The Science of Trust Quotes

“Converting a complaint into a positive need requires a mental transformation from what is wrong with one’s partner to what one’s partner can do that would work. It may be helpful here to review my belief that within every negative feeling there is a longing, a wish, and, because of that, there is a recipe for success. It is the speaker’s job to discover that recipe. The speaker is really saying “Here’s what I feel, and here’s what I need from you.” Or, in processing a negative event that has already happened, the speaker is saying, “Here’s what I felt, and here’s what I needed from you.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“Couples with a strong friendship have a lot more access to their humor, affection, and the positive energy that make it possible to have disagreements or to live with them in a much more constructive and creative way. It’s about earning and building up points.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“even in stable, happy relationships: When conflict begins with hostility, defensive sequences result”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“Psychologist Sydney Jourard studied how many times people touched one another when they were out to dinner in several cities.18 In Paris the average number of times people touched one another in an hour was 115 times. In Mexico City the number was 185 times in an hour. In London the average was zero. In Gainesville, Florida, the average was 2.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“Nash’s equilibrium, when it exists, is that point where neither player can do any better, or have no regrets, given what the opponent has done. Neither can have regrets because of how the other person played the game. It may not be the best option for either player, but it’s the best under the circumstances. There isn’t always an equilibrium in a game, or a Nash equilibrium in a game theory matrix. However, if it exists, in many cases the Nash equilibrium is a far better outcome for both players than the von Neumann saddle point. In the Kelley apartment cleaning game-theory matrices above, the Nash equilibrium is for them both to clean. Consider his payoffs. He does much better if he cleans no matter what she decides to do (because 5.7 is much greater than -2.2). Now consider her payoffs. She also does better if she cleans no matter what he does (because 8.5 is much greater than -6.6). So they have a stable Nash equilibrium at the joint strategy = (Male Cleans, Female Cleans). Then neither of them can have regrets about that choice because with that choice neither of them can do any better, regardless of what the partner does. With the Nash equilibrium their strategy is to maximize one’s own gains even if it means maximizing the partner’s gains (as well as one’s own).”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“As I mentioned, the most common research finding across labs is that the first negative attribution people start making when the relationship becomes less happy is “my partner is selfish,” a direct reflection of a decrease in the trust metric. They then start to see their partner’s momentary emotional distance and irritability as a sign of a lasting negative trait. On the other hand, in happier relationships people make lasting positive trait attributions, like “my partner is sweet,” and tend to write off their partner’s momentary emotional distance and irritability as a temporary attribution, like “my partner is stressed.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“To sum up, the attunement-during-conflict blueprint for the speaker is: No blaming, no “you” statements Talk about how you feel in a specific situation, use “I” statements Express a positive need The attunement-during-conflict blueprint for the listener is: Awareness of partner’s enduring vulnerabilities Turning toward partner by postponing own agenda Tolerance by believing there are always two valid realities Making understanding the partner the goal of listening Nondefensive listening, not responding right away, getting in touch with the partner’s pain Empathy—summarizing the partner’s view and validating by completing a sentence like “I can totally understand why you have these feelings and needs, because….”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“What is the skill of attunement during conflict? The answer is given, in part, in Anatol Rapoport’s book Games, Fights, and Debates. In that book Rapoport talks about increasing the likelihood that people will choose cooperation over self-interest in a debate. His suggestion is that we need to reduce threat—that people need to feel safe to cooperate and give up their self-interest. Another very important principle in Rapoport’s theory is that to make conflict safe, we first need to postpone persuasion until each person can state the partner’s position to the partner’s satisfaction.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“Every couple, in their daily life together, messes up communication, and every relationship has a potential “dark side.” It is a misconception that communication ought to be the norm in relationships. What may matter most is the ability of couples to repair things when they go wrong.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“So the rules for attunement were that while the listener has responsibilities, so does the speaker. In turning toward, the speaker cannot begin with blaming or criticism. Instead, it is the responsibility of the speaker to state his or her feelings as neutrally as possible, and then convert any complaint about the partner into a positive need (i.e., something one does need, not what one does not need). This requires a mental transformation from what is wrong with one’s partner to what one’s partner can do that would work. It is the speaker’s job to discover that recipe. The speaker is really saying, “Here’s what I feel, and here’s what I need from you.” Or, in processing a negative event that has already happened, the speaker is saying, “Here’s what I felt, and here’s what I needed from you.” How do couples find that positive need? How do they convert “Here’s what’s wrong with you, and here’s what I want you to stop doing” into, “Here’s what I feel (or felt) and here’s the positive thing I need (or needed) from you”? I think that the answer is that there is a longing or a wish, and therefore a recipe, within every negative emotion. In general, in sadness something is missing. In anger there is a frustrated goal. In disappointment there is a hope, and expectation. In loneliness there is a desire for connection. In a similar way, each negative emotion is a GPS for guiding us toward a longing, a wish, and a hope. The expression of the positive need eliminates the blame and the reproach.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“Most couples are willing to spend an hour a week talking about their relationship. I suggest that emotional attunement can take place (at a minimum) in that weekly “state of the union” meeting. That means that at least an hour a week is devoted to the relationship and the processing of negative emotions. Couples can count on this as a time to attune. Later, after the skill of attunement is mastered, they can process negative emotions more quickly and efficiently as they occur. If the couple is willing, they take turns as speaker and listener. They get two clipboards, yellow pads, and pens for jotting down their ideas when they become a speaker, and for taking notes when they become a listener. It’s not a very high-tech solution, but the process of taking notes also helps people stay out of the flooded state. I suggest that at the start of the state of the union meeting, before beginning processing a negative event, each person talks about what is going right in the relationship, followed by giving at least five appreciations for positive things their partner has done that week. The meeting then continues by each partner talking about an issue in the relationship. If there is an issue they can use attunement to fully process the issue.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“We now realize that behind each person’s gridlocked position lies something deep and meaningful—something core to that person’s belief system, needs, history, or personality. It might be a strongly held value or perhaps a dream not yet lived. These people can no more yield and compromise on this issue than they can give up “the bones” of who they are and what they value about themselves. Compromise seems like selling themselves out, which is unthinkable.       But when a relationship achieves a certain level of safety and one partner clearly communicates that he or she wants to know about the underlying meaning of the other partner’s position, the other partner can finally open up and talk about his or her feelings, dreams, and needs. Persuasion and problem solving are postposed. The goal is for each partner to understand the other’s dreams behind the position on the issue.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“Once the negative event is fully processed, it isn’t remembered very well. Dan Wile said that a lot of conflict is about the conversation the couple never had but needed to have.21 Instead of having the conversation they needed to have, they had the fight. The conversation they still need to have becomes evident when they attune.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“fundamental attribution errors,”—a tendency in people to minimize their own errors and attribute them to temporary, fleeting circumstances, but to maximize the errors of others and attribute them to lasting, negative personality traits or character flaws.16 It’s an “I’m okay, but you’re defective” pattern. That’s what happens for unhappy couples.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“imagine a salt shaker filled not with salt but with all the ways to say “no!” (things like: “that’s ridiculous!”; “no”; “that is so stupid”; “you’re stupid”; “you’re making no sense”; “be logical”; “shut up!”; “stop talking”; “you’re an idiot”; “you’re a jerk”; “how can you be so insensitive?”; “you never have cared about me”; “you’re so selfish”; and so on). Use that salt shaker throughout your interactions and you’ll instantly become a disaster.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“Imagine a salt shaker filled not with salt but with all the ways to say “yes!” (things like: “good point”; “I see”; “yes”; “that makes sense, tell me more”; “you’re starting to convince me”; “I never thought of it that way”; “if that’s so important to you let’s find a way to make that happen”; “say more about how you feel and what you need”; and so on). Use that salt shaker throughout your interactions, and you’ll instantly become a master.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“Haim Ginott,10 who said that all emotions and all wishes are acceptable, but that not all behavior may be acceptable.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“partners take turns airing their resentments and hitting each other with foam-rubber bats called “batakas.” We now know from hundreds of studies that anger has no cathartic effect, and, in fact, doing what Bach called “therapy” actually builds resentment”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“listening and understanding each other was the central issue that had to be addressed before they could problem-solve,”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“I believe that everyone is a philosopher trying to make some sense out of this brief journey we have through life.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“when the married couples were unhappy, the partners saw only 50% of their spouse’s positive behavior toward them (as determined by the observers).”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“all unhappy couples have the same general dysfunctions.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples

“I was surprised to find that developmental psychologists didn’t yet know how children made friends.”
― John M. Gottman, The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples