Drs. John Gottman and Julie Gottman, two of the most influential psychologists in the field of relationships, coined an unforgettable metaphor for the destructive patterns most commonly linked to divorce: the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Just as the biblical horsemen heralded the end of times, these four communication styles predict the collapse of a marriage — with astonishing accuracy. In a landmark 1992 study published in the Journal of Family Psychology, Dr. John Gottman and his colleagues correctly predicted divorce in 94% of cases based on these four behaviors alone.
One of the most threatening aspects of these behaviors is that they risk forming a sequence. While their presence in isolation is already ominous, this is only exacerbated by the fact that, often, one horseman tends to provoke the next. In turn, marriages may get caught in a chain reaction that, without intervention, can spiral unrelentingly toward divorce.
This is to say that the so-called “divorce cycle” isn’t necessarily a single act of unkindness, but a recurring pattern thereof.
If your marriage is entering this cycle, the first step to breaking out is to examine how they feed into one another. Here’s a breakdown of it, according to the Gottmans’ research.
1. Criticism
The first horseman, as well as the most common one, is criticism. As its name suggests, criticism is the tendency to frame problems as personal flaws, rather than specific or changeable behaviors. Be it a problem within the relationship itself, or qualms one may have with the other, the criticizer makes their partner the problem.
Note, however, that criticism isn’t the same as a complaint. It’s only natural to have annoyances and concerns in a marriage, as no one is perfect. What matters is how you frame these reservations, as this is what distinguishes a natural complaint from a critique.
Say, for instance, your partner arrives home later than you anticipated. If you were to air your frustration about this out as a complaint, you might simply say you were worried or saddened when your partner didn’t call to let you know not to wait up. A criticism, on the other hand, would be calling your partner selfish or unreliable — or anything, really, that attacks their personhood rather than their actions.
Although their differences may seem small, the two different impacts these responses can have are not. Behavior is something that can be changed; complaints, in this sense, are conducive to repair, as you are clearly shown how you can do better in future scenarios like these.
But criticism points to a person’s character, which feels intuitively permanent. When you are told that you “always” do something wrong, “never” do anything right or that you “are” simply bad by nature, there’s nothing to adjust. These are judgments which imply that you are fundamentally inadequate; that this is something that can’t be taken back, nor fixed by the person hearing it.
Criticisms like these are often born out of frustration that comes from a real and natural place. Neglect or dissatisfaction, even if it only weighs on you momentarily, may make lashing out feel like a justifiable response. But when this lashing out becomes regular, the partner on the receiving end will start to expect their character to be attacked just as regularly.
This is the first turn in the cycle: as soon as one person feels the need to permanently brace for impact, they become exceedingly unlikely to respond in a healthy manner. Instead, their only aim is to protect themselves, which is precisely how the second horseman arrives.
2. Defensiveness
If criticism were the sword, then defensiveness would be the shield. It’s one of the most natural reflexes humans exhibit when feeling attacked or threatened in any way. As such, it’s highly likely to appear when criticism becomes a fixed form of communication.
When grievances are composed as sweeping generalizations or rude remarks about your character, there are two ways you’re most likely to defend yourself in response.
The first would be to make an excuse. If you get home late after work, only to be patronized upon arrival, you might feel the need to prove yourself innocent: you’d talk about the long day you had, all the work you had to finish or how terrible the traffic was. In turn, the criticizer is made out to be overreacting.
The second way one might respond would be with a counterattack. You might turn the tables and bring up all the times they’d made a similar mistake, or simply change the subject in any way that allows you to criticize them in return.
These responses might feel like an adequate way to protect yourself. Of course, nobody enjoys feeling blamed or accused, so the instinct to deflect may feel right. However, the message that this deflection sends, even if unintentionally, is that your partner is really the one to blame.
Note, however, that although the initial criticism is what spurred this reaction, two wrongs never make a right. While the initial criticism could’ve been framed more kindly, turning the tables is hardly an effective way to rectify the situation. Nine times out of ten, it only fuels further criticism.
The partner who was initially critical will only become more insistent; their complaints will only sharpen. You, in response, paint them as unfair or overreactive. Regardless of whether or not they were, the conversation will only become a blame game. The original issue at hand remains unsolved, as you’re now in a new argument — about who is at fault for the argument itself.
This is the exact moment when the third horseman takes its seat at the table.
3. Contempt
The Gottmans refer to contempt as the most dangerous of all the horsemen, as it is most highly predictive of divorce. While the first two horsemen are concerned with frustration and blame, contempt serves to convey disgust. It is the most effective way to tell someone, either explicitly or implicitly, that not only are they wrong, but that they are also beneath you.
Contempt often hides within sarcasm or ridicule. For instance, in the aforementioned argument about being late, a contemptuous partner might say something along the lines of, “Surprise, surprise, look who’s late again,” or, “You’re so pathetic, our kids are more responsible than you.” And when implied, it tends to manifest in nonverbal cues; eye rolls, scoffs and dismissive smirks can often speak louder than words.
In most cases, this part of the cycle begins once partners realize that the previous two horsemen have failed to resolve anything. When a partner continually feels trapped behind excuses or counterattacks, the original frustration then hardens into resentment. Without any intervention, resentment serves as a pipeline to contempt.
Couples at this point in the cycle are most likely to describe themselves as “always fighting.” Although a fair observation, the frequency of their arguments matter much less than the quality thereof.
At this point, arguments become a predictable mix of hostility, guardedness and mockery. Even an otherwise neutral comment can be contorted into a sarcastic retort, an insult or a counterattack. And with enough time, unchecked contempt may well shatter whatever goodwill remains in the relationship.
The human psyche and nervous system, however, have their limits. Should contempt become the predominant way that two partners communicate with one another, one or both will eventually reach a breaking point. This leads to the final stage of the cycle.
4. Stonewalling
To stonewall is to shut down completely. At this stage, lashing out or defending yourself may seem too futile or too draining to be worth trying again; the energy you have left is only enough to withdraw mentally and emotionally.
A partner may retreat into silence mid-fight or start shortening their responses into monosyllabic answers. In other cases, they opt instead for scrolling through a phone or staring blankly into space while the other partner speaks. At their true breaking point, they may even walk away mid-conversation.
Physiologically, stonewalling often coincides with what psychologists refer to as “emotional flooding.” Your heart rate and stress levels spike so high that they literally cannot process any further input. In turn, the body gears into fight-or-flight mode, which shuts the brain’s higher reasoning functions down. In one’s mind, it may feel as though doing little to nothing at all is the only way to survive the interaction — or at least get it to end.
But to the other, this is often construed as coldness or indifference. They assume the stonewaller is simply too unbothered or careless to try any longer. But, in reality, stonewalling is often a desperate attempt to deescalate; its effect, however, tends to be the opposite. Silence only angers the other, and exacerbates their criticism and contempt. This drives the stonewaller into even deeper retreat in turn.
Although this is the final stage of the divorce cycle, it is also a closed loop. Criticism triggers defensiveness; defensiveness fuels contempt; contempt provokes stonewalling. And, at some point or another, when partners must face one another again, stonewalling circles back to the starting point. It then feeds further criticism from the frustrated partner.
The cycle itself is insidiously self-sustainable, but only if partners allow it to play out.
Has the divorce cycle begun in your marriage? Take this science-backed test to find out where you stand: Marital Satisfaction Scale
