This is one of the two engines that drive positive changes in kids. However, with adults, we do not want to belittle (or manipulate) our partners, which might occur if this technique is used in the same way. Rather, we want to affirm our partner’s good qualities, no matter what they are, so that the general feeling between us is respectful and nurturing. It is true that affirming a positive behavior will likely increase the frequency of that behavior in the future (basic behavior modification at work), but this is not the goal of the specific goal or this specific technique at this time. Rather, the goal is to make our partners want to be with us because when they are, they feel wonderful.

One might wonder why the ratio is 4:1; not 3:1 or some other ratio. I tried 3:1. That is when we make only three positive statements (on average) to every “other” one. It works, but not as well. There are some positive rewards, attention, etc. It is just not enough because human beings need more. In my opinion, we need more regular nurturing, especially by others in our “clan.” It is our genetic heritage and four positives to every one “other” seems to be the default ratio. I tried 2:1. It barely works, sometimes not at all. I tried 1:1. It does not seem to have much of an effect at all. I went overboard in the other direction and tried 5:1 or ever 6:1. That is when we deliver five or six “positives” for any “other” communication. Both of these ratios produce changes in behavior, but it starts to sound “syrupy” or disingenuous. That is a turn off; hence, a negative experience in the making. Stick to the 4:1 ratio.

You might wonder about a 1:4 ratio; that is, only one good comment (reward) for four “other” statements (neutral or even punishments). This system is found in the military and is fear-based. In this style of communicating, we rarely get a reward because good (conforming) behavior is expected. In the military, it is not thought to be necessary to recognize a positive behavior every time (or certainly not four times in relation to “other” behaviors, as in my system). However, just “mess up” and the Drill Sergeant is on you like wet on water--in your face and not happy, at least by stereotype. In the 1:4 communication pattern, the authority figure confronts us four times as often as he or she compliments us. This system works to get conformity when the consequences of not behaving well are severe (like when we get put in the brig, or worse, are at war) and when fear is followed by very strong, negative (punishing) reinforcers such as injury or even death. This system has its place, but not in dealing with partners. It does not work; rather, this ratio of communication has just the opposite effect. In the 1:4 environment, we get mad at each other and begin to feel bad about ourselves. This creates enmity and acting out, usually against our partner. Disaster results. This is one way psychologists get long-term clients.

#2: The “51/49” Rule

This approach will eliminate another forty percent of relationship issues/conflicts, including communication ones. Moreover, it is simple to understand, and does not need any “technique.” The 51/49 rule states that each person considers what his or her partner wants first fifty-one percent of the time and what he or she wants first for himself or herself forty-nine percent of the time. In other words, each partner adopts a cognitive bias to take care of his or her partner just a little bit more than himself or herself, in all things (well, most things). This is a simple cognitive, or attitudinal adjustment.

This approach requires the partners to be less selfish, or putting it more kindly, to be less self-oriented. It introduces beginning altruism. By focusing our attention just a tad more on our partner, it expands our awareness of him or her and decreases our self-absorption. Because it does this only a little, there is plenty of mental and emotional energy left over to take care of ourselves. Even by giving just this little edge of our attention to our partners, we still have plenty left over to manage our own affairs and to be appropriately assertive.

Why does this work? Well, think back to when the relationship first started (Stage One—the Honeymoon stage). How much attention did we pay to our partners vs. to ourselves? Most people enjoy Stage One, in part, because our partner bestows upon us a lavish amount of attention, which feels very good. Partners have been seducing each other with “first and second date” flowers, gifts, treats, etc. for eons. It works. When each pays more attention to the other (vs. themselves), a lot of good things happen (bonding, stimulation, excitement, sex, love, etc.). Think back to “how it was” when you and your partner first met. How were the next two or three months of dating? This is all Stage One phenomena, which are positive. Back then, the partners behaved more like the 75/25 rule, which is when each partner gives seventy-five percent of his or attention to the partner first and only twenty-five percent attention to himself or herself. Even though this felt good, we can see that this was unrealistic and unsustainable.

After Stage One (usually about six months) the 51/49 rule faded, even disappeared. By the time partners first land on a therapy couch the 51/49 behaviors take a turn for the worse. Their behavioral ratio is usually just the opposite. I have seen partners whose ratios were closer to 25/75; that is, they paid relatively little attention first to their partners (twenty-five percent) and were very motivated to just take care of themselves (seventy-five percent of the time). This is common in very angry and/or hurt people, but also in people who have various personality disorders (narcissistic, borderline and antisocial are the most common). This reverse pattern is also seen in addicts--people who are suffering from compulsive behaviors (alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling) that overwhelm their ability to function. It can also signal the presence of psychiatric disorders (major anxiety, depression are the most common), which is why these need to be addressed before commencing to put into practice the techniques I am introducing.

If we consider our partner’s needs and wants first, or put more generally, we first think of another just a little more of the time than we first think of ourselves, it sends a positive message. That message is that our partner is very valuable to us, maybe even just a little more so than we are to ourselves. Do this consistently and there emerges in the relationship a feeling of cherishing. There is a tendency to bring in more generosity into the transactions (verbal, sexual, financial), which positively reinforces the changed mindset. The 51/49 rule engenders friendliness and creates a culture of feeling special, the underlying dynamic is through caring.

The extreme of this dynamic is love, which is what usually emerges later in Stage One when the partners are still giving a lot to each other. In Stage One, partners behave this way, largely because of choice, notwithstanding hormones. The result of making consistently “other-person-focused” choices is good feelings. The extreme result is love, which happens against a background of continuous good choices. From this perspective, love is the result of lots of consistent positive decisions.

#3: The Seven Deadly Words or Phrases

“Should” (or “Should not”)

“Ought to”

“Must”

“Have to”

“You need to”

“Always”

“Never”

The first five words or phrases are parental cues. These are words parents say to their children or teachers say to their (usually but not always younger) students. They carry the signal of judgment and/or criticism. They imply the speaker knows more and that the recipient screwed up and therefore is inferior in some way.

Example: “You should clean up after yourself.” “You ought to leave Johnny alone.” “You must do this next.” “You have to behave.” “You need to stop complaining.”

These types of communication produce predictably negative responses in the listener. Quite naturally, the recipient’s feeling is irritation or possibly anger, or hurt. After all, his or her failings have just been detailed, directly or certainly by implication. His or her impulse might be to withdraw, or to retaliate, which also has a predictable outcome. Imagine that this kind of communication is not just happening between a teacher and student, but between two adults functioning as a couple. Imagine this going on day in and day out. Imagine the amount of hostility that will build. Children pick up this language in a hurry and start using it with their peers. In real terms, kids boss other kids around, usually in the guise of being a pseudo parent.

The last two words are usually used as a cudgel. Children will try to impose their wills on others by saying others Always or Never do this or that, or fail to do this or that, again much to the frustration of the recipient. Childhood fights most often result because of this communication dynamic and its underlying mindset. It is also clear to child psychologists that while they can be used as tools of judgment (Parent mindset), Always and Never phraseology is more often used by children to complain. Always and Never sponsor guilt, which when engendered, is punishment. This is low level and not very effective assertiveness.

Additionally, children also think in generalities and absolutes, especially younger kids. Children are busy learning the rules of behavior and the nature of the world around them. They seek rules and predictability, hence they are fond of terms like Always and Never. Thinking this way helps children manage uncertain conditions. Unfortunately, life is rarely absolute, so Always and Never rarely accurately portray reality. The underlying need of children is to explore, map reality and to reduce anxiety when their model of reality fails. Always and Never function as pretty big criteria, thus the rules, being big, strong and absolute relieve children’s anxiety. Uncertainty becomes manageable. That is some of the psychology children employ even though it does not work in the long run and the side effects are sometimes greater than the payoffs. When an adult uses these words, one has to question what level of maturity the adult actually possesses. This is a dysfunctional way to communicate.

All seven of these words or phrases distort reality and put the speaker in a superior/inferior position relative to the recipient. If we want to NOT create negative feelings in our partners, start by NOT using these seven words or phrases in communication. It is clear from the above discussion that the most common reaction to hearing these seven words is anxiety first, hurt or resentment second. This produces another major impediment to healthy functioning relationships.

(Author’s note: In a future edition, there will be an eighth phrase: “Yes, but…”)

#4: The Nine o’clock Rule

After nine o’clock, the only things partners say to one another are compliments.” Why? Because that is usually when couples are winding down after the day is done. We are tired. Energy is fading so resources to deal with deep stuff are dwindling. If we dig up something difficult, we need energy to deal with it, which is usually not the case at that hour of the night. If we get up at 4:00 A.M. (earlier than most) we will need to adjust, to make the “Nine o’ clock” rule the “Seven o’ clock” rule. Most couples get into fights when then are compromised. In this case the culprit is fatigue.

The spirit of the Nine o’ Clock Rule is that whenever your energy is down, don’t bring up stuff. Other conditions create the same liability. If you have the flu, lifting a pencil seems like hoisting a medicine ball. The ball is not too much heavier when you are will, but when sick, your energy is nearly zero. It’s relative. Same is true of any other illness, even a cold. If you are sick, think and be cautious. If you are tired from a long trip, even if it’s two in the afternoon, same thing. Take a nap, don’t bring up issues.

Same thing applies to intoxication. If you are altered, trouble is about to happen. Any drug lowers defenses, excites emotions and compromises judgement. Most fights happen after nine, but even more happen with alcohol on board. One colleague said, “Nothing good ever happens after nine at night if someone is drinking.” I call this the “Wine and nine rule.