Gottman’s Four Horsemen in a Polyamorous Context
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is a metaphor originally put forth by Dr. John Gottman, a prevalent relationship researcher. Dr. Gottman used this description for four forms of negative communication patterns (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling) because they will often, and very effectively, end a relationship (Gottman & Silver, 2015). While this research was originally developed with monogamous couples in mind, it can also be applied to polyamorous relationships, both with clients’ partner(s) and with their metamours (Slaughter, 2019). Many blogs and articles have been published about The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in regard to monogamous couples in varying contexts (Beeney et al., 2019; Hooper et al., 2017). In addition, Fowler & Dillow (2011) found that individuals who are more insecurely attached are more likely to enact the Four Horsemen (to learn more about attachment in a CNM context, check out Jessica Fern’s book, Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma, and Consensual Nonmonogamy.)
The Four Horsemen and Polyamory
Polyamorous individuals often have different communication styles with different partners. Over time, they fall into certain communication patterns with their partners. They may have learned methods of communication from their parents growing up, or they may feed off the communication styles that have developed throughout their relationships. Each relationship has its own communication pattern – some may not speak to their best friend in the same way that they speak to their nesting partner, and they most likely do not speak to their nesting partner in the same way that they speak to a long-distance partner. However, in any relationship, there is the potential for problematic interactions that can lead to the end of a relationship.
Criticism
The first horseman is Criticism. Criticism is a global critique of the other person and is an expression of the client’s negative feelings toward who the other person is (Gottman & Silver, 2015). This differs from a complaint, which is about a specific issue. A complaint in a relationship is fine; people have to have some way to express when they are feeling hurt. However, a criticism will only make clients’ partner(s) or metamour(s), feel quite negative, both about themselves and, most likely, about the client as well.
Here are some examples:
Complaint (to partner): “I’m really hurt and angry that you watched the next episode of the show we always watch together with your other partner. Next time, could we try to make sure we watch new episodes together first?”
Criticism (of partner): “You never take me into consideration when you’re deciding what to watch with your other partner, or whether I might want to watch it with you or not. You’re always so inconsiderate and you just don’t care about me and my feelings.”
Complaint (to metamour): “I was really hurt and struggling when I could overhear you and my partner having sex in the bedroom next to me. Could you try to keep it down or wait until I’m out of the house next time?”
Criticism (of metamour): “You are so selfish and self-centered in your relationships. You never think about how your actions impact other people. What is wrong with you?”
As you can see, there is a clear difference between a complaint and a criticism in each of these cases. In addition, these dynamics can happen even if the client has no interaction with their metamour. If the client is speaking to their partner about their metamour, it is also important to avoid criticism in their communication. If the client criticizes their metamour to their partner (either in your office or outside of it), their partner will feel stuck in the middle, and may even begin to feel defensive of their other partner. Veaux and Rickart (2014) warn about this type of triangulation as problematic in polyamorous relationships. At this point, communication may break down and more Horsemen are introduced.
Contempt
The second horseman is Contempt. Contempt is born from a sense of superiority over a partner or metamour, and is a form of disrespect within all relationships, including consensual non-monogamy. Sneering, sarcasm, eye-rolling, name-calling, cynicism, and mockery are all forms of contempt (Gottman & Silver, 2015).
In the above examples, the partner or metamour may attempt to make amends to the complaint or criticism. For example, while discussing watching a new episode, the partner may respond with an apology and validation of the hurt feelings their actions may have caused. However, if the original speaker responds by sneering and stating, “yeah, I’m sure you’ll never do it again” sarcastically, this is an example of contempt for their partner.
However, a client may also receive a contemptuous response from their partner or metamour after making a complaint or criticism. For example, the metamour in the above example may respond to the complaint above by rolling their eyes, sighing, and saying “sure, whatever.”
Defensiveness
The third horseman, defensiveness, is often a response to a complaint, or a natural outcome of criticism and contempt that may be occurring in a relationship (Gottman & Silver, 2015). Usually, defensiveness is a way of warding off attacks by blaming a partner or not taking responsibility for mistakes. Clients may all become defensive at times, and may look for excuses for their actions with partners or metamours. However, it rarely has the desired effect. This will often cause the other partner or metamour to become even more critical and contemptuous, thus escalating the conflict (Gottman & Silver, 2015).
Let’s use the above example again. In the conversation with a partner, a criticism was made, then an apology, then a contemptuous statement. The partner may get defensive at this point, and say, “I’ve never watched a new episode of our show without you before. I just knew I was traveling and wouldn’t be home, so I figured you would watch it without me and that we could watch the next episode together. I didn’t want to fall behind!”
In the conversation with a metamour, after making a complaint, the metamour responded in a contemptuous way. They may then follow up with something like, “Just for the record, I can overhear you guys having sex sometimes too. Plus, you live together, and you get to share a lot of things that I don’t. So I really don’t think it’s fair to ask me to keep it down.” While this metamour’s feelings about their living situation may be valid, they are bringing it up in a defensive way. Therefore, they are simultaneously invalidating the original speaker’s request, as well as bringing up their own concerns. However, because they are bringing up their concerns in this way, their concern will inevitably either derail the conversation or go unheard and be dismissed.
Stonewalling
The fourth horseman, stonewalling, occurs when one person eventually tunes the other person out (Gottman & Silver, 2015). They have had enough of the argument (or many arguments over a period of time), and they are burnt out on arguing. They will withdraw from the interaction, shut down, and begin distracting or engaging in other activities to remove themselves from the argument. The stonewaller will often simply look away or look at the ground, not utter another word, and sit very still (Gottman & Silver, 2015). When stonewalling becomes a habit in a relationship, it can be difficult to overcome. Stonewalling occurs because the individual begins to feel psychologically overwhelmed, or “flooded,” and the person may not even be physiologically able to discuss things rationally (Gottman & Silver, 2015).
Here is an example of how the above conversations may play out:
Criticism (of partner): “You never take me into consideration when you’re deciding what to watch with your other partner, or whether I might want to watch it with you or not. You’re always so inconsiderate and you just don’t care about me and my feelings.”
Partner’s Response: “I’m sorry. I knew you wanted to watch the new episode, and I watched it with someone else. I’ll make sure I always watch new episodes of that show with you first.
Contempt (toward partner): “Yeah, I’m sure you’ll never do it again” (sarcasm).
Partner’s Response (defensive): “I’ve never watched a new episode of our show without you before. I just knew I was traveling and wouldn’t be home, so I figured you would watch it without me and that we could watch the next episode together. I didn’t want to fall behind!”
Contempt (toward partner): “So, what, you didn’t even think to text me and ask? Just too caught up with your girlfriend, I bet.”
Partner’s Response (criticism): You’re always like this! I make one mistake and I suddenly don’t care about you and you blame my other relationships! You can be so selfish and you never listen to me!”
Contempt (toward partner): “Oh, I’m the selfish one? That’s funny, coming from you.”
Partner’s Response (defensive): Yeah, you know, maybe I don’t want to have to wait until we see each other to watch this show sometimes. I want to be able to have some autonomy from you!”
Defensiveness (toward partner): “You have so much autonomy, I don’t ask you for anything! You have a girlfriend, you have a boyfriend, you have hobbies, you do everything you want to do – even watch our show without me! What more autonomy do you want?”
Partner’s Response (stonewalling): Silence.
Contempt (toward partner): (sneering) “Well? What more do you want?”
Partner’s Response (stonewalling): Silence.
Contempt (toward partner): “Fine, don’t talk about it. You always shut me out anyway.”
As the example above shows, when the Four Horsemen are being used in a conversation, the conversation can spiral out of control quickly, and the use of the Four Horsemen rarely resolves anything. Some clients may engage in the use of the horsemen because they are already in a heightened emotional state due to having a more insecure attachment style, being new to CNM, feeling distress from their internal identity not lining up with how they are showing up in the world, or feeling as though they aren’t really sure they want to be CNM and they are still exploring this identity. Therefore, the therapist may encounter these horsemen more frequently.
The Four Horsemen & Polyamorous Affirmative Therapy
Therapists can help clients navigate the Four Horsemen through psychoeducation and helping them recognize these patterns. Clients can alter their use of the Four Horsemen by using positive statements and “I” Statements; this will combat Criticism. They can also work together to build appreciation for one another and express that appreciation through genuine praise and support to combat Contempt. Taking responsibility for actions, accepting the partner’s perspective, and offering an apology if needed can also combat Defensiveness (Lisitsa, 2013). Stonewalling can be combated by remaining present and learning skills of self-soothing during difficult conversations. It can also be helpful to assist clients in learning how to take a break from heated arguments. This does not mean avoiding the conversation altogether – it simply means taking 20-30 minutes alone to engage in another activity, like taking a walk, playing a game on their phone, or reading a chapter in a book. Then, when the client and their conversation partner both feel able, they can return to the discussion. An example of this can be illustrated through the above example with a metamour.
Here is an example of how a conversation could get back on track:
Complaint (to metamour): “I was really hurt and struggling when I could overhear you and my partner having sex in the bedroom next to me. Could you try to keep it down or wait until I’m out of the house next time?”
Metamour’s Response (contempt): (rolls eyes, sighs) “Sure, whatever.” (defensive): “Just for the record, I can overhear you guys having sex sometimes too. Plus, you live together, and you get to share a lot of things that I don’t. So I really don’t think it’s fair to ask me to keep it down.”
To Metamour: “I understand that it’s probably frustrating for me to bring this up to you right now, especially since you and my partner hadn’t seen each other in a week with your work travel. I really just want to be mindful of one another overall when we are in the same location, and I can do my best to keep it down or wait until you’re out of the house as well.”
Metamour’s Response: “I appreciate you saying that. I haven’t wanted to bring this up before but it does hurt sometimes when I spend the night but end up working late, and I can hear the two of you together. I guess I can understand how it wouldn’t feel good for you to overhear us together either.”
To Metamour: “Maybe we can both just do our best, and keep an open dialogue about it?”
Metamour’s Response: “That sounds good!”
Next Steps
While not all conversations can easily avoid the Four Horsemen, it can be helpful to identify them in session for clients to begin identifying them for themselves. The Four Horsemen do not allow couples, metamours, or polycules to have open, curious, and well-differentiated conversations with one another, which is an important aspect of developing healthy relationships.
Check Out Stephanie Sullivan’s CE Courses on Polyamory
References
Fern, J. (2020). Polysecure: Attachment, trauma, and consensual nonmonogamy. Thorntree Press.
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles for making marriage work: A practical guide from the country’s foremost relationship expert. New York, NY: Harmony Books.
Lisitsa, E. (2013). The four horsemen: Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. The Gottman Institute. Retrieved on January 6, 2023 from https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-recognizing-criticism-contempt-defensiveness-and-stonewalling/
Lisitsa, E. (2013). The four horsemen: The antidotes. The Gottman Institute. Retrieved on January 6, 2023 from https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-the-antidotes/
Stephanie M. Sullivan is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist with her own private practice, Attunement LLC. She is based in St. Joseph, MI, but sees clients all over the state of Michigan via teletherapy. As a therapist, Stephanie specializes in anxiety, self-care, trauma, sexuality, polyamorous relationships, and other forms of consensual non-monogamy. Stephanie also works as a relationship empowerment coach with people from all over the world at her other business, Color Your Name LLC. She specializes in helping her coaching clients create the relationships they want with themselves and their partners, and works with individuals, couples, and multi-partner relationships on navigating polyamorous relationships. She also offers speaking engagements, education, and consultation.