The 3 Most Common Conflicts, According to a Couples Therapist

One of the most important skills couples can have is to communicate effectively with one another. Communication typically breaks down when couples feel disconnected and emotionally unsafe with each other. On the surface, arguments typically appear to be the result of a breakdown in communication. However, underneath the surface, they usually reveal hurt in response to emotional disconnection — which typically results in one partner feeling as if the other doesn’t value them, isn’t there for them, or doesn’t need them. These hurt feelings are often disguised through anger, anxiety, demands, and criticism. Couples must learn to become translators — to hear what is being said on the surface and decipher the true underlying meaning to meet each other’s needs and restore emotional safety.

Romantic partners become our emotional shelter, and the source of security. When connection is lost, fear can quickly take over and rational thoughts often takes a back seat. With fear at the wheel, we tend to become panicked, demanding, and clingy — all in an effort to reel the other back in. This inevitably backfires — further pushing away the other person — perpetuating a vicious cycle. Couples must recognize that demandingness and criticism are elementary attempts for connection and closeness. They are primitive efforts to be noticed and get attention – even if it is negative.

Here are three common patterns of negative cycles couples tend to get into, according to Emotions Focused Therapy (EFT). Recognizing the pattern you are most susceptible to is the first step in changing your relationship dynamic.

1. Find the Bad Guy

This is a standoff pattern where each partner finds blame in the other. It keeps partners at a distance and prevents reengagement to restore emotional safety (Johnson, 2008; Byrne, Carr & Clark, 2004). The objective is to find protection by assigning culpability to the other person. In an effort to seek control, partners become biased in their pursuit to paint the other in a dark light. Eventually, both people race to find fault in the other and document their transgressions — as both become villains — not realizing they are closing opportunities for connection.

To fix this: Try to stay focused on the present moment and notice how a cycle of criticism is circulating. Consider that cycle as the problem, instead of your partner, and interrupt the cycle.

Once you realize that proving your partner wrong only serves as fuel to continue the vicious cycle, you can communicate your hurt or need for them. Just being able to name this cycle during an argument often enables partners to lay down their ‘boxing gloves’ and approach the conversation from a de-escalated stance.

2. The Protest Polka

This is when one partner seeks connection and the other withdraws. The more one partner tries to get a response (usually through criticism or demands) the more the other stays silent and retracted (Johnson, 2008). Usually, the withdrawn partner feels paralyzed by the fear of being a disappointment or letting down the other — so they protect themself by finding refuge in isolation. The more withdrawn one gets, the louder the criticism or demands of the other become as the other partner becomes desperate to elicit a reaction — which is often perceived as a signal they still care.

To fix this: Pursuers must learn to recognize how they are truly seeking emotional engagement and convey that instead of criticism. Withdrawers must be receptive to hearing the distress of the demanding partner — resist their desire to escape — and learn to translate criticism as a signal of a need for connection and desire for closeness. ‘Withdrawers’ can relinquish the need to be the fixer (and subsequent fear of failing to solve the problem) by instead being emotionally present with their partner. Gender roles tend to cast women in the pursuer role (more connected to emotional and attachment needs) and men in the distancer role (solutions focused, at times invalidating to emotional needs).

3. Freeze and Flee

This is when neither partner seems interested in fixing the problems in the relationship. While they both likely feel tension — both are more concerned with self-protection and either deny their hurt feelings or act as if they don’t need anything from the other (Johnson & Best, 2013) This typically evolves from the Protest Polka (type 2), when the purser stops seeking connection from the withdrawer. Both partners give up taking risks and being vulnerable with the other. These couples tend to go through the motions, avoid one another, and lack a strong physical connection.

To fix this: Recognize the hopelessness you might feel about your relationship and how you might be denying your need for connection to your partner. The lack of effort and resistance to reveal emotional need and vulnerability tends to be a survival strategy that originates from childhood — when parents are unable to fully meet a child’s needs, that child learns to withdraw or freeze — suppressing emotional needs for connection (Greenberg, Warwar & Malcolm, 2010; Johnson, Hunsley, Greenberg & Schindler, 1999). This strategy is usually adaptive for children and protects their parents, as they can’t fail to care for a child who is need-less. Childhood survival strategies are usually a source of disconnection in adult relationships. Recognize the trap you might be setting up based on early experience, and give yourself the opportunity to receive the love you may not have received as a child.

Conclusion

Romantic partners are usually the people to whom we feel closest. At the same time, they have the power to turn our world upside down. This paradox reveals a delicate interchange as deep intimacy also comes with great vulnerability and sensitivity. There will inevitably be times when connection is threatened and we are unable to restore emotional safety with our partners. Knowing these patterns will arise is the key to being preemptive and having knowledge about ourselves and the people closest to us to actively grow together.